6 ms·

Here's the suit PDF if anyone wants to read. https://www.sanjoseinside.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Crema-ADA-Lawsuit-2018.pdf https://www.sanjoseinside.com/

by zcase 7y ago

Here's the suit PDF if anyone wants to read. https://www.sanjoseinside.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Crema-ADA-Lawsuit-2018.pdf https://www.sanjoseinside.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Cre... The message seems to be: this is a nice thing, I can't readily access it, so nobody should have it. Like the kid taking his ball away after losing at soccer. Except this is someone else's ball? Open to changing my view

percentcer 7y ago
This American Life did a segment on it. I'm still not sure if I agree with the approach: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/415/crybabies/act-three-0 https://www.thisamericanlife.org/415/crybabies/act-three-0
Pfhreak 7y ago
The alternative is that the kid never has to share their ball with people with disabilities? I think everyone's ideal outcome is that the business makes itself accessible.
samcal 7y ago
Comparing being in a wheelchair to losing at soccer seems reductive to me. Being in a wheelchair is completely life-changing and having public spaces being accessible is a very good thing for the quality of life of people being in this terrible situation. The ADA has dramatically improved accessibility for those with mobility impairments: " When asked whether access to public facilities had improved, 75 percent or more of respondents in 1994, 1998, and 2000 reported that they had perceived improvement. Not surprisingly, the percentage of people with disabilities going out to restaurants regularly has increased from 34 percent in 1986 to 57 percent in 2004."[0] [0]: https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/f493e262_8a9e_49c8_ad84_404a1b91d7c3.pdf https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/f493e262_8a9e_49c8_ad84_... pg 45
- imgabe 7y ago
  Having access to facilities is very important, but that is not what was achieved here. Now the facility is gone and nobody can access it. If the goal was to increase access to this facility, it failed miserably.
  - sansnomme 7y ago
    Same story with certain college's Moocs. Taken down due to lack of accurate subtitles.
  - tehwebguy 7y ago
    It’s not the plaintiff’s fault that the defendant preferred to close up shop vs comply with the law, even if they are the one who pointed it out.
    - imgabe 7y ago
      All the law does is provide a cause to sue. The plaintiff is the one who chose to pursue the case and demand either a crippling settlement or crippling renovation. This was completely the plaintiff's choice. If the position is that pre-ADA inaccessible buildings should just all be razed, well, that's a point of view I guess. But the plaintiff doesn't get to deny their culpability for shutting this place down. They are 100% responsible. But for their lawsuit, the place would still be open. And if their goal was to make the place comply with the law, why did they ask for a $60k settlement? Did they somehow incur $60k in damages because their friend had to go in and pick up the coffee? It seems like if what they wanted was compliance with the law, they would have asked for that or nothing. Unless of course maybe, just maybe an easy payday was the point all along.
    - tarsinge 7y ago
      The defendant is a small business = real humans you can talk to. Maybe they could have explained that they did not have the money yet but could gladly bring coffee outside with more service in the meantime. It's easy to hide being legalism (especially for us engineers who like logical systems) and ignore the human factor and individual moral choices. Yes legally the plaintiff has the right to ruin a small business. But it's not necessary the right choice.
      - altec3 7y ago
        Totally. For example, if your neighbors are having a party that's breaking noise laws, it's always better to go talk to them, then if they are jerks, report them to the police.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
stordoff 7y ago
> I can't readily access it, so nobody should have it Where do you draw the line though? If accessibility is not a requirement of doing business, disabled people can't access a large proportion of places, either out of indifference (it's cheaper) or just not considering it. Furthermore, the ADA (at 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12182) defines discrimination to include: > a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities[...], where such removal is readily achievable with readily achievable meaning: > easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include— > (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter; > (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility; > (C) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities In addition, for the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2) ("facilities altered [...] must be made readily accessible"), there is a requirement that "such alterations [...] are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope" (I'm unclear on the claim that "the Facility was designed and constructed (or both) after January 26, 1993" as this appears to contradict the article's claim that "her nearly 100 year-old building needed some upgrades"). There does not appear to be any intent to place any undue burden on a business.
op00to 7y ago
We decided as a country to not discriminate based on certain qualities. One of those is physical disability. Those with physical disability is a small part of the population, so businesses can easily ignore them. What’s the alternative? You’re fucked if you use a wheelchair?
- sansnomme 7y ago
  Have a federal trust fund mandatory advanced prosthetics.
  - eropple 7y ago
    There are plenty of disabilities that cannot be prosthetic'd away, yeah?
  - mondoshawan 7y ago
    And how do you give a prosthetic to someone who has a degenerative bone condition? Who is color blind? Who is deaf?
toast0 7y ago
I think there's several sides to this. One side is the ADA is from 1990, and 30 years is a long time to wait for public places of business to be accessible. It is compelling to say you must be open for business for all people, if you're open for business. On the other side, sometimes the required renovations are expensive. Part of the problem is that building modifications may trigger compliance requirements, but many jurisdictions don't check for accessibility (or not properly) as part of a modification permit. It would be good for accessibility to be checked as part of occupancy permits as well. Another part of the problem is that the enforcement structure of private lawsuits is by nature very adversarial. There's pros and cons, but it means business owners need to budget for renovation and legal fees in response to a complaint filed by lawsuit. I wish there was a better way to acheive compliance, though. If you can't afford the renovations now, make the plan now, and a binding commitment to set aside funds for it, and make the renovations when funds are ready, or within the 18? months. And the commitment follows the occupancy of the building --- like a lien. If the renovation is not done as comitted, the premises are no longer a legal place of business until they are. This may help encourage landlords to participate in making their spaces accessible --- it will need to be done before they can rent to another business if the current business is forced to leave.

