Landmark calif. Burger joint forced to shut down over ada lawsuit

DA60 · Oct 10, 2012

'A decades-old Sacramento, Calif. burger joint is shutting its doors for being out of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act because the owner says he can’t afford to bring it up to code.

Ford’s Real Hamburgers has been slinging burgers, fries and shakes for years, but was hit hard in the recession. Now, KTXL-TV is reporting that a local attorney who makes his living filing ADA cases — many on his own behalf — is suing the restaurant — and Ford‘s can’t keep up.'

Sacramento California Landmark Ford’s Real Hamburgers Forced to Shut Down Over ADA Lawsuit | Video | TheBlaze.com

DA60 · Oct 10, 2012

Interesting.

Seems like a petty lawsuit to me.

NitroHangover · Oct 10, 2012

Maaaaaaaan, that really sucks. I grew up in south Sacramento and I ate there many times when I was a kid.

Scott Johnson is a well-known scumbag chickenhawk who pretends to do what he does for noble reasons when he's really just serving himself. He is his firm's ONLY client. I saw him on the news just a few days ago because 4 women in his office are suing him for sexual harassment and wrongful termination. Good, what goes around comes around. I hope they clean him out. This guy has filed over 2,000 lawsuits against small businesses in Northern and Central CA, for failing to be up to ADA code standards, even when the buildings were built decades before those codes existed. He literally just travels the state and looks for places to sue. This is how he makes his living. He cripples (no pun) these businesses and MANY have had to shut down because getting up to code would have meant remodeling their entire building.

My uncle is a property developer, and has been sued a couple of times by this asshole because of buildings that my late Grandpa built back in the 80's.

Here's the scoop on this guy:
Disabled lawyer Scott Johnson cranks out ADA lawsuits | SierraSun.com

AliHajiSheik · Oct 10, 2012

NitroHangover said:
Maaaaaaaan, that really sucks. I grew up in south Sacramento and I ate there many times when I was a kid.

Scott Johnson is a well-known scumbag chickenhawk who pretends to do what he does for noble reasons when he's really just serving himself. He is his firm's ONLY client. I saw him on the news just a few days ago because 4 women in his office are suing him for sexual harassment and wrongful termination. Good, what goes around comes around. I hope they clean him out. This guy has filed over 2,000 lawsuits against small businesses in Northern and Central CA, for failing to be up to ADA code standards, even when the buildings were built decades before those codes existed. He literally just travels the state and looks for places to sue. This is how he makes his living. He cripples (no pun) these businesses and MANY have had to shut down because getting up to code would have meant remodeling their entire building.

My uncle is a property developer, and has been sued a couple of times by this asshole because of buildings that my late Grandpa built back in the 80's.

Here's the scoop on this guy:
Disabled lawyer Scott Johnson cranks out ADA lawsuits | SierraSun.com

Easy solution: The State of California can take over the burger joint and spend the money needed to make the necessary adjustments. Everyone is now happy.

Kreton · Oct 10, 2012

DA60 said:
'A decades-old Sacramento, Calif. burger joint is shutting its doors for being out of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act because the owner says he can’t afford to bring it up to code.

Ford’s Real Hamburgers has been slinging burgers, fries and shakes for years, but was hit hard in the recession. Now, KTXL-TV is reporting that a local attorney who makes his living filing ADA cases — many on his own behalf — is suing the restaurant — and Ford‘s can’t keep up.'

Sacramento California Landmark Ford’s Real Hamburgers Forced to Shut Down Over ADA Lawsuit | Video | TheBlaze.com

Federal Government passed law that people are able to exploit for their own gain......imagine that.

Muddy Creek · Oct 10, 2012

muciti said:
Federal Government passed law that people are able to exploit for their own gain......imagine that.

No. The laws are in place to stop discrimination against people with disabilities. Scum bags are everywhere. Even the Republican controlled the Congress they passed laws allowing only THEM, the ones who pass the funds for projects, to have insider trading information made legal for them only

Loki97 · Oct 10, 2012

The ADA was passed in 1990. If we are to believe the owner of the establishment did not have the funds to bring his restroom into compliance in a span of 22 years, it sounds like the business wasn't going to be around long anyway.

jambalaya · Oct 10, 2012

The problem with bringing some of these buildling up to code is that more room is required to build the larger toilets. Small places like this joint probably can't comply unless they add on to the building then there is a matter of access to the added structure. I know in South Carolina code officials to make exceptions for older buildings. I wonder if you have to have an ADA toilet if you are a take out only business?

