Category: ADA Lawsuit

Don’t find yourself blindsighted.

PICO RIVERA – Audrey and Dan Miller have owned Barney’s Coffee Shop for nearly three decades.

In that time they’ve never had one complaint about whether their restaurant met the needs of their disabled patrons.

That changed just over a year ago when they were slapped with a lawsuit by a disabled man.

“It wasn’t a fun situation,” said Dan Miller, 59, about the litigation.

The Millers were sued Sept. 21, 2010 by Salvador Vargas, who claimed his rights were violated when he was at the restaurant, 4923 Rosemead Blvd., because its restroom facilities were not accessible to the disabled.

According to the lawsuit, there were no grab bars behind and beside the toilet plus the doorway to the men’s restroom and the paper towel dispenser were inaccessible.

A check of the men’s toilet at the time showed a grab bar on the side.

The Millers were surprised by the lawsuit.

“We were blindsided,” Dan Miller said.

[Original link here: San Gabriel Valley Tribune/a>]

Questions? Comments? Call us at 866 982 3212 or email us at help@accesssolutionllc.com

ADA lawsuit reported by the Boston Herald.
[http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1029converse_store_shut_downfor_accessibility_violation/]

Converse’s flagship sneaker store on Newbury Street has been shuttered indefinitely by the state for failure to provide handicap accessibility to its entrance.

The Architectural Access Board, a regulatory agency of the Massachusetts Office of Public Safety, closed the store on Wednesday until the fixes are made to the entrance. The entrance has a seven-inch step that must be modified to make the shop wheelchair-accessible.

“Since 2009, the board and the city of Boston have tried to get Converse to comply,” said Terrell Harris, spokesman for the Executive Office of Public Safety. “Converse continued to say they would fix the problem – and they’ve been given at least four extensions to get the work done – and they’ve yet to do anything.”

Harris said the store will remain closed until the work is completed. “The ball is in their court,” he said. “Since they were shut down, they’ve done exactly what they had been asked to do in the first place: they filed a permit, submitted plans to make the fix and hired a contractor. They will have to return back to the board for approval to reopen.”

In an e-mailed statement, Terri Hines, a spokeswoman for North Andover-based Converse, said, “Converse is confident that the permanent solution and subsequent construction completion is within immediate reach and expects operations to reopen soon.”

Questions? Comments? Contact us at help@accesssolutionllc.com or 866 982 3212

If you were disabled, you’d probably have to rely on public transit unless you wanted to drop a few thousand (at least) to make your vehicle usable.

Lack of reliable accessible public transportation leads to further challenges for disabled individuals to keep steady employment.

Reposted from [Washington Post].

The accessibility issues of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) services outlined in the Aug. 7 Metro article “Ride, interrupted” are not only violations of federal law and a point of frustration for people with disabilities but also a contributor to the extremely low employment rate for people with disabilities.

Seventy percent of people with disabilities are unemployed or underemployed. As a result of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of more than 20,000 people, we have heard from many MetroAccess and Metrorail users who fear disciplinary action or loss of their jobs because of MetroAccess’s unreliable service.

One user believes that the lack of reliable, accessible transportation harms the potential for professional advancement. “Being late to work hinders promotion potential; if my supervisor can’t rely on me to be there when I am needed, I cannot get promoted to the next level,” she said.

Employment is a key factor in the ability of any individual, including a person with a disability, to live independently and contribute to the community. By denying people with disabilities the right to access basic public transportation, WMATA is denying these individuals the right to fully realize their professional potential.

Kat Taylor, Washington

Understanding the frustration disabled citizens have goes a long way in understanding the root that generates disability suits.

Why make things doubly difficult by being incompliant?

Questions? email us at help@accesssolutionllc.com or call us at 866 982 3212.

Current and pressing is an on going lawsuit. This information is public and has been re-posted in case it affects you. Feel free to distribute this as needed.

Legal Notice

IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY AND CANNOT USE A SIDEWALK IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES BECAUSE A CURBRAMP OR CURB CUT IS MISSING OR INACCESSIBLE, A PROPOSED CLASS ACTION

SETTLEMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

[Para ver esta notificacion en espanol, visite “www.lacity.org” o mande una carta dirigida a: Mike Arias, Esq., Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90045]

What is this about?

