CASp inspections, Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance
The Burbank Association of Realtors is hosting a expo for multi-family dwelling owners and managers.
We are presenting a talk on how accessibility impacts such sites.
The date is on the 19th of October at 5pm at 2006 West Magnolia Boulevard, Burbank, CA 91506-1730.
If you have any questions don’t hesitate to contact us at 866 982 3212 or email us at help@accesssolutionllc.com
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.
NEW YORK, Aug 8 (Reuters) – A deaf man has filed a complaint alleging a nudist organization in upstate New York violated federal law by refusing to provide him with a sign-language interpreter at an annual festival.
Tom Willard, 53, of Rochester, said in a complaint filed with the U.S. Justice Department that Empire Haven Nudist Park violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by repeatedly refusing his requests for an interpreter so he could attend workshops during the week-long festival.
“I am fed up with being turned away every time I try to do something, by idiots who somehow feel the ADA does not apply to them,” Willard wrote in the complaint.
The ADA, which took effect in 1990, requires businesses and non-profit groups to provide “auxiliary aids and services,” including interpreters, at no additional cost to an individual. First-time violations can result in fines of up to $55,000.
Willard said in an interview that in 2009 he approached Morley Schloss, a board member of the Naturist Society, which organized the festival. Schloss told Willard to hire his own interpreter and said the interpreter would not have to pay entry fees for the event, Willard said. On Aug. 2 — the day this year’s festival began — Willard said Schloss told him his group would need three days notice to provide the service.
“The interpreter I located was ready and able to do the job, so why a three-day waiting period, as if I were buying a gun or something,” Willard said.
Willard said he has no intention of suing the nudist park, and he’s simply trying to raise awareness about groups that ignore ADA requirements. He said he is also filing a complaint against a local comedy club that refused to provide him with an interpreter.
“I hate that I have to go through these experiences and subject myself to ridicule and derision, but the alternative is to stay home and never try to do anything in the world,” Willard said.
Michael Schwartz, the director of Syracuse University College of Law’s disability rights clinic, who is deaf and has known Willard for two decades, said businesses often ignore their responsibilities under the ADA because it can be cheaper not to comply.
“Because of the cost (of interpreters), many places choose to say ‘no’ even though it violates the ADA because they are making a calculated choice that they’ll get away with it,” Schwartz wrote in an e-mail.
A spokeswoman for Empire Haven, which is in the Finger Lakes region, was not available for comment, and Schloss did not return multiple requests for comment.
But in an e-mail provided by Willard, Schloss said he had only heard about the complaint when a reporter called him last week.
“I responded promptly as soon as I was made aware of [Willard’s] request,” Schloss wrote in the e-mail. “We have always welcomed deaf people at Naturist events.”
(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner)
You can get the original link: [Thompson Reuters]
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]
CASp, the Certified Access Specialist Program offers a variety of benefits to businesses that get a CASp certification. The advantages can be further gleamed from the California Chamber of Commerce website [link: Advantages of CASp for businesses]. The main advantages of CASp certification are many (including a 90 day stay and a limit of $4k per effected violation per visit). Yet because CASp is California law and the ADA is Federal law, many business owners we’ve talked with are concerned about the effectiveness of SB1608. Business owners concerned about Federal Court sGuits often ask:
“Is CASp worth getting?”
A recent court case provides a real life example of this issue. A business which had CASp certification was sued in Federal Court. Now, Federal judges do not have to honor the California law, for instance, they do not have to grant the 90 day stay. This judge chose not to.
So, is CASp worth it?
Keep in mind that the differences between Federal and State court for ADA lawsuits are many. We can’t go over these things exhaustively but we will outline the general principles at this current time. Keep in mind that your case is unique and if you are under a lawsuit you must consult an attorney, don’t rely on this post for advice — this article is covering a topic. We are not giving legal advice.
If you are sued in Federal Court, you have the possibility of fixing the issue in question in order to make the lawsuit go away. Also, if you offer to settle and the plaintiff attorney refuses the settlement and you fix the issue, you may not have to pay for their attorneys fees (the judge may waive those damages).
In California Court, you fixing the issue in question doesn’t make the issue go away. Violations valid at the time of the encounter remain violations for which damages under the Unruh Act automatically entitle the plaintiff party $4k. Furthermore, the Unruh Act also specifies that attorneys fees will be paid.
So while CASp can’t provide coverage into areas of Federal law, it does provide some stronger incentives for plaintiffs to sue a CASp business under Federal Court. If the plaintiff takes you to California court, CASp goes into effect, and you can go straight to arbitration. However, they take you to Federal Court, you may still get arbitration… if you don’t, your fighting chances are better — you can STILL fix the issue in question and win the suit that way… an option we are told, is not available in California Court.
So overall, in answering the question above, the answer is:
YES!
Without CASp, a savvy plaintiff will take you to California Court, in which you will pay the same $4k plus attorney’s fees (potentially tens of thousands of dollars). With CASp you either pay $4k at most, or you can go to Federal court and have a chance at making the issue go away. Get CASp now to cover yourself!
Any questions or concerns? Call us at 866 982 3212 or email us at help@accesssolutionllc.com.
I used to work largely doing web development. I didn’t design the look of websites, I built them — from the ground up. I made sure the technical back end worked properly. In fact I still do it, but mostly for YTA.