Muddy Creek · Oct 10, 2012

jambalaya said:
The problem with bringing some of these buildling up to code is that more room is required to build the larger toilets. Small places like this joint probably can't comply unless they add on to the building then there is a matter of access to the added structure. I know in South Carolina code officials to make exceptions for older buildings. I wonder if you have to have an ADA toilet if you are a take out only business?

Given equal access is the issue for the ADA, I doubt it.

Kreton · Oct 10, 2012

Muddy Creek said:
No. The laws are in place to stop discrimination against people with disabilities. Scum bags are everywhere. Even the Republican controlled the Congress they passed laws allowing only THEM, the ones who pass the funds for projects, to have insider trading information made legal for them only

Do you ever stay on topic? You started to here so I'll just reply to that. This has nothing to do with insider trading.

No. The laws are in place to stop discrimination against people with disabilities.

The government has no place to say a business has to have a bathroom or a bathroom with doors so big or anything else. A business owner should have the freedom to have whatever doors they want and let consumers decide if he should stay open by either eating there or not.

Tigger · Oct 10, 2012

Muddy Creek said:
No. The laws are in place to stop discrimination against people with disabilities.

Loki97 said:
The ADA was passed in 1990. If we are to believe the owner of the establishment did not have the funds to bring his restroom into compliance in a span of 22 years, it sounds like the business wasn't going to be around long anyway.

What both of you miss is that the ADA only requires New Buildings and Buildings which are undergoing renovation to meet its criteria. If you have a building built prior to the ADA and you don't renovate it, there is no requirement for you to be handicapped accessible.

Muddy Creek · Oct 10, 2012

Tigger said:
What both of you miss is that the ADA only requires New Buildings and Buildings which are undergoing renovation to meet its criteria. If you have a building built prior to the ADA and you don't renovate it, there is no requirement for you to be handicapped accessible.

That's just not true. I think that's wrong on your part. Heres my link

ADA Accessibility Guidelines

. . .

5. RESTAURANTS AND CAFETERIAS.

5.1* General. Except as specified or modified in this section, restaurants and cafeterias shall comply with the requirements of section 4. Where fixed tables (or dining counters where food is consumed but there is no service) are provided, at least 5 percent, but not less than one, of the fixed tables (or a portion of the dining counter) shall be accessible and shall comply with 4.32 as required in 4.1.3(18). In establishments where separate areas are designated for smoking and non-smoking patrons, the required number of accessible fixed tables (or counters) shall be proportionally distributed between the smoking and non-smoking areas. In new construction, and where practicable in alterations, accessible fixed tables (or counters) shall be distributed throughout the space or facility. Appendix Note

5.2 Counters and Bars. Where food or drink is served at counters exceeding 34 in (865 mm) in height for consumption by customers seated on stools or standing at the counter, a portion of the main counter which is 60 in (1525 mm) in length minimum shall be provided in compliance with 4.32 or service shall be available at accessible tables within the same area.

. . .

What's your source show? What am I missing?

Muddy Creek · Oct 10, 2012

Tigger said:
What both of you miss is that the ADA only requires New Buildings and Buildings which are undergoing renovation to meet its criteria. If you have a building built prior to the ADA and you don't renovate it, there is no requirement for you to be handicapped accessible.

That's just not true. I think that's wrong on your part. Heres my link

ADA Accessibility Guidelines

. . .

5. RESTAURANTS AND CAFETERIAS.

5.1* General. Except as specified or modified in this section, restaurants and cafeterias shall comply with the requirements of section 4. Where fixed tables (or dining counters where food is consumed but there is no service) are provided, at least 5 percent, but not less than one, of the fixed tables (or a portion of the dining counter) shall be accessible and shall comply with 4.32 as required in 4.1.3(18). In establishments where separate areas are designated for smoking and non-smoking patrons, the required number of accessible fixed tables (or counters) shall be proportionally distributed between the smoking and non-smoking areas. In new construction, and where practicable in alterations, accessible fixed tables (or counters) shall be distributed throughout the space or facility. Appendix Note

5.2 Counters and Bars. Where food or drink is served at counters exceeding 34 in (865 mm) in height for consumption by customers seated on stools or standing at the counter, a portion of the main counter which is 60 in (1525 mm) in length minimum shall be provided in compliance with 4.32 or service shall be available at accessible tables within the same area.