A settlement has been reached in two class action lawsuits involving curb ramps and curb cuts that provide access to sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways located in the City of Los Angeles. The lawsuits are both pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. They are known as Saundra Carter, et al.v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC363305, and Nicole Fahmie v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. BC363305 (formerly Case No. BC381773). The plaintiffs in both actions saythat the City has violated disability access laws by failing to install or fix curb cuts or curb ramps that provide access to and from sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways located in the City.

Your legal rights will be affected if the proposed settlement is approved by the Court. This notice is only a summary and provides a general description of the proposed settlement,your right to object to the proposed settlement, and the hearing that is scheduled before the Court to evaluate the fairness of the proposed settlement.

For complete information, please see the “Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement,” available on the City of Los Angeles’ website: (www.lacity.org); or thewebsite of the plaintiffs’ counsel Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP (www.aogllp.com); or by sending a written request to: Mike Arias, Esq., Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, 6701 CenterDrive West, 14th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90045.

Who is a Class Member?

You are a member of the class if you are an individual with any disability, who at any time:

• accessed or attempted to access a sidewalk, intersection, crosswalk, street or other pedestrian pathway located in the city of Los Angeles but were impaired or unable to doso due to: (a) the lack of a curb ramp or curb cut, or (b) a curb ramp or curb cut that was damaged, deficient, in need of repair, or otherwise in a condition not suitable oracceptable for use, or

• alleges that you would have accessed or attempted to access a sidewalk, intersection, crosswalk, street or other pedestrian pathway located in the city but for allegedly being denied such access due to: (a) the lack of a curb ramp or curb cut, or (b) a curb ramp or curb cut that was damaged, deficient, in need of repair, or otherwise in a condition notsuitable or acceptable for use.

If the definition above describes you, you will automatically be considered a member of the class. As a class member, you will be bound by the decisions of the Court.

What are the terms and benefits?

Class members will not receive money. The proposed settlement will require that the City implement a variety of measures to deal with the accessibility of curb ramps and curb cutsin the City. The purpose of this settlement is to require the City to remediate certain curb locations so that they comply with accessibility codes. Members of the class willbe entitled to submit requests to remediate curb locations in accordance with the programs to be implemented by the City.

Plaintiffs’ counsel (Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP and the Law Offices of Morse Mehrban) have determined that the settlement is fair and reasonable because it providesvaluable benefits to members of the class. Under the proposed settlement, the City will, among other things, implement a process for installation and remediation of certaincurb ramps and curb cuts throughout the City, complete a survey to assess the number of curb locations that still require remediation, and establish an advisorycommittee to render findings and recommendations regarding future appropriations of money for further installation and remediation of curb ramps and curbcuts.

If the Court grants final approval of the proposed settlement, it will enter a judgment that will be binding on all members of the class, who will be deemed to have agreedto the terms of the settlement and will not be able to opt out of the class or the settlement. Members of the class will not be provided with any monetary award and they will be barred from prosecuting in the future certain claims that they may have against the City concerning the matters at issue in the pending litigation, includingclaims for Statutory Damages.

In addition, a judgment entered by the Court will apply to all members of the Settlement Class, including members who may be represented in connection with other pendinglawsuits against the City (including, for example, an action entitled Beverly Overton v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. CV10 8882 GAF (FMOx), pending in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of California; an action entitled Norman Allen v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. CV 10 0576 PSG (FFMx), pending in the United States DistrictCourt for the Central District of California; and a class action lawsuit entitled Mark Willits, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. CV10 5782 CBM (RZx), pending in the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California (the “Willits Action”). The Willits Action is a class action involving claims that the City has violated federal disabilityaccess laws, among other things, due to the condition of sidewalks and curb ramps located in the City. If you would like additional information about the Willits Action, counselfor the plaintiffs in that action are as follows: Disability Rights Legal Center, Shawna L. Parks or Surisa Rivers, 919 Albany Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015, 866-999-3752, Email drlc@lls.edu.)

Complete information about the benefits and terms of the settlement is available in the Notice of Class

Action and Proposed Settlement, referenced above.

What are my options?

If the class definition above describes you, you are automatically a member of the class. If the Court grants final approval of the proposed settlement, it will enter ajudgment that will be binding on all

members of the class. If you do not agree with the settlement, you may object to the settlement. To submit an objection, you must do so in writing, by September 7, 2011, asinstructed in the Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement.

The Court has approved the law firm of Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP and The Law Offices of Morse

Mehrban (“Class Counsel”) to represent the class. The Court is scheduled to hold a Fairness Hearing at

10:00 a.m. on October 20, 2011, at the Los Angeles Superior Court, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005, in Department 324, to determine if thesettlement is fair and reasonable.

You may ask to appear at the hearing in person, or through your own attorney at your own expense.

No agreement has been reached yet by the City and Class Counsel regarding the attorneys’ fees that may be paid to Class Counsel. It is possible that a motion for an award ofattorneys’ fees will be heard during the Fairness Hearing. In any event, the award of attorneys’ fees will not affect the benefits to be received by the class under the proposedsettlement.

For more information or for a copy of the Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, visit www.lacity.org or www.aogllp.com, or send a written request to: Mike Arias,Esq., Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90045.

You may also obtain more information about the two class action lawsuits from the case files, which are available from the Clerk of the Court, Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia for the County of Los Angeles, 600 S. Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE.

Objections:

Remember, the deadline for filing and serving objections is now September 7, 2011. After that, the court will not accept objections or allow people to be heard in court.

[Revised e-mail announcement]

Warning (New) Court Filing Deadline: September 7, 2011

Attention: Do you have a disability? Do you use Los Angeles city streets?

If you answered ‘yes’ to both these questions you are a class member of a proposed class-action settlement on the Los Angeles city sidewalks. Your rights are about to be affected for the next 25 years.

The Disability Rights Legal Center (DRLC) and David Geffen Law Firm believe that this settlement is unfair and they need you to tell the court if you do too.

What to do:

1. Fill out the attached “Objection and Notice of Intention to Appear.”

2. Return it to David Geffen by September 6, 2011.

3. Come to the hearing if you can.

These are some of the reasons why the proposed settlement is unfair to you:

1) The settlement releases your past and future claims for statutory damages, and would bar any such claims for 25 years, without providing you any monetary relief whatsoever as a members of the class;

2) Class members (you) have no opportunity to opt out of the class to avoid the 25 year waiver of entitlement to statutory damages;

3) The Settlement is also inadequate because:

a) It secures only a drop in the bucket of what is needed to make Los Angeles Streets accessible— ($4M per yearor less) will be spent to fix the Los Angeles city curb ramps over the next 20 years;

b) It provides no adjustment for inflation;

c) The amount of money to be spent to fix curb cuts is not enough to provide a sufficient number of curb ramps to provide sidewalk access;

d) The City has no obligation to install or replace curb ramps under the terms of the settlement agreement unless there are funds available from two specific sources: Gas tax funds and Measure R funds.

4) The proposed class action Settlement provides that class members will be required to use complicated request forms and sign them under penalty of perjury to have any chance of getting curb ramps installed.

The deadline for filing an objection to this settlement is September 7, 2011, and the Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for October 20, 2011 at 10am. You can object to the approval of this Settlement Agreement by filling out the form.

Please attend the hearing October 20, 2011 at Los Angeles Superior Court,

600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005, Dept. 324.

To object, simply place an “X” or your initials on the line next to any of the four categories that you agree with in the “Objection and Notice of Intent to Appear” attached to this e-mail. Use category number 5 to describe any other personal reasons why you believe this Proposed Settlement should not be approved.

To make a statement at the hearing, place an “X” or your initials at the line next to the paragraph directly below “Notice of Intention to Appear. You do not need to come to the hearing to object to this proposed agreement, nor do you need to make a statement in order to attend the hearing.

Please make sure you complete the personal information at the top of this attached form (i.e. your name, address, and telephone number), and make sure you sign and date it on page 2.

Lastly, please EMAIL, FAX or Mail us your completed “Objection and Notice of Intention to Appear” to:

David Geffen Law Firm

530 Wilshire Blvd. Suite #205

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Fax Number: (310) 434-1115

Email: geffenlaw@aol.com

(Please note that we must receive* your completed “Objection and Notice of Intention to Appear” by September 6, 2011 in order for us to get it postmarked by the September 7, 2011 deadline.)

Thank you.

David G. Geffen, Esq.

SAN DIEGO –(Business Wire)–
In a case that reaffirms the right to safe public access for the physically disabled, Casey Gerry announced today that a $1.25 million out-of-court settlement has been reached in a lawsuit involving the country’s longest survivor of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) – a disease in which victims progressively lose muscle control.

Defendants Troon Golf, LLC and The Crosby National Golf Club, LLC agreed to pay more than $1.1 million to Northridge, Calif. resident Marilyn Cooper, 67. The rest of the settlement was paid by Summers/Murphy & Partners, Inc., a landscape architect and Masson and Associates, Inc., an engineering firm.

According to attorney Robert J. Francavilla, a partner with Casey Gerry, his client Marilyn Cooper, who has had ALS – also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease – for 36 years, suffered serious injuries after a fall at the exclusive Crosby Estates’ Sports Center in Rancho Santa Fe, just north of San Diego. “While driving her motorized wheelchair toward a family reunion celebration, she toppled down a two-step stairway that blended into the background and created an illusion of a flat surface,” Francavilla said. “The change in elevation lacked signage, visual cues and had rails, and as a result she was unable to see the steps.” To that end, “our legal team was able to prove that the defendants clearly chose aesthetics over safety, and violated the California Building Code and ADA requirements, as well as basic common sense in the design and management of the facility, which serves Crosby Estates, a high end residential community.”

Francavilla said he was able to establish both ADA and building code violations in the design of the facility, as well as demonstrate absence of handicapped access. “What the defendants claimed was adequate handicapped access was actually a dirt path, much like many paths meandering through the complex and clearly not built or marked according to ADA requirements.”

Cooper broke her hip in the fall, and required multiple surgeries to repair her injuries – significantly impacting her already reduced mobility, Francavilla said. The settlement funds will cover medical care and expenses as well as compensate Cooper for the effect the incident will have on her quality of life.

The settlement was reached after a full-day mediation conducted by Thomas Sharkey of Judicate West.
Francavilla says he hopes this settlement will compel facilities operators, architects and designers to place high importance on safe access for the handicapped. According to ADA regulations, “stairs must be clearly visible, and handicap ramps should be very prominently marked and integrated into all buildings frequented by the public.”

Original link: [TMC news]

There’s some large confusion as to whether or not HOAs are required by the ADA to provide accommodations.

The logic that follows is simply this:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is Civil Law that requires that places of public accommodation provide reasonable accommodations so as to allow members of the public to have access to all goods and services. The ADA is not building code and cannot be grandfathered in that way.

Home Owner Associations are in general, private entities, but may have areas that are open to the public. For example, a pool that is open to the public (but charges), guest parking, a leasing office or rooms that can be rented for are all areas that are public accommodations. Those areas definitely fall under the auspices of the ADA.

This does not mean that HOAs are exempt from the ADA however. For areas that are the exclusive use of a tenant, those areas must be allowed to be made accessible by the tenant for their own disability which includes entering and exiting a building.

Additionally, should the HOA remodel, or upgrade any of their areas, local building code would apply. For California, this definitely means Chapter 11A (which has disability requirements — causing the ADA to kick in).

This area of law does get trickier as local ordinances and other state specific laws come into play. Overall, our recommendation is that an HOA should become accessible whenever possible, to help their aging residents and avoid future litigation issues.

Unfortunately, many HOAs seem to think that resident accessibility is cosmetic or somehow not applicable to them. Some interesting links here include a story about an HOA that seems to think it doesn’t need to allow for easy ingress and egress for their residents:

AURORA, Colo. — A fight over a wheelchair ramp is pitting neighbor against neighbor at an Aurora condo complex.