by zcase 7y ago

percentcer 7y ago

This American Life did a segment on it. I'm still not sure if I agree with the approach: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/415/crybabies/act-three-0 https://www.thisamericanlife.org/415/crybabies/act-three-0

Pfhreak 7y ago

The alternative is that the kid never has to share their ball with people with disabilities? I think everyone's ideal outcome is that the business makes itself accessible.

samcal 7y ago

Comparing being in a wheelchair to losing at soccer seems reductive to me. Being in a wheelchair is completely life-changing and having public spaces being accessible is a very good thing for the quality of life of people being in this terrible situation. The ADA has dramatically improved accessibility for those with mobility impairments: " When asked whether access to public facilities had improved, 75 percent or more of respondents in 1994, 1998, and 2000 reported that they had perceived improvement. Not surprisingly, the percentage of people with disabilities going out to restaurants regularly has increased from 34 percent in 1986 to 57 percent in 2004."[0] [0]: https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/f493e262_8a9e_49c8_ad84_404a1b91d7c3.pdf https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/f493e262_8a9e_49c8_ad84_... pg 45

imgabe 7y ago
Having access to facilities is very important, but that is not what was achieved here. Now the facility is gone and nobody can access it. If the goal was to increase access to this facility, it failed miserably.
- sansnomme 7y ago
  Same story with certain college's Moocs. Taken down due to lack of accurate subtitles.
- tehwebguy 7y ago
  It’s not the plaintiff’s fault that the defendant preferred to close up shop vs comply with the law, even if they are the one who pointed it out.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    All the law does is provide a cause to sue. The plaintiff is the one who chose to pursue the case and demand either a crippling settlement or crippling renovation. This was completely the plaintiff's choice. If the position is that pre-ADA inaccessible buildings should just all be razed, well, that's a point of view I guess. But the plaintiff doesn't get to deny their culpability for shutting this place down. They are 100% responsible. But for their lawsuit, the place would still be open. And if their goal was to make the place comply with the law, why did they ask for a $60k settlement? Did they somehow incur $60k in damages because their friend had to go in and pick up the coffee? It seems like if what they wanted was compliance with the law, they would have asked for that or nothing. Unless of course maybe, just maybe an easy payday was the point all along.
  - tarsinge 7y ago
    The defendant is a small business = real humans you can talk to. Maybe they could have explained that they did not have the money yet but could gladly bring coffee outside with more service in the meantime. It's easy to hide being legalism (especially for us engineers who like logical systems) and ignore the human factor and individual moral choices. Yes legally the plaintiff has the right to ruin a small business. But it's not necessary the right choice.
    - altec3 7y ago
      Totally. For example, if your neighbors are having a party that's breaking noise laws, it's always better to go talk to them, then if they are jerks, report them to the police.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

stordoff 7y ago

> I can't readily access it, so nobody should have it Where do you draw the line though? If accessibility is not a requirement of doing business, disabled people can't access a large proportion of places, either out of indifference (it's cheaper) or just not considering it. Furthermore, the ADA (at 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12182) defines discrimination to include: > a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities[...], where such removal is readily achievable with readily achievable meaning: > easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include— > (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter; > (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility; > (C) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities In addition, for the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2) ("facilities altered [...] must be made readily accessible"), there is a requirement that "such alterations [...] are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope" (I'm unclear on the claim that "the Facility was designed and constructed (or both) after January 26, 1993" as this appears to contradict the article's claim that "her nearly 100 year-old building needed some upgrades"). There does not appear to be any intent to place any undue burden on a business.

op00to 7y ago

We decided as a country to not discriminate based on certain qualities. One of those is physical disability. Those with physical disability is a small part of the population, so businesses can easily ignore them. What’s the alternative? You’re fucked if you use a wheelchair?

sansnomme 7y ago
Have a federal trust fund mandatory advanced prosthetics.
- eropple 7y ago
  There are plenty of disabilities that cannot be prosthetic'd away, yeah?
- mondoshawan 7y ago
  And how do you give a prosthetic to someone who has a degenerative bone condition? Who is color blind? Who is deaf?

toast0 7y ago

I think there's several sides to this. One side is the ADA is from 1990, and 30 years is a long time to wait for public places of business to be accessible. It is compelling to say you must be open for business for all people, if you're open for business. On the other side, sometimes the required renovations are expensive. Part of the problem is that building modifications may trigger compliance requirements, but many jurisdictions don't check for accessibility (or not properly) as part of a modification permit. It would be good for accessibility to be checked as part of occupancy permits as well. Another part of the problem is that the enforcement structure of private lawsuits is by nature very adversarial. There's pros and cons, but it means business owners need to budget for renovation and legal fees in response to a complaint filed by lawsuit. I wish there was a better way to acheive compliance, though. If you can't afford the renovations now, make the plan now, and a binding commitment to set aside funds for it, and make the renovations when funds are ready, or within the 18? months. And the commitment follows the occupancy of the building --- like a lien. If the renovation is not done as comitted, the premises are no longer a legal place of business until they are. This may help encourage landlords to participate in making their spaces accessible --- it will need to be done before they can rent to another business if the current business is forced to leave.