News: A matter of access or money?

http://www.pointbuzz.com/news.htm?id=1092

The 63K is just a drop in the bucket, it's all the renovations they'd have to do that would cost them the most.

"Since August, Disabled Patriots of America Inc. and one of its members, "tester" Bonnie Kramer of Cleveland Heights, have sued at least 29 Cleveland-area businesses and the city of Shaker Heights in U.S. District Court, alleging they have restrooms, parking spaces, counters, water fountains, ramps and other facilities that violate the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. .... It contains 18 alleged ADA violations noted by Kramer, including her complaint that the urinals in the men's restroom are substandard."

So Ms. Kramer is alleging that the "mens" urinals are substandard? I'd like to know how "she" got in the mens room to find out.

A copy of the lawsuit is available here:

http://www.pointbuzz.com/news/cedarpointada.pdf

Here's to hoping that this gets them to renovate the restrooms before they have planned.

I'm not sure I agree with the way these lawsuits are being implemented. But, I have a friend who is now paralyzed after being struck by a car in NYC. So, I'm all for the ADA. Being a designer, I have to comply with the ADA all the time. Its not usually a lot to do, it just takes forethought.

What I'm wondering is why a guy who's paralyzed and can't walk would care if the urinals are handicap accessible?

Vending Machines aren't handicapped accessible?

*** Edited 3/18/2007 1:25:15 AM UTC by JuggaLotus***

What exactly is a handicapped accessible urinal for that matter?

Where exactly are vending machines in the park that aren't in a queue? Handicapped people would not be in the queues anyhow.

Where it talks about not all goods and services being accesible what about rides such as cedar downs or mantis where a paralized person would not be able to ride? Are they suggesting those rides should be altered so that there is a seat they can use?

I've personally rejected several guests because I didn't feel that they could ride safely because of their handicap. Does this mean I should be sued because I treated them unfairly?

Cedar Fair is in no danger, but the ADA has resulted in many companies going belly up over trivial lawsuits. In one case that I know of, a store upgraded their bathroom to get closer to the ADA code, but ultimately didn't have enough room to get fully compliant. They tried their best to help those stuck in a wheelchair out, but ended up getting sued over being off by about an inch. That isn't a service to society, that is greed and a disservice.

A lot of places simply do not have the money to face a legal battle.

Since i seen that they are lawsuits and they never worked with the companys they have the lawsuits for, it all for the money. I hate saying that but its true. If i was the companys i would say why wasnt we told of this and why we being sued for someting as crazy as this. All these ADA people need to do is call the health departments or fire code people and say hey we need this and they dont have it can you do something. Instead of suing. I got a feeling they wont last in court once a smart jury and judge catches what they are doing. I hate to see people who are disabled having trouble using stuff but when some take it to court instead of working with companys it makes me think why are they doing this. I know that all Cedar Fair Parks have wheel chair restrooms as made by law. I also saw that the lawyers was forced to take the companys to court. They never worked with them to get the stuff. These lawyers need to be told if you dont work with them then you cant sue. Work with the companys 1st. And suing 20 something companys kinda makes me wonder also. And they are also in a certin area. I kinda wonder if its about money and not making sure things are fixed. I hate saying that but i am just reading what it says.
*** Edited 3/18/2007 6:40:16 AM UTC by Dalefan329***

Everyone is looking at this as a way for a lawyer to make more money. The courts don't care who, if anyone, is making any money. They are there to uphold the law no matter why it's being brought forth.

If you look at the legality of the lawsuit without any regards to why it's being submitted, the ADA-ABA will win every time. So no matter who or how much money is being made on these lawsuits they're going to be victorious each and every time they're filed. Yes, it's easy money for an attorney. I'm sure every day at work you try and skim a few minutes here or there for yourself, that's no different than what these lawyers are doing.

You're still making money when you go screw off wherever it is you screw off, so these attorneys are trying to make some easy money too. It's sounds more like a jealous bunch of people that can't make as much money as the next guy when he takes the easy way out.

We all have to remember that this has nothing to do with who's making money, it's about the legality of what the company that is being sued is practicing. Companies take this chance every day by not updating their facilities. It's the chance they're willing to assume and now a company that we tend to love got their hands stuck in the cookie jar.

Consider it this way. You were told over ten years ago that if you didn't comply with a particular regulation that it may come back to cost you lots of money and time. Well, here's the time. They dodged the bullet for this long, now they got caught and are required to meet these standards. It's a pretty cut and dry case.

If you want to read all about the regulations, follow this LINK.

There's even a specific section for amusement rides.

