|
Hello-
I own a small retail store chain in Northern California. Today I
received a letter from "a concerned citizen with a disability" telling
me that my business was not in compliance with the ADA act yet did not
point out any specific areas of non-compliance.
He said that I have 90 days to bring my business up to compliance
standards. He astriked this by saying that this was not a letter from
a governmental body. He said that if I needed assistance finding a
complicancy expert to get in touch with him but left no phone
number...just a return addresss of a PO Box and his First Last and Mi.
Anyway, I just wanted to know what rights I have and concerns I might
have. Obviously I will reply to him but not sure yet how to approach
that.
I found some areas of non compliance, for ex, we have some isle ways
that are obstructed which would not be too difficult to bring up to
code. we have a downstairs area that has a staircase which is maybe
2.5-3 feet tall to go downthere which would be a bit burdensome to
have a ramp there or to build a false floor to raise it. The building
itself has to be over 30 years old.
In the case of the downstairs area, we have fixtures with isleways
less than 3' wide or 30" wide, yet if people that have a wheelchair
have difficulity going down there, would we need to make that area of
our store compliant, or accessable to handicap people?
Any thoughts or suggestions would be appriciated.
Also, what grounds would a lawsuit be in order? If they said they
couldnt access an area would that be grounds? Would the Standard
Operating Procedure be to paid a visit by a compliance officer and be
given notice to be up to code? Or can i get charged at like a bull?
Thanks
SD
|
| |
| |
bobwob21@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello-
I own a small retail store chain in Northern California. Today I
received a letter from "a concerned citizen with a disability" telling
me that my business was not in compliance with the ADA act yet did not
point out any specific areas of non-compliance.
He said that I have 90 days to bring my business up to compliance
standards. He astriked this by saying that this was not a letter from
a governmental body. He said that if I needed assistance finding a
complicancy expert to get in touch with him but left no phone
number...just a return addresss of a PO Box and his First Last and Mi.
Anyway, I just wanted to know what rights I have and concerns I might
have. Obviously I will reply to him but not sure yet how to approach
that.
I found some areas of non compliance, for ex, we have some isle ways
that are obstructed which would not be too difficult to bring up to
code. we have a downstairs area that has a staircase which is maybe
2.5-3 feet tall to go downthere which would be a bit burdensome to
have a ramp there or to build a false floor to raise it. The building
itself has to be over 30 years old.
In the case of the downstairs area, we have fixtures with isleways
less than 3' wide or 30" wide, yet if people that have a wheelchair
have difficulity going down there, would we need to make that area of
our store compliant, or accessable to handicap people?
Any thoughts or suggestions would be appriciated.
Also, what grounds would a lawsuit be in order? If they said they
couldnt access an area would that be grounds? Would the Standard
Operating Procedure be to paid a visit by a compliance officer and be
given notice to be up to code? Or can i get charged at like a bull?
Thanks
SD
You are about to be sued for non-compliance with ADA. You need to hire
an expert (and not the guy that send to the letter) and have him review
your store
For example, see
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/37/news/updates/businessupdate051605.htm
http://www.htrends.com/trends-detail-sid-24986.html
|
| |
| |
I don't about Califronia state law, but I would say the ADA exceeds the
authority of congress and having a local retail store is not "commmerce
....among the several states"
Hello-
I own a small retail store chain in Northern California. Today I
received a letter from "a concerned citizen with a disability" telling
me that my business was not in compliance with the ADA act yet did not
point out any specific areas of non-compliance.
He said that I have 90 days to bring my business up to compliance
standards. He astriked this by saying that this was not a letter from
a governmental body. He said that if I needed assistance finding a
complicancy expert to get in touch with him but left no phone
number...just a return addresss of a PO Box and his First Last and Mi.
Anyway, I just wanted to know what rights I have and concerns I might
have. Obviously I will reply to him but not sure yet how to approach
that.
I found some areas of non compliance, for ex, we have some isle ways
that are obstructed which would not be too difficult to bring up to
code. we have a downstairs area that has a staircase which is maybe
2.5-3 feet tall to go downthere which would be a bit burdensome to
have a ramp there or to build a false floor to raise it. The building
itself has to be over 30 years old.
In the case of the downstairs area, we have fixtures with isleways
less than 3' wide or 30" wide, yet if people that have a wheelchair
have difficulity going down there, would we need to make that area of
our store compliant, or accessable to handicap people?
Any thoughts or suggestions would be appriciated.
Also, what grounds would a lawsuit be in order? If they said they
couldnt access an area would that be grounds? Would the Standard
Operating Procedure be to paid a visit by a compliance officer and be
given notice to be up to code? Or can i get charged at like a bull?
Thanks
SD
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote in news:4811fa9a$0$3392
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
I don't about Califronia state law, but I would say the ADA exceeds the
authority of congress and having a local retail store is not "commmerce
...among the several states"
Can you say "public accommodation"?
Wonderful. I knew you could.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote in news:4811fa9a$0$3392
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
Can you say "public accommodation"?
And can you say where public accomodation is interstate commerce?
Thought not.
Wonderful. I knew you could.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
Oh, and there is the issue of PUBLIC.
Just what is public? I would say anyone can enter this place. For example a
library is a public place where anyone can come and go as they please.
I would beg to differ with a retail establishment. It is not public. It is
for customers. Don't you see transients at times getting arrested for
"loitering?" You can loiter at a PUBLIC library, but try that at retail
store.
"GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote in news:4811fa9a$0$3392
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
Can you say "public accommodation"?
Wonderful. I knew you could.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote in
news:48125fc4$0$5162$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
And can you say where public accomodation is interstate commerce?
Thought not.
C'mon now. Don't make me look it up. This is settled law since the
'60s. The federal civil rights acts that prohibit discrimination on the
basis of race, ethnicity, etc. are all Constitutional.
And the last time the Supreme Court upheld drug laws on the basis of
interstate commerce, they included private growing and use that involved
no buying or selling.
Besides, it's your claim that the ADA exceeds the authority of Congress,
so you shoulder the burden of proof.
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote in
news:48125fc4$0$5162$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
C'mon now. Don't make me look it up. This is settled law since the
'60s. The federal civil rights acts that prohibit discrimination on the
basis of race, ethnicity, etc. are all Constitutional.
And the last time the Supreme Court upheld drug laws on the basis of
interstate commerce, they included private growing and use that involved
no buying or selling.
Besides, it's your claim that the ADA exceeds the authority of Congress,
so you shoulder the burden of proof.
Actaully the burden of proof would be on the US government that it is not
infringing on one's rights or liberties.
Wonderful. I knew you could.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote in
news:481271b6$0$5143$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
Actaully the burden of proof would be on the US government that it is
not infringing on one's rights or liberties.
Oh, hell! You made me look.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379US241 (1964) decided the
Constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Numerous
other cases vacated indictments of (black) people who were arrested for
demanding service at places of public accommodation. See Hamm v City of
Rock Hill 379US306 (1964) and Blow v North Carolina 379US384 (1965).
Wonderful. I knew you could.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote in
news:4812619c$0$5127$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
Oh, and there is the issue of PUBLIC.
Just what is public? I would say anyone can enter this place. For
example a library is a public place where anyone can come and go as
they please.
I would beg to differ with a retail establishment. It is not public.
It is for customers. Don't you see transients at times getting
arrested for "loitering?" You can loiter at a PUBLIC library, but try
that at retail store.
You've got hold of a non-issue. The term "public accommodation" is a term
of legal art meaning a place that offers goods and services to anyone who
enters. (Including out-of-state customers. Get it now?) As opposed to a
private club, which restricts its offerings to members.
Loitering has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act. Merchants could
legally exclude loiterers before 1964 and still can. Merchants could
legally refuse service to black people because of their race before 1964
but can't now.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote in
news:481271b6$0$5143$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
Oh, hell! You made me look.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379US241 (1964) decided the
Constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Numerous
other cases vacated indictments of (black) people who were arrested for
demanding service at places of public accommodation. See Hamm v City of
Rock Hill 379US306 (1964) and Blow v North Carolina 379US384 (1965).
