Even rural Northern California affords no refuge from the filing mills:
Eureka’s Arctic Circle franchise has closed its doors after the restaurant was sued for noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Jack Williams, who has owned the franchise with his wife, Peggy, since 1989, said the couple decided to close the business last Tuesday because they cannot afford the renovations required by the lawsuit.
The suit was filed by local attorney Jason K. Singleton, who in recent years has filed ADA-related suits against a number of local establishments, including Village Pantry, Broadway Cinema, Fortuna Theatre, Cafe Waterfront and College of the Redwoods, among others. …
“Here we had a business that was serving all kinds of customers and now is serving no one,” Hockaday [J Warren Hockaday, executive director of the Greater Eureka Chamber of Commerce] said.
(Ryan Burns, “Arctic Circle closes due to ADA lawsuit”, The Times-Standard, May 6; earlier).
4 Comments
What would the world do without parasites?
I’m sure there’s a special place in h3ll reserved for these predatory litigators when they drive good folks out of business and turn employees out of a job.
There is no excuse that this reataurant was not compliant when the law has been in effect for 18 years. An existing facility (meaning built before the ADA went into effect) only has to do what is readily acheivable or easily accomplished — it’s not that difficult. There must be other mitigating facts why this restaurant closed and the owners are blaming ADA issues. If the court felt that over the past 18 years it was affordable for this place of business to make reasonable accommodations for their disabled customers and they didn’t do it, that is discrimination. When commpliance or even a plan for compliance is considered in a business’s budget, it very affordable. The owners also would have found the that revenue generated by the patronizing disabled community would have more that paid for renovations. No excuses for these lazy owners!
it’s not that difficult.
There are 22 “violations” that the restuarant had of which 3 were specifically mentioned – the counters were “too high,” the bathrooms could not accomdate a wheelchair and the doors were too small. If you think the costs of just those three renovations is small or “not that difficult,” clearly you haven’t had any work done on a commercial space in the recent past.
If the court felt that over the past 18 years it was affordable for this place of business to make reasonable accommodations for their disabled customers and they didn’t do it, that is discrimination.
Perhaps you missed the point of the story. The restaurant closed before the rennovations were made. They never went to court. They paid the lawyer off as the cost of fighting the litigation was more than the restaurant could bear. In that the lawyer who filed the complaint is an ADA papermill, it is clear that the complaint is not about making the restaurant ADA compliant, but padding someone’s pocket.
The owners also would have found the that revenue generated by the patronizing disabled community would have more that paid for renovations.
So you are saying that cutting space for more tables would help business? Even if you are correct, shouldn’t the decision of space be that of the owner of the property?
If the rise in business would “more that paid for renovations,” why wouldn’t businesses be jumping at the chance to increase their revenues? The answer is that your assertion that revenues will increase is contrary to the knowledge and experience that the owners of tens of thousands of businesses have.
It is true that a business owner for his good reputation to try and make his business open to all potential customers. Howvever for the government to mandate this policy is totalitarianism. Then for one who is trying to earn a living (instead of being a shake-down artist), Most people who shake down a small business owner, are very bitter at life. They look for others to blame for their misfortunes. The lawyers who take such cases would feel very comfortable in sucking money out of these store owners for their own benefit – pimping out the less fortuante and making loads of money while the plaintiff gets stiffed. Who are these attorneys working for ? The devil himself ?