Comments on: One Size Fits All: Not Just A Good Idea; It’s The Law.

By: Mimmian

Mimmian — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 04:09:11 +0000

“…if I was a small business owner who was about to open a new restaurant, I would probably ensure that it was accessible. Bad lawsuits may make good public policy.”

Here’s the problem with that, John. We’ve had many clients over the years spend countless thousands with private ADA “certifiers” (no public agency exists to provide such certification) only to find themselves on the business end of one of these P.O.S. lawsuits.

The requirements are so unbelievably vague that I would venture a guess that it is impossible to attain any meaningful degree of certainty of full compliance. Because as soon as one of those wheelchair nazis (yes, I used the “n” word) rolls in with a tape measure & clipboard, the only certainty is that you will be sued… and lose.

And with the f’ing ridiculous plaintiff-friendly laws in CA, the business is screwed no matter how much effort they made to “comply.” A business could install a $100K wheelchair lift and a full-time staff member to wipe the arses of these people, but If the mirror is hung an inch too high or too low, it is an instant win for the wheelchair nazi and his atty, with damages automatically awarded to the former and fees to the latter.

The business gets no opportunity to remedy, no chance of defense. So, no — bad lawsuits to not make good public policy… at least not in these cases.

By: John

John — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:18:40 +0000

I don’t know enough about this case to comment on its merits, so I think that the majority opinion that it is rather frivolous is probably correct. However, I remember having a discussion with a law school buddy of mine regarding the then popular lawsuits suing McDonald’s over a client’s obesity. While I thought that such cases were an abuse of the system, she pointed out that while the cases may not have merit, they serve to create a policy environment that influences businesses to make decisions more in the public interest. Not sure if anyone’s been to a McD’s recently, but on a recent visit I noticed that they’ve started putting nutrition information on the labels as well as offering more low-calorie options. Probably not coincidence.

Similarly, If I was a current small business owner I would definitely find this lawsuit problematic, costly, and threatening. On the other hand, if I was a small business owner who was about to open a new restaurant, I would probably ensure that it was accessible. Bad lawsuits may make good public policy.

By: tipper

tipper — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:57:37 +0000

Kimberly Block is only “disabled” because she is morbidly obese…
If you are a person that files frivolous lawsuits and attempts to cheat local businesses out of money, especially when they’ve made efforts to help you, then society will fight back…

Kimberly Block’s address is: [deleted]

Don’t. Fucking. Do. That. Here. EVER. — Ken

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:35:21 +0000

People like this need to be black balled from all restaurants in their city. Black ball ever single one of them and prevent them from ever eating out (Right to refuse Service). A coalition of all the restaurants that don’t tolerate leeches like Kimberly Block and her lawyer.

By: Not Me

Not Me — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:30:26 +0000

The day that scumbag enters my establishment, I’ll go out of business. Now, who wins?

We, as Americans, live under so many laws that we can’t possibly read all of them in our lifetime. So many of them conflict that it is impossible to abide by all of them, ever. The point I’m trying to make here is, if you want to find a problem, you can. And, some people make it their business to find problems instead of being positive, productive members of society.

If Travis has not yet found a new location for his restraunt, maybe he should consider moving out of state. I hear Nevada is nice…

I would be willing to bet that Kimberly Block has never had a squeeze burger and never will. What has she won here, other than money? To me, this is the real crime.

By: marie

marie — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:43:09 +0000

She probably has never been there in her life, may have seen it on the Foodnetwork and said ahhh Another Sucker. Nothing will become of your “blood money”, you may be enjoying it now, but you will reap what you sow, and it will bury you, literally, as John said get a job and leave hard working people the hell alone…why dont you try cooking at home, maybe we should visit your home and counter sue because the toilet it too low or your home is a hazard for us……….

By: tippymama

tippymama — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:27:15 +0000

she is disgusting. Only once we raise our voices against losers like this will anything EVER change.