*** Edited 3/18/2007 3:49:46 PM UTC by Loopy***

JuggaLotus said:What I'm wondering is why a guy who's paralyzed and can't walk would care if the urinals are handicap accessible?

You don't have to be in a wheelchair to be disabled. The ADA covers everything. Most people in the design industry now call it "universal design" or "universal access". That means you're designing spaces to be accessible to everyone. That includes old people that can't grip round handles or people on crutches that WOULD use a urinal.

Like Loopy said, businesses have known about the ADA for YEARS. If they've decided not to do the upgrades, then its their own fault for getting caught. To me, its like a company deciding they don't want to pay taxes or give employees breaks. Its the law and you have to abide by it. God forbid one of you would ever need the ADA and its assistance.

No where in that lawsuit were rides mentioned. It was all about "little" things like parking and bathrooms. This like that are simple to fix and they should've done so a long time ago.

As I understand it, the problem is that these lawyers are not concerned with the ADA, but with winning settlements. A lot of times, the business first hears about the complaint in the lawsuit itself. The offended party should contact the business first. If you were disabled and had a problem with a business, would step #1 be to file a lawsuit in federal court?

In the article, there's a quote from Janna Starr, who is the director of disability rights at the nonprofit Disability Policy Collaboration: "The suits themselves may be legitimate, but the way they are being brought is kind of sleazy. They really only benefit the lawyers — there's no recovery (of damages) for plaintiffs under these types of (lawsuits)."

Walt said:
As I understand it, the problem is that these lawyers are not concerned with the ADA, but with winning settlements.

Right, and DA's are really concerned about their clients they defend. I've never met an attorney that was sincerely concerned with their client. Why? Because they're there to make money, PERIOD. Like most businesses, lawyers are viewed by their winning percentage, just as most stores are judged by their customer satisfaction and value. People are willing to pay a little more for better customer satisfaction.

But the plaintiffs can also file a separate suit for punitive damages. Because this is being filed in conjunction with a "Not-For-Profit" organization they can't recover any money. The only thing that's being asked for are the lawyer fees and it's obvious that the judges are looking at how much they're charging because they changed an amount in one ruling.

Well, lawyer fees, and they want the problems fixed. I think it's pretty legitimate, the lawyers that are filing these charges are just the ones ahead of the game, in my eyes. They're filing cases that they know they can win, if that's sleazy to you then you're not a very ambitious businessman. I'll take a guaranteed win any time.

I don't need to be sleazy to make money or be successful. Finding loopholes and being a step below an ambulance chaser is not the same as being ambitious. These lawyers are abusing the system, and a system designed to protect disabled persons at that. They're not shrewd, intelligent, or reputable. To say this is no different than any other attorney or business who is out to make a buck is ridiculous. They're certainly not people I would look up to, and I would question the ethics of anyone who did.

Why does the attorney have to care about his/her client?

Why does the client care about what kind of money the attorney makes?

The attorney is making his/her case and winning, exactly what their job is.

The client is getting what he/she/they want, the problem fixed.

Why is it so difficult for people to realize we live in such a cynical world and it all revolves around the dollar?

Apparently what these law professionals are doing -- and I call them so because real lawyers have it hammered into their heads throughout law school how important it is to faithfully represent their clients' interests -- is legal. As Bryan pointed out, most activities in the legal field and the greater economy are financially driven. The similarity ends there, however.

Most other pursuits, or at least those engaged in honestly and fairly, have as their basis an exhange of service for compensation. I only know a few lawyers, but it seems to me that most attorneys -- and certainly district attorneys, who do a thankless job for less than fair market value -- really do care about the welfare of their clients. They're people, just like you and me, and they care about their jobs and performing them with integrity as much as the next guy.

In this case, there is no quid pro quo (like my legalese? ;) ) exchange of service for compensation. These law professionals grab for whatever low-hanging fruit they can snatch from these (largely) innocent and well-meaning businesses, then keep all the proceeds for themselves. Since the ADA violations they sue over are mostly minor, technical, or cosmetic in nature, at the most they result in only minor, technical, or cosmetic improvements that add no real value to their clients' quality of life.

As I said, this is apparently legal. But in no way does that make the behavior moral.

Thats the problem with a lot of people these days. They could give a crap or not if something is "moral" all they care about is themselves and making money. Like these lawyers care wheather or not the suits they are bringing up are stupid or not all they care about is making money and making a name for themselves. I have been to Cedar Point and for the most part the park isn't really insensitive to those who are handicapped. *** Edited 3/18/2007 10:16:05 PM UTC by Maverick4337***

By the way, Maverick4337, welcome to Pointbuzz. :)