. . .

What's your source show? What am I missing?

AliHajiSheik · Oct 10, 2012

Loki97 said:
The ADA was passed in 1990. If we are to believe the owner of the establishment did not have the funds to bring his restroom into compliance in a span of 22 years, it sounds like the business wasn't going to be around long anyway.

This assessment of the burger joints viability is based on how many years of running a business? Ever read a balance sheet or an income statement?

Title III of the ADA is one of the worst written pieces of legislation. For new construction, I know of no argument that facilities should be accommodating, but existing facilities are the issue:

I'll grab a quick quote from Wikipedia:
"The statutory definition of "readily achievable" calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed "fix" and the wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be "readily achievable" for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small or local business."

Harshaw · Oct 10, 2012

Muddy Creek said:
That's just not true. I think that's wrong on your part. Heres my link

ADA Accessibility Guidelines

What's your source show? What am I missing?

What you're missing is the actual text of the law.

The only part of the ADA applicable to facilities in place and not altered before July 1992 has to do with "failure to remove":

(iv) a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities, and transportation barriers in existing vehicles and rail passenger cars used by an establishment for transporting individuals (not including barriers that can only be removed through the retrofitting of vehicles or rail passenger cars by the installation of a hydraulic or other lift), where such removal is readily achievable; and

But as noted, only if it's "readily achievable."

What's "readily achievable"? That, too, is defined within the law.

(9) Readily achievable
The term "readily achievable" means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include

(A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter;
(B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility;
(C) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and
(D) the type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity.

In this case, given the criteria, it appears that the accommodation may indeed NOT be "readily achievable," but it also appears that the owner doesn't have the resources to fight the lawsuit.

Muddy Creek · Oct 10, 2012

AliHajiSheik said:
This assessment of the burger joints viability is based on how many years of running a business? Ever read a balance sheet or an income statement?

Title III of the ADA is one of the worst written pieces of legislation. For new construction, I know of no argument that facilities should be accommodating, but existing facilities are the issue:

I'll grab a quick quote from Wikipedia:
"The statutory definition of "readily achievable" calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed "fix" and the wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be "readily achievable" for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small or local business."

And yet, there are guidelines for businesses who find this access to difficult to do.

ADA: The Limits of Accommodation

. . .

Undue hardship. The burden of proof is on the employer to show that an accommodation request is too expensive, too difficult or too disruptive. There is no monetary limit on accommodation, and undue hardship cases are generally decided on a case-by-case basis. What is considered unreasonable varies greatly and depends on the size and resources of the company. To argue that an accommodation would cause your company an undue hardship, you must have supporting data in the following areas:

The nature and net cost of the accommodation needed. The cost is the actual cost to your company. Specific federal tax credits and deductions are available for accommodations (see below). If you qualify for a tax break or partial funding, only the net cost to you should be considered.

Various financial factors. The financial resources of the facility making the accommodation, the number of employees at the facility and the financial impact of the accommodation all can be considered.

. . .

Muddy Creek · Oct 10, 2012

Harshaw said:
What you're missing is the actual text of the law.

The only part of the ADA applicable to facilities in place and not altered before July 1992 has to do with "failure to remove":

But as noted, only if it's "readily achievable."

What's "readily achievable"? That, too, is defined within the law.

In this case, given the criteria, it appears that the accommodation may indeed NOT be "readily achievable," but it also appears that the owner doesn't have the resources to fight the lawsuit.

As are filing hardships with the government evidenced in my last post. Bottomline is, if you serve the pubic, you can't discriminate.

Tigger · Oct 10, 2012

Muddy Creek said:
What's your source show? What am I missing?

How about Section 1 of your same source. Literally the first text in the statute.....

This document contains scoping and technical requirements for accessibility to buildings and facilities by individuals with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. These scoping and technical requirements are to be applied during the design, construction, and alteration of buildings and facilities covered by titles II and III of the ADA to the extent required by regulations issued by Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation, under the ADA.

The statute does not require the retrofitting of existing facilities, unless the facility is being altered. Once the building is being materially altered in such a way that the Building Department becomes involved, the entire building must be brought into compliance with the ADA. As for how I know this?...... I've worked for a Commercial Architect.

Harshaw · Oct 10, 2012

Muddy Creek said:
As are filing hardships with the government evidenced in my last post. Bottomline is, if you serve the pubic, you can't discriminate.

I see; I give you the actual law, instead of your "guidelines," and your response is "nuh-uh." You responded to it within a minute, so I doubt very much you even read the post.

Muddy Creek · Oct 10, 2012

Tigger said:
How about Section 1 of your same source. Literally the first text in the statute.....

The statute does not require the retrofitting of existing facilities, unless the facility is being altered. Once the building is being materially altered in such a way that the Building Department becomes involved, the entire building must be brought into compliance with the ADA. As for how I know this?...... I've worked for a Commercial Architect.

Me, too. And that's not true.

There's something undefensible in using yourself as a source. how about a link?

Muddy Creek · Oct 10, 2012

Harshaw said:
I see; I give you the actual law, instead of your "guidelines," and your response is "nuh-uh." You responded to it within a minute, so I doubt very much you even read the post.

I read the actual law. I posted it.

ADA Accessibility Guidelines

Guidelines for buildings and facilities

ADA Accessibility Guidelines

4.14 Entrances.

4.14.1 Minimum Number. Entrances required to be accessible by 4.1 shall be part of an accessible route complying with 4.3. Such entrances shall be connected by an accessible route to public transportation stops, to accessible parking and passenger loading zones, and to public streets or sidewalks if available (see 4.3.2(1)). They shall also be connected by an accessible route to all accessible spaces or elements within the building or facility.

Tigger · Oct 10, 2012

Muddy Creek said:
There's something undefensible in using yourself as a source. how about a link?

My source for the quoted text was your prior link. As I said, Section 1 of the same document that you had quoted in your own post.

Muddy Creek · Oct 10, 2012

From the article

. . .

Ford’s Real Hamburgers has been slinging burgers, fries and shakes for years, but was hit hard in the recession. Now, KTXL-TV is reporting that a local attorney who makes his living filing ADA cases — many on his own behalf — is suing the restaurant — and Ford‘s can’t keep up.

“We scrimped and saved and cut down the staff. I’m down to six employees,” owner Hank Vereschzagin told KTXL.

As the station noted, Ford’s is indeed out of ADA compliance: There isn’t enough room to roll into the bathroom in a wheelchair. But Vereschzagin said he just doesn’t have the money to fix the more than 60-year-old building.

. . .

This guys was in financial trouble to begin with. And there are clear violations to a law that has been in effect for 22 years. You make your money serving the public, you serve them all.

Muddy Creek · Oct 10, 2012

Tigger said:
My source for the quoted text was your prior link. As I said, Section 1 of the same document that you had quoted in your own post.

Then make it relevant to the story. You're just picking to fight a strawman and it ain't gonna happen.

Harshaw · Oct 10, 2012

Muddy Creek said:
I read the actual law. I posted it.

ADA Accessibility Guidelines

Guidelines for buildings and facilities

ADA Accessibility Guidelines

No you didn't. You posted a summary, the "guidelines." I linked to the actual law, above, and quoted from it.

That you don't know the difference explains MUCH.

Why don't you go into the actual law and show where buildings existing and not being altered prior to July 1992 are covered, except as how I noted? If you want to make your case, it's what's you need to do.

Landmark calif. Burger joint forced to shut down over ada lawsuit

DA60

DA60

NitroHangover

Well-known member

AliHajiSheik

Kreton

Doesn't know

Muddy Creek

Loki97

Active member

jambalaya

Cynical Optimist

Muddy Creek

Kreton

Doesn't know

Tigger

Muddy Creek

Muddy Creek

AliHajiSheik

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Muddy Creek

Muddy Creek

Tigger

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Muddy Creek

Muddy Creek

Tigger

Muddy Creek

Muddy Creek

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Landmark calif. Burger joint forced to shut down over ada lawsuit

Well-known member

Doesn't know

Active member

Cynical Optimist

Doesn't know

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency