• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Landmark calif. Burger joint forced to shut down over ada lawsuit

NitroHangover said:
Are you serious? There are plenty of reasons why that may be. Maybe their buildings are newer, and were built with different, more current standards in mind. Even if not, some renovations require less construction and redesign than others. It totally depends on what the violation is, and how difficult and expensive it is to fix. Plus, not all businesses make the same amount of money, dude. Not all small business owners are rich; some are barely able to make ends meet and squeak out a reasonably comfortable living. This was a hamburger stand, not a doctors office :roll:
Click to expand...

Handicapped people have a right to a high standard of living, too.

Your same argument about businesses not being able to afford to comply with regulations could be applied to other types of regulations, too. What if a burger stand couldn't afford to meet health standards? Would that make it okay for them to serve contaminated beef, for instance? It's not their fault they can't afford to ensure their product meets government health requirements!

The point is that businesses are required to comply with the law. It doesn't matter if the building is old or new, the law applies to all businesses equally. Sure, it might cost more in old buildings, but that's an irrelevant argument. If businesses are struggling because they can't meet required provisions for handicapped people, they should protest against the law itself, rather than cry about it when it's enforced.
 
Voltaire X said:
Handicapped people have a right to a high standard of living, too.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how not being able to use the bathroom at a scant handful of places (what, maybe 1 out of 1000 businesses?) tarnishes their "standard of living" in any significant way. If it's a huge problem for them for some bizarre reason, they can go someplace else and eat. Hell, if I went to Ford's and the bathroom was unavailable to me for whatever reason, I'd be an adult and deal with it. My solution would not be to hire lawyers and strong-arm the business out of thousands and thousands of dollars, and in this case, drive them out of business altogether and their employees out of work.
Your same argument about businesses not being able to afford to comply with regulations could be applied to other types of regulations, too. What if a burger stand couldn't afford to meet health standards? Would that make it okay for them to serve contaminated beef, for instance? It's not their fault they can't afford to ensure their product meets government health requirements!
Click to expand...
Dude, cut the ****. You KNOW that doesn't compare. Health codes exist so that restaurants don't accidentally KILL masses of people. Not so that one out of ten thousand customers never has to go next door and use the bathroom in an emergency :roll:
The point is that businesses are required to comply with the law. It doesn't matter if the building is old or new, the law applies to all businesses equally. Sure, it might cost more in old buildings, but that's an irrelevant argument. If businesses are struggling because they can't meet required provisions for handicapped people, they should protest against the law itself, rather than cry about it when it's enforced.
Click to expand...
Of course it matters, in the discussion we were just having. You asked if someone could explain why THIS business can't afford to comply with codes, while many others have no problems doing so, so I explained it! Again, it's not like the situations are the same for all businesses. You're not taking anything into consideration here. You would seriously rather have the company go out of business and put everyone on unemployment than allow them to operate without a bathroom big enough for a wheelchair? Because that's what's happening! Think about how insane that is for a second.

And by the way, many of these companies HAVE banded together to fight the law and fight these lawsuits, and many have won. Others who are poorer can't afford to go to all the legal trouble, so they have no choice but to shut down their entire livelihood. This story isn't even about the law being enforced. It's about the threat of costing people hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees if they don't pay some crook a bunch of money. Get a clue.
 
Loki97 said:
The ADA was passed in 1990. If we are to believe the owner of the establishment did not have the funds to bring his restroom into compliance in a span of 22 years, it sounds like the business wasn't going to be around long anyway.
Click to expand...

First off that burger joint was there decades before the ADA was passed.

Second its a mom and pop place with a STELLER reputation. It was one of the best eating establishments Sac. had.

Thirdly the rules and regulations are changed routinely every year or two. The rules he violated were so fricken small as to be incomprehensable. The wheel chair ramp was in compliance till THIS year when it changed. His ramp was off only by a quarter inch. His mirrors in the bathroom with a 1/2 inch to high. Should anybody be shut let alone sued for that? Would you want to be sued for that? Do you know how much it costs to rip out and replace concrete? It aint cheap. Its not like he made NO concesions at all. The rules and the bar were being moved on him.

This was a bogus bull**** lawsuit pure and simple.
 
The sad part is this is not about Federal law, and the regulators. While I do not like government, in this case they would not have sued and most likely would have given him plenty of time to get things fixed up. The problem in this case is California law. I think Connery can probably expand on my thesis a bit more with details, but the bottom line is this, California law is different from federal law in that you can sue for damages on an ADA lawsuit. Thats how he is able do get away with this extortion. If a goverment agency came in all they would have done is say the next time he renovates bring it to code. The lawsuit only mentioned VERY VERY minor details of noncompliance, all of which were results of NEW regulations coming into effect. The sad thing is regulations are exempt as far as I can tell from the ex post facto section of the Cailfornia constitution and the United States Constitution. If a lawyer knows something more about that, I would love to be enlightend The two issues that spring to mind were a 1/4 inch per foot to high wheelchair ramps from the parking area. And the Mirrors in the bathroom were a half inch too high. This was essentially the lawsuit. If that went before a jury would you have voted for the plaintif. It saddens me that a lawer from the area didnt take the case probono and kicked the crap out of this jackass.
 
PirateMk1 said:
First off that burger joint was there decades before the ADA was passed.

Second its a mom and pop place with a STELLER reputation. It was one of the best eating establishments Sac. had.

Thirdly the rules and regulations are changed routinely every year or two. The rules he violated were so fricken small as to be incomprehensable. The wheel chair ramp was in compliance till THIS year when it changed. His ramp was off only by a quarter inch. His mirrors in the bathroom with a 1/2 inch to high. Should anybody be shut let alone sued for that? Would you want to be sued for that? Do you know how much it costs to rip out and replace concrete? It aint cheap. Its not like he made NO concesions at all. The rules and the bar were being moved on him.

This was a bogus bull**** lawsuit pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Not really interested in your excuses for a business not complying with the law. Conservatives soil themselves when a business gets called for being in violation of standards yet think homeowners who have mortgage companies illegally foreclose on them should just suck it up. We get it, you worship at the altar of business and call it god.
 
Voltaire X said:
Care to explain why plenty of small businesses are perfectly fine with complying with a 20+ year old piece of legislation, but this one can't afford to?
Click to expand...

Care to explain why not every business can give the employees health insurance and 6 weeks vacation? Is this too tough for you to understand? Obviously the business couldn't afford it, because they are out of business now. DUUUUUHHH
 
Voltaire X said:
Handicapped people have a right to a high standard of living, too.

Your same argument about businesses not being able to afford to comply with regulations could be applied to other types of regulations, too. What if a burger stand couldn't afford to meet health standards? Would that make it okay for them to serve contaminated beef, for instance? It's not their fault they can't afford to ensure their product meets government health requirements!

The point is that businesses are required to comply with the law. It doesn't matter if the building is old or new, the law applies to all businesses equally. Sure, it might cost more in old buildings, but that's an irrelevant argument. If businesses are struggling because they can't meet required provisions for handicapped people, they should protest against the law itself, rather than cry about it when it's enforced.
Click to expand...
You think that business had time to protest, they were obviously strapped for cash.
 
Loki97 said:
Not really interested in your excuses for a business not complying with the law. Conservatives soil themselves when a business gets called for being in violation of standards yet think homeowners who have mortgage companies illegally foreclose on them should just suck it up. We get it, you worship at the altar of business and call it god.
Click to expand...

I'm not really concerned about your excuses. Liberals who cheer when small businesses are forced to close soil themselves when deadbeats who get mortgages through fraud are foreclosed on. Oh, wait, the mortgage mess--Frank,Dodd--has absolutely nothing to do with the ADA scams, does it? Never mind.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The sad part is this is not about Federal law, and the regulators. While I do not like government, in this case they would not have sued and most likely would have given him plenty of time to get things fixed up. The problem in this case is California law. I think Connery can probably expand on my thesis a bit more with details, but the bottom line is this, California law is different from federal law in that you can sue for damages on an ADA lawsuit. Thats how he is able do get away with this extortion. If a goverment agency came in all they would have done is say the next time he renovates bring it to code. The lawsuit only mentioned VERY VERY minor details of noncompliance, all of which were results of NEW regulations coming into effect. The sad thing is regulations are exempt as far as I can tell from the ex post facto section of the Cailfornia constitution and the United States Constitution. If a lawyer knows something more about that, I would love to be enlightend The two issues that spring to mind were a 1/4 inch per foot to high wheelchair ramps from the parking area. And the Mirrors in the bathroom were a half inch too high. This was essentially the lawsuit. If that went before a jury would you have voted for the plaintif. It saddens me that a lawer from the area didnt take the case probono and kicked the crap out of this jackass.
Click to expand...
I'm in civil engineering, and lived/worked in California for almost two decades before I moved out. Yes, California has their own set of handicap accessible laws that are IN ADDITION TO federal ADA laws (Cal-ADA, IIRC). When designing a project we would usually go by the California laws because we knew that if we had those covered then we also automatically had the federal laws covered as well.

