Can anyone give me some legal advice? I am being sued

[vodkaniac]

Indefensible eh? So you guys feel you should have EVERY single access regular people have, and if you don't get it, sue? If that's the stance you're taking, screw you too.

Oh c’mon lxskllr, you are way smarter than this. I have yet to offer an opinion, yet you are making one up for me. I was responding to three words you wrote: Screw the handicapped. Nothing else. That is why I quoted only those three words. It was a thoughtless, insulting thing to write. Indefensible. You said screw me, so I said it back to you. It’s pretty cut and dry. The people you are disgusted with are lawsuit happy f*ckwads who twist laws for their own gain. It’s not “the handicapped”

<<So you guys feel you should have EVERY single access regular people have>> Uh, dude, I’m not the spokesperson for people with disabilities. I am however, a regular person. I feel bad for the OP. It’s a messed up situation. It sounds to me like he has been accommodating to this person. I can think of two restaurants I frequent where they just keep a piece of plywood on hand as a makeshift ramp. No biggie. I’m happy they’re happy. The vast majority of people with disabilities that I’ve met have similar attitudes. I know next to nothing about ada laws. I’ll be meeting a friend later tonight who is quite well versed in it and I’ll run this by her. But, yeah, get a lawyer. Or maybe a proctologist.

(raptor said much of this much better with fewer words)

[lxskllr]

You're making the issue black and white. i.e. if you're pro-ADA/handicapped, you're for this moron suing. And telling a disabled individual to screw himself because of hamfisted government policies...?

Perhaps I phrased it a bit more B&W than it is, but I don't buy the premise that there's "special" people in this country that deserve special treatment. Women, blacks, and handicapped I /think/ is all we have so far, but I don't follow it all closely. We aren't all equal, and some people will end up being shortchanged for certain things by birth, accident, or misfortune. When you can sic the government on a person or business just through your "specialness", the system is fatally flawed. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" isn't a positive philosophy to strive for.

Everybody has issues they need to deal with, and some activities will be off the board due to personal circumstance. Going after a business that's probably barely making it as is, doesn't help anyone. Did he ask for help in the restaurant? Did Sgreger tell him to go **** himself? No? Than what's the problem? If *I* were in his position, I'd either deal with the hassle, or eat something different than Philipino. Shoehorning modern regulations on vintage circumstances isn't right for anybody.

Of course, none of this is about doing the right thing. It's a money grab, backed by the full force of the government. It wouldn't bother me so much if this were an isolated circumstance, but "special" people pull this shit every day, and it just isn't right....

[vodkaniac]

Perhaps I phrased it a bit more B&W than it is, but I don't buy the premise that there's "special" people in this country that deserve special treatment. Women, blacks, and handicapped

You forgot the unemployed. They're "special." They are more equal than the rest of us. They get special treatment. They get paid for doing nothing while the rest of us work hard for our money.

Oh, but wait a minute, you were drawing unemployment weren't you lx?

[shikitohno]

I don't think that's lx, vodkaniac, I was under the impression he was retired. If he was, I missed it, but I think you might be thinking of sagedil. Also, like with this thing, there are shades of grey on unemployment. Just like it's one thing if you sue a business under ADA that refuses to make any attempt at compliance, and quite another to go suing every business on the street for each minor violation of ADA even if they work to make sure it doesn't impact you, there's quite the difference between collecting unemployment as a career and collecting it for a couple of months in between jobs. Personally, I'm in favour of the whole 90 day notice idea on this issue. Handicapped people get better conditions, businesses don't get sued into oblivion by a handful of jackasses who ruin a good thing for everyone else. I understand what lx is talking about when "special" people get treated way better than anyone else. I think there should be a limit on how far we take this. For example, say a guy in a wheelchair applies for a job as a librarian. He's going to need to be able to put back books at some point in that job. I don't think it's right that if they reject his application since he can't do an big aspect of the job, he should be able to sue them to death for refusing to purchase new shelves to replace every single shelf in the building that's too high for him to reach. It's a hypothetical situation, but this looks like the direction it's headed.

Plus, with the way this law is put into to practice, it's much too broadly empowering towards each individual. If you get two guys in wheelchairs, one a foot taller than the other, they can just go back and forth suing the same business with the one saying "x (grab bars, counter, whatever) is too high, this is discrimination against the handicapped," and once it's fixed, the other can say "x is too low, discrimination against the handicapped." In a way, handicapped people are no longer equal, they're legally superior to everyone else because now every building open to the public needs to specifically cater to their individual needs, or else get sued. Screw that, equal is equal, not superior. Also, if anyone wants some lulz out of this whole thread (since I'm guessing it's not going to remain pleasant for too long), look up Tom Frankovich. He's one of the most prolific lawyers in these serial ADA filings, and he has to meet handicapped clients off-site because his own office isn't handicap accessible.

[Bigblue1]

What happened to "handicapable" anyway?

[GoVegan]

Anybody remember this famous lawsuit?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10028109-93.html

Looks like they settled to.

[Bigblue1]

You know what, seeing a big box retailer get fined is a different story all together. Can you imagine the "handicap" sgregers restaurant has compared to let's say Panda Express or Big Bowl. Big Box restaurants yes, Who by there Hugeness should be held accountable to serving everyone perfectly. But the town hardware store, sporting goods store or bait shop shouldn't have to play by the same rules as the big boys, they are already "unfairly disadvantaged".......

[lxskllr]

Anybody remember this famous lawsuit?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10028109-93.html

Looks like they settled to.

Yea! Let's sue Columbia for making CDs inaccessible for the deaf :^S

And yea, Vodkaniac, I'm on unemployment. After ~25 years of paying unemployment insurance, I'm not too concerned about it ;^)

[raptor]

Perhaps I phrased it a bit more B&W than it is, but I don't buy the premise that there's "special" people in this country that deserve special treatment.

ADA isn't making a Harrison Bergeron out of our lives. It exists because companies would not go out of their way to cater to an extreme minority (who have the most need for special arrangements). Yes, there are some rotten apples out there where the ADA coming down is warranted, but sometimes such things as this happen and there really isn't much that can be done about it. Does that invalidate ADA? I say no. There are a few sensational cases, but I believe those taking advantage of the system outweighs the benefits disabled persons gain from ADA.

Unless you want to argue for some sort of sadistic libertarian paradise where no social systems exist to guarantee that the disabled don't live absolutely miserable lives. The only question I can ask you is, if you're disabled when your hip goes out, wouldn't you want some sort of guarantee that you can live your life around your disability, rather than rely on Good Will in a world where morals aren't dictated by Capitalism?

[shikitohno]

It's not that bad yet, raptor, but eventually the handicapped are going to have to realise it's not possible for everything to be made accessible for them. If, to take sgreger's example, I ran a small store in San Francisco where I would lose a great deal of potential space for product if I made it wide enough for a wheelchair, I'd be inclined to say screw off. Some stores just are not large enough to be accommodating without losing half their floor space, and I really don't think it's reasonable that they can be sued off the market solely because they can't afford rent on a larger store.