69-year-old Charlotte Vaile rented the ramps with her own money after the elevator at the Bayberry Condo complex broke down, “because I can’t get in and out of the building,” she said.

Charlotte says she asked the HOA for permission to install the ramp, but the board didn’t get back to her right away.

Once the ramp was installed, the HOA promptly took it down. A board member told Charlotte the building does not have to comply with the American’s with disabilities Act because it was built before the law took effect.

Charlotte called the Aurora Fire department, and they put the ramp back up.

But the HOA is now refusing to make the 2nd and 3rd floors accessible to several other disabled people who live there.

Cathi Fort is also a disabled vet, and she lives on the 2nd floor. She told FOX31 Denver, “I feel like I’m a prisoner in my own home.”

FOX31 contacted the Bayberry Condo Association President and we were referred to the president of the property management company.

Lynda Reifman said the board “took the ramp down because they wanted the opportunity to review Charlotte’s request before she put it up.”

And when we asked Reifman what would happen to the other disabled if there was a fire in the building, she said, “the fire department will get them out, that’s their job.

If you want further resources regarding one law firm’s grasp of the ADA as it applies to HOAs, you can turn here.

The Americans with Disabilities Act and Accommodating the Disabled.

So the Takeaway from all this is that if you are an HOA be very careful.  You must not deny your tenants safe access in and out of their residences.

You could be a place of public accommodation have then you have to comply ASAP!

If you are fairly certain you’re not, also be careful, because your residents could at any point have a medical need for a ramp, or some other accommodation.  It’s of course better to become accessible, even if you don’t think you are — for future (and present) liability but if you choose to do work, that also could trigger the ADA.

You may be required to set aside an additional 20% of your budget just for ADA upgrades.

If you are an HOA or part of an HOA and have questions as to the applicability of the ADA, please contact an attorney. In general, if you take money from your residents you must consider their current and future needs (hint: egress and ingress are far more important than comestics).  Also, always also get a licensed and bonded contractor to do accessibility work — as many contractors aren’t always familiar with this area of law. If you have any questions for us, you can contact me at help@accesssolutionllc.com or 866 982 3212.

That is, there is no end in sight as long as businesses are easy targets.

Here’s a series of links about some recent ADA Lawsuits around central and northern California.

Most ADA Lawsuits don’t come with a warning, drive-by litigants simply drive by and leave a string of lawsuits. You can read more about ADA Lawsuits in Yuba and Sutter County. Most of these come from George Louie.

More lawsuits as well from the Donner Lake Kitchen Lawsuit from Scott Johnson. You can read about his latest exploits at the Davis, CA Burger Joint, Redrum Burger.

Information thanks to Overlawyered.com and the Civil Justice Association of California.

Don’t be a victim! Look into our ADA Accommodation Tips, in particular our ADA Accommodation Tag.

Further questions, comments? 866 982 3212 or help@accesssolutionllc.com.

Those of you who have been sued become very quickly familiar with the complex intertwine of laws that give rise to ADA Lawsuits, in particular ADA cases.

One quick way to try and buck an ADA lawsuit though, is argue that the plaintiff never visited your store.

This tactic has worked before (especially if the defendant can demonstrate that no barrier was encountered because the plaintiff never showed up!) An older case comes to my mind, centered around Home Depot, when the plaintiff provided a receipt that he visited Home Depot (but it turned out that wasn’t the right home depot).

Nonetheless, here’s an interesting article:

SELINSGROVE — The son of a Texas woman who sued several Valley businesses for noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act had dropped out of Bucknell University about a month before the lawsuit was filed.

Richard K. Greer was a student during the fall semester 2010, which ended Dec. 16, but was not a student in the spring semester that started in January, university spokesman Tom Evelyn confirmed Thursday.

Meanwhile, Greer’s mother, Leslie Greer, filed ADA lawsuits on Jan. 11 against BJ’s Steak & Rib House, Emma’s Food for Life and Bot’s Cafe Inc., all of Selinsgrove; Mom’s Dutch Kitchen, Danville; Fox’s Family restaurant, Pennsdale; Colonial Village Plaza, Shamokin Dam; and Basin Street Shopping Center, Williamsport.

Leslie Greer, who uses a wheelchair, alleged in her lawsuit that she patronized the businesses during a recent visit with her son, a Bucknell student, and believes they are in violation of the ADA.

But when several of those being sued informed Greer they learned her son was no longer a student, the lawsuits were dropped.

“The premise of suit was that she’d be in our establishment, that there was the possibility she could continue to patronize us during her son’s tenure at Bucknell,” said Rick Schuck, owner of Bot’s. “He transferred in December, and we were served in the middle of January.”

You can read more here: Lawsuits against small businesses dropped from The Daily Item and through Overlawyered.com

Another way is to have a surveillance video of your store of everyone who enters your store — assuming of course that you didn’t erase your tapes, or that they did in fact did enter your store.  A loophole with this approach is that if you don’t have accessible parking, it’s possible that the plaintiff would claim that they couldn’t enter your store because there wasn’t proper parking, or there was something wrong with the outside. Sometimes that’s not the case. We can help provide evidence to verify the plaintiff claims, something we do regularly.

But that’s a different issue. Of course, the best way to avoid attracting a serial litigant who sees your facility as being an “easy target” is to become 100% compliant, to have all the appearance of compliance.

Comment below and share your thoughts on this!

If you want more tips on accessibility you can go here: Accommodation Compliance Rules and Regulations. Or you can reach us at 866 982 3212 or email us at help@accesssolutionllc.com.

Here is a very interesting story about service animals and places of public accommodation:

Christy Gardner, who was a driven athlete at Edward Little High School in Auburn and at Long Island College in New York, found basic training at Fort Leonard Wood a breeze.

She cruised through military police training before being deployed to the demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea.

But she suffered a traumatic brain injury during police operations there, and even the most basic tasks became challenging, even dangerous. “My medical records said I was not allowed to bathe alone, in case I had a seizure,” said Gardner, 28.

With brain damage that makes her prone to terrible seizures, Gardner lays credits for her ability to live alone squarely at the four furry feet of her golden retriever, Moxie.

Moxie, a service dog, can sense her owner’s grand mal seizures 10 minutes before they hit, and warn her to sit on the ground so she doesn’t injure herself falling.

Moxie can pull blankets off Gardner so she doesn’t choke during a seizure in bed, and is trained to roll her on her side and dial 911 on a special, large-button cell phone. She even can open the door, run to a neighbor’s home and ring the doorbell for help in an emergency.

So Gardner was startled when she entered a Portland convenience store last summer to get Moxie some water and the owner ordered them to leave, then walked toward them, his hands outstretched, to herd them from the store.

Gardner was frightened, mostly for Moxie. “If something happened to her physically, I have to find a live-in nurse or I have to live in a (nursing) home,” Gardner said.

You can read more from The Portland Press Herald. I sourced it from this Twitter: Service Dog Registry of the United States.

EDIT:

An additional story:

An Aurora man has sued the International House of Pancakes, saying employees at the popular breakfast restaurant discriminated against him because he uses a service dog.

The suit, filed in Kane County Court, alleges that Ricky Lee Schopp went to the IHOP restaurant on Augusta Way in Aurora on June 30, 2009, with his mother and his service dog, Phato. Schopp is paralyzed from the waist down and uses a wheelchair. Phato, a Labrador retriever, helps with certain skills, like opening doors.

At first, Schopp, his mother and the dog were seated at a table by the IHOP hostess, the suit says. However, not long after they sat down, an IHOP employee demanded they move to a different section of the restaurant that had no other customers, forcing them to eat alone, the suit says. The employee said the reason for the changing tables was that Schopp had a dog with him.

After being informed that it was a service dog, the employee still insisted they move or leave the restaurant, the suit alleges. Schopp chose to leave the restaurant.

You can also read this additional story of a Man from Aurora suing an IHOP for the same denial of service From: the Beacon News.

Service Dog Registry is a volunteer registry for Service Animals. It is NOT required. For more information about Service Dogs you can turn to United States Service Dog Registry.

Any questions about accessibility in general, feel free to call 866 982 3212 and help@accesssolutionllc.com.