What’s interesting about working with programmers and other free lance technicians much holds true for many architects and contractors. While construction and design is different from web development, there’s a similar mentality as both are a kind of engineering.
Sometimes your independent contractor will get a request from a prospective client to do something new. They would know enough that this particular thing could be done — but not know how. Nonetheless they would lie and bullshit and agree to do everything. The general mentality is to go home and spend the next 72 hours agonizing over a book trying to learn how to do what it is you’ve requested of them. The funny part about this is that often these free lance consultants would charge you a ton of money and quote you a huge amount of time. So not only do they want to have time to get it right, they also want to charge you for making them learn something new.
With this in mind I would like to introduce to you the California Division of State Architect‘s access compliance manual.
While this manual consists of largely technical information, such as occupancy type, and a re-printing of what is otherwise in the California Building Code, it does include some helpful dimensions on many of the specific measurements we perform. The application of those measurements and their types may be a little confusing.
This code reference, however, isn’t completely up to date. Included in the checklist is a regulatory list of applicable dimensions and requirements. It’s up to the consultant to decide if they apply. The issue with this checklist though, is that it doesn’t include the latest ADA 2010 — only the older ADA of 1992.
Most likely, a construction or design expert wouldn’t turn to the DSA, as the DSA is a state entity.
To complicate things further, if your building had not been altered since say, 2002, then the building code of 2001 may actually apply — but the ADA 2010 also applies, meaning he would have to cross-reference texts anyway.
In either case, before you hire anyone for your ADA needs, if you have the time, I would urge you to look at the Division State Architect’s Access Manual and get a taste for the complexity involved.
All of this cross-referencing and page flipping means more billable hours to you. Not only that, but why not hire someone who is already familiar with these different codes and regulations? The problem isn’t in using reference materials — no one can remember every number exactly, and the codes are always changing. The problem is the general familiarity of the application. How can someone catch all the nuances if they don’t know the basic applicability?
In this case, hiring someone who is new to this field will not only cost you more in money, but also in liability. If they miss something or interpret something incorrectly, it’s your lawsuit. Why not go with someone who is familiar with the risk?
Any questions or concerns? Call us at 866 982 3212 or email us at help@accesssolutionllc.com.
This blog is about how people who have control over a building situation can achieve ada accommodations. So we are very heavy on focusing with the end result of what is a long process in construction and design.
We talk much about the requirements of the code, interpretations and the law for disabled access. But in the pursuit of cost effective reasonable accommodations, we shouldn’t lose sight of what disabled access is for. With the focus on cost, business doesn’t always make the best of what is world populated by humans with human need.
Quoting Mia on her latest blog: Cant rock the boat hell if we have to well sink it
Over the life of this blog ,it has been my intention to shine a light on any person or group who takes money or gets kudos for being advocates and angels for the disabled community but in reality are more the problem than the cure.
The reality of the code is that there are people who need those requirements. The requirements of the code here in the United States have been the result of years of study through the access-board, and represent the best cost-benefit analysis that government can offer between minimum cost and maximum benefit.
So while this entry isn’t so much about specific numbers here, I do want to remind you all, before we get back to our normal stream of access tips that the end result of any disabled compliance needs to be of benefit to the people who would use it. Another quote:
Another example, a internist who proclaims she is disabled friendly with full access and expert at all medical problems pertaining to life in a wheelchair, we arrive her doorways are too small for chairs her toilet door has a 14 inch step and she proclaims that I shouldn’t complain and be thankful for what ever i get? Folks it’s bad when doctors or advocates are taking government money or worse taking ours and they know nothing or even worse they don’t give a damn, but I have started to receive notes from parents telling me not to rock the boat, they’ll put up with second best the doctor is “really nice” he is incompetent but nice? If parents don’t stand and yell ”hell no” who will? The kid in the chair can’t stand at all, a baby with cerebal palsy can’t scream help. We cannot tolerate incompetence, were not fixing a car that can have the engine replaced, its our life, it’s the life of our children. If these so called experts don’t know a damn thing i dont care if they can put on puppet shows, let them do them for someone else but their not getting their incompetent hands on our most precious posessions our loved ones
Mia’s writings aren’t for everyone, as there’s plenty of strong emotion in there — and no wonder — considering how misunderstood disabled access is! We’ve heard the horror stories of individuals who go up and down streets suing businesses for disabled access — now while Mia and the millions of others like her (who are disabled and angry) don’t do this — only a handful do — you do begin to get a sense of where this frustration can lead to in the hands of a few explosive individuals.
If you want to understand more from her point of view, that of your average disabled patron, please take a look at her blog Disabled Access Denied. Otherwise, we will return to the regular accessibility tips in the next few days.
The Covina Redevelopment Center and the Covina Chamber of Commerce are hosting us as one of two speakers at their Business Builder Seminar breakfast on June 21, 2011.
The event is free to the public.
This event is being held at: Hamilton’s Steak House: 1211 E. Garvey St., Covina, CA.
Not only is this event free, breakfast is included!
We start at 8am and end at 930am.
Please RSVP by June 14 to Cyndie Petersen at 626 – 384 – 5440.
Hope to see you there!
This event was cancelled.
Our next speaking event will be for the Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce on June 7, 2011.
The presentation will be: Avoid Accessibility Lawsuits
From 11:30 to 1pm at Buca Di Beppo
11757 Harbor Blvd in Anaheim, CA
See you for lunch!