By: environmental goddess

environmental goddess — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:32:47 +0000

Ms. Block needs to travel outside of the United States.
I have traveled extensively out of the country and NO WHERE are there as many accomodations for people with disabilites as there are in the US.
Try curbs without ramped areas, try renting an accessible van, try going into a restaurant or renting a hotel room without having to remove the bathroom door so that you gain access. try getting into any bathroom.
What’s next Ms. Block??? Suing a major airline because your wheelchair will not fit down the aisle of the plane? I forgot, airlines are exempt from the ADA.
The Squeeze Inn is not yor cash cow. You need to look for employment.
I personally know everyone at the Squeeze Inn and they would have been more than accomodating had you asked. They would ahve taken your order and delivered it to you outside at the table. As far as access to the inside, one must arrive at 10am in order to get a seat. I don’t see John and Jane Public suing because they do not have access to the inside of the restaurant.
I believe that you picked on the WRONG restaurant this time!

By: Trudi Alexander

Trudi Alexander — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:06:26 +0000

This just makes me sick. When laws are written with no leeway we the people suffer. To ruin a business at the sake of just to prove a point is perverted. I truly understand the need for handicapped people to have access to vital places but how can one construe that eating a beloved hamburger place is vital to ones exisitance? Kimbery Block and Jason Singleton should be heartily ashamed of themselves. I hope a giant burger gobbles them up.

By: sierra nevada Gold

sierra nevada Gold — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:12:35 +0000

I feel like society is afraid to say anything about this because they don’t want to say anything hurtful about disabled peoples.
Anyone can be spiteful, hurtful, money hungry, conniving and manipulative. Regardless if it is on two feet or two wheels.

By: glo

glo — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:35:47 +0000

for God’s sake why don’t you order take out and leave the small businesses alone, its lawyers and people like you who cause mayhem.

By: Mimmian

Mimmian — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:29:34 +0000

A correction to my earlier comment:

While the basic element of private enforcement comes from the Feds, CA’s own Unruh Civil Rights Act. In part, and what makes it so attractive to the lovely attorney/wheelchair teams, is that it will award payouts without “needing to allege the slightest psychic or physical trauma, or even inconvenience.”

By: Mimmian

Mimmian — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:04:36 +0000

Patrick • Jul 9, 2009 @4:18 pm:
The ADA absolutely is federally mandated. It is federal law, and will be enforced, most stringently, in a federal court. Treating the ADA as a suggestion, in the face of a federal suit, is like treating the tax code as “voluntary.”

Patrick, while the ADA laws originate at the federal level, this whole “private enforcement” farce is within California’s own ADA laws. As such, the potential for solution is at the state level as well. But for a variety of “reasons,” the state legislature has failed to fix this mess.
http://www.legislativedisgrace.com/thelatestsb855.html

Your analogy to the tax code is faulty. A private citizen can not sue another for failure to file a tax return. Nor does such a failure to file land you automatically in court with a bunch of horse-ca-ca fines shoved up your… nose. No — you get ample opportunity to correct an issue before things get even remotely close to what these ADA crooks are pulling off.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:18:52 +0000

Ken (not to be confused with the author who writes here by that name):

The ADA absolutely is federally mandated. It is federal law, and will be enforced, most stringently, in a federal court.

Treating the ADA as a suggestion, in the face of a federal suit, is like treating the tax code as “voluntary.” Mind you, making business access available to the disabled is good policy, to some extent, and good business if the cost is reasonable, but the ADA takes the decision out of the realm of policy or business. It’s law. Like the tax code, treating it as optional is a bad mistake.

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:12:03 +0000

To the best of my knowledge ADA is not Federally Mandated – it’s suggested. If this were a civil or building code infraction at any level, she wouldn’t have to file in civil court. Ms Block could just point to the infraction and they’d be shut down by the appropriate authorities. Most jurisdictions treat ADA and its beafed up California add-ons (Caldag) as if they were code requirements simply because they’re afraid of somebody like Ms Block doing just this type of thing to them. This is little more than legalized extortion and just such charges should be investigated against Ms Block and her attorney.