Ooopps!
"Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele came
from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near both
Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major U.S. Highways, the Court found
that the business clearly affected interstate commerce."
You were saying?
Wonderful. I knew you could.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote in
news:48129700$0$3375$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
Ooopps!
"Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele
came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near
both Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major U.S. Highways, the
Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce."
You were saying?
Read the rest of the cases. All that's required is that the business
offer or purport to offer goods and services to the general public that
*might* include out-of-state customers.
Are you seriously contending that Title II doesn't apply to retail
businesses?
The commerce clause is larger than the Lincoln Tunnel.
Wonderful. I knew you could.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote in
news:48129700$0$3375$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
Read the rest of the cases. All that's required is that the business
offer or purport to offer goods and services to the general public that
*might* include out-of-state customers.
Are you seriously contending that Title II doesn't apply to retail
businesses?
I am contending the whole thing is unconstitutional.
The commerce clause is larger than the Lincoln Tunnel.
Not if we keep attacking it with this newer SC.
The first time since the 1930s that the SC started enforcing the commerce
clause was finally in the early 90s.
Stacking the court may worked in the 1930s, but not today.
Wonderful. I knew you could.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
"GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote in
news:48142e96$0$20172$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
<snip>
I don't about Califronia state law, but I would say the ADA
exceeds the authority of congress and having a local retail
store is not "commmerce ...among the several states"
Can you say "public accommodation"?
And can you say where public accomodation is interstate
commerce?
Thought not.
C'mon now. Don't make me look it up. This is settled law since
the '60s. The federal civil rights acts that prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc. are all
Constitutional.
And the last time the Supreme Court upheld drug laws on the basis
of interstate commerce, they included private growing and use
that involved no buying or selling.
Besides, it's your claim that the ADA exceeds the authority of
Congress, so you shoulder the burden of proof.
Actaully the burden of proof would be on the US government that it
is not infringing on one's rights or liberties.
Oh, hell! You made me look.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379US241 (1964) decided the
Constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Numerous other cases vacated indictments of (black) people who were
arrested for demanding service at places of public accommodation.
See Hamm v City of Rock Hill 379US306 (1964) and Blow v North
Carolina 379US384 (1965).
Ooopps!
"Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele
came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near
both Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major U.S. Highways, the
Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce."
You were saying?
Read the rest of the cases. All that's required is that the business
offer or purport to offer goods and services to the general public
that *might* include out-of-state customers.
Are you seriously contending that Title II doesn't apply to retail
businesses?
I am contending the whole thing is unconstitutional.
If we're operating in the richardian world of personal opinion, then this
sentence means that you don't like the law and you wish it were
inoperable.
And that's fine, but if we are dwelling in the world of fact, then your
contention is demonstrably incorrect. Title II has been at issue before
the Supreme Court numerous times, and it has always been upheld. I even
gave you three cases.
The commerce clause is larger than the Lincoln Tunnel.
Not if we keep attacking it with this newer SC.
In fact, "this newer" Supreme Court has enlarged the scope of the
commerce clause. In Gonzales v Raich, the Court allowed the feds to
criminalize the cultivation of marijuana for personal use even though no
buying or selling of anything was involved. As long as growing weed
belonged to a "class" of regulable activities (i.e., drug dealing), the
commerce clause applies. In other words, as long as it looks like some
business, it doesn't matter that the commercial part of the activity is
present in only homeopathic amounts.
The Court has been reluctant to expand the scope of the commerce clause
for non-commercial (-like) activities, notably gun possession and rape.
The first time since the 1930s that the SC started enforcing the
commerce clause was finally in the early 90s.
Wrong again. Before Gonzales v Raich, the pertinent case for "enforcing
the commerce clause" is Wickard v. Filburn, in which the gov asserted
that they could regulate wheat production. That was in 1942.
Stacking the court may worked in the 1930s, but not today.
The phrase is "packing the court," and it didn't work in the '30s.
You're not usually this ignorant. What's going on?
Wonderful. I knew you could.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
|