And yes, ADA changes routinely. So often that it's almost impossible, to the point of being unreasonable, to keep up. I've always been of the opinion that I wish they'd (the government) just decide what they want then leave it alone for a decade or so.

It would not be unplausible for a blind person to walk down the street and encounter a different ramp layout at each intersection just because the intersections were built a year or two apart and the rules changed in the mean time. How the hell is that kind of inconsistency supposed to help the blind person?
 
Loki97 said:
Not really interested in your excuses for a business not complying with the law. Conservatives soil themselves when a business gets called for being in violation of standards yet think homeowners who have mortgage companies illegally foreclose on them should just suck it up. We get it, you worship at the altar of business and call it god.
Click to expand...

I think you have me mistaken for someone else. If you go through my posts on mortagages you will see that I routinely tell people when they are severely underwater on there mortgage that they should consider strategic default and further I tell them they should consider doing a title search on their home to determine who if anyone has the title for preperation for a quite claim application and motion. I dont worship at the alter of business but I sure hell dont think somebody ought to run out of there business because of caprisious attornies and execptionally minor violations that the GOVERNMENT would ignore. Really a 1/4 ****ing inch too concrete ramp and you get run out of business? Would you run someone out of busines for that. Could you even look them in the eye? I highly doubt it.:hammer:
 
Loki97 said:
Not really interested in your excuses for a business not complying with the law. Conservatives soil themselves when a business gets called for being in violation of standards yet think homeowners who have mortgage companies illegally foreclose on them should just suck it up. We get it, you worship at the altar of business and call it god.
Click to expand...

I knew you were "slightly biased" but I thought you could at least be fair. If PirateMk1's facts are accurate and the requirement changed again just this year for a ramp he already had, I would have thought that even you would think this isn't fair. This isn't some big corporation you think are all evil incarnate, this is probably a sole proprietorship or perhaps even a partnership or an LLC. You have the gall to compare this to banks and mortgage companies? Really?
 
My my sister's kids are part and parcel of this new lost generation. Having graduated from public HS with no college or careers in sight they went to work for their paternal grandfather in his burger joint there in Sacto. It's been around longer than Fords. Last year some fellow bought out the grandfather. The first thing he was required to do was upgrade the ramps and bathrooms. It's just part of necessary overhead (meeting new and old regulations and requirements for business).

Long story short, the owner should have done this a long time ago, and he knew it. This is the same as if he still had asbestoes in the insulation and shined it on. Or any other regulation, local, state or federal, business is required to meet as a bar for doing business. He shined it on through the good times and the bad hoping to never get caught.

The fellow who caught him out is an asshole, plain and simple. I hope he's destroyed going forward. BUT, it doesn't let Fords off the hook for what has been decades of neglecting the laws on the books.
 
Born Free said:
I know in California, there is an attorney in San Diego that goes around looking at old buildings and the shark requires them to pay him a fee or he takes them to court. The guy is a scam artist.

This is how ****ed California is, these are old town buildings that he goes after are a 100 yrs old.

"Exhibit A is Theodore Pinnock, a disabled lawyer in San Diego. Pinnock & Wakefield, his law firm, has filed more than 2,000 ADA lawsuits against California businesses, touting a 95-percent settlement rate. In March, he demanded $10,500 from each of 40 businesses in Alpine, California, or he would sue alleging ADA violations. The incident surprised many local storeowners, who believed they were in compliance.

In January, Pinnock finished filing four class-action lawsuits against dozens of businesses in Julian, California. The suits stemmed from Pinnock’s visit to the historic Gold Rush town two months earlier. Pinnock claims his weekend was spoiled by the noncompliance of a number of small businesses.

Days after Pinnock returned home from vacation, 67 Julian mom-and-pop stores received letters demanding varying amounts of money in compensation—the smallest being $2,500—and ordering physical changes to the business establishments. If his demands were not met, Pinnock threatened to sue under state law, making them potentially liable for $125,000 in attorney fees, payable to Pinnock of course.

Because Pinnock is disabled, he often files ADA lawsuits on his own behalf or under one of his unincorporated associations. According to an insider, Pinnock admits to being the only disabled member of one association, with the remainder being family members. Pinnock says the money he demands is for his legal work. If Pinnock’s money demands are not met, he sues.

A few Julian storeowners negotiated settlements with Pinnock in exchange for temporary lawsuit immunity. Pinnock has given some of these businesses three years to fix access issues, confirming that money, not quick compliance, drives his lawsuits. So far, two of the four lawsuits have been settled.

Many businesses have refused to settle, fearing they will become easy targets and be sued again, though all favor making reasonable accommodations to comply with access laws. Some owners have offered to use their money to make access changes instead of settlement payments, but Pinnock has refused, again confirming that money is his motivation.

The longer a business delays settling, the higher Pinnock raises the settlement amount, ultimately suing the holdouts. Four businesses, including Bell, Book and Candle, a Julian specialty shop, have closed their doors citing Pinnock as the last straw.

Though distasteful, Pinnock’s actions are legal. His siege of businesses in Julian and Alpine illustrates how legal extortion thrives in the Golden State. Flaws in state law make it easy for professional shakedown artists to file suits, line their pockets, and shutter businesses.

Pinnock is determined to continue this practice. After local media began reporting on the Julian siege, Pinnock issued a warning on his firm’s website: “I am putting businesses on notice today to hire an ADA consultant, do a survey, take out a loan, and remove all barriers immediately. The ADA plaintiffs will increase lawsuits immediately. . . . I have no more compassion for businesses and respect for certain news reporters.”

California: Gold Mine for Legal Extortion | Conservative News, Views & Books
Click to expand...
Not that I condone such activity, but I'm surprised he hasn't had the crap beat out of him and been left on the side of the road.
 
American said:
Care to explain why not every business can give the employees health insurance and 6 weeks vacation? Is this too tough for you to understand? Obviously the business couldn't afford it, because they are out of business now. DUUUUUHHH
Click to expand...

I'm glad they went out of business. They shouldn't be in business if they can't afford to comply with the law.
 
Voltaire X said:
I'm glad they went out of business. They shouldn't be in business if they can't afford to comply with the law.
Click to expand...

There are good laws and bad laws.

I myself do not follow laws I do not agree with (assuming to do so does not cause me too much hardship).

Only sheep follow laws blindly.
 
DA60 said:
There are good laws and bad laws.

I myself do not follow laws I do not agree with (assuming to do so does not cause me too much hardship).

Only sheep follow laws blindly.
Click to expand...

Well, sheep and businesses who want to stay in business.
 
It really seems petty and downright nasty to screw up people's lives with petty lawsuits. I hope there's a special place in Hell for this jerk.
 
Voltaire X said:
I'm glad they went out of business. They shouldn't be in business if they can't afford to comply with the law.
Click to expand...
Then you should be ashamed of yourself. You're glad that a good, decent business has gone under, the economy is now worse, and a dozen people are now jobless... all because of the threat of a frivolous lawsuit by a scumbag lawyer trying to extort money from hard-working people, over a violation that never presented a problem to a single person.

You should move to Cali, sir. You'd fit right in. Oh wait, you're from New York... that makes sense too. I heard that tomorrow Bloomberg is gonna pass a new law for you guys that you can't cross the street without holding someone's hand :roll:
 
NitroHangover said:
Then you should be ashamed of yourself. You're glad that a good, decent business has gone under, the economy is now worse, and a dozen people are now jobless... all because of the threat of a frivolous lawsuit by a scumbag lawyer trying to extort money from hard-working people, over a violation that never presented a problem to a single person.
Click to expand...

Including the disabled.

From the top linked article:

'Jerry Silvia, a longtime Ford’s customer who is paralyzed from the chest down, said the lack of accessibility has never stopped him from enjoying his regular order: a 1/3-pounder with fries.

“I’ve been coming here 21 years,” Silvia said. Of Johnson, he added: “He’s strictly crusading on his own behalf.”'
 
NitroHangover said:
Then you should be ashamed of yourself. You're glad that a good, decent business has gone under, the economy is now worse, and a dozen people are now jobless... all because of the threat of a frivolous lawsuit by a scumbag lawyer trying to extort money from hard-working people, over a violation that never presented a problem to a single person.

You should move to Cali, sir. You'd fit right in. Oh wait, you're from New York... that makes sense too. I heard that tomorrow Bloomberg is gonna pass a new law for you guys that you can't cross the street without holding someone's hand :roll:
Click to expand...

I actually lived in California for a year. I hated it.

Anyway, I don't know how much warning this business had. Court cases take a long time, so the business would have had plenty of time to comply with the law before this thing went to trial. If businesses don't want to comply with the law, then they deserve to be shut down. That's just how the system works.
 
DA60 said:
There are good laws and bad laws.

I myself do not follow laws I do not agree with (assuming to do so does not cause me too much hardship).

Only sheep follow laws blindly.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I break a lot of laws I don't agree with.

But if I was to be arrested for breaking one of these laws, I wouldn't expect to be exempt from the law just because I disagree with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom