4 ms·

I don't see anything predatory there? 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the s

I don't see anything predatory there? 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the subject of suits?

BoorishBears 7y ago
If you don't see the problem, that's intentional. How many ADA complainants end up facing federal racketeering charges?
wpietri 7y ago
The theory of the ADA is that rather than just enforce everything via bureaucracy, we'd give individuals the right of private action to push for the accommodations they need. Then we get a hopefully-good level of accommodation without a lot of the kind of waste that goes with central planning. But if somebody is going to use the legal system to make a lot of money by generating spurious complaints for every business in an area, then that's not the right mechanism. If every business should be immediately compliant, we should just make it part of the building code and/or part of the business licensing process.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Are there federally enforced building codes?
kbenson 7y ago
No, lawsuits require standing. If nobody is actually harmed, there is nothing to sue over. Where this might factor into this ethically is that these building may not have been compliant with the law, but they might not have had problems because they were close enough to legal requirements that people with disabilities did not have actual problems using the facilities, or other situations that in practice made it a non issue. For example, ramps must be 36 inches wide. If it was not possible or feasible for the business to change a ramp that was 34 inches wide, that's unlikely to cause actual problems for someone, so they would have no reason to sue, but if someone is faking a disability to qualify for legal standing, whether they actual had problems is of little consequence, they are already committing fraud to qualify, what's a bit more to fake a situation where they were caused harm?
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut.
  - kbenson 7y ago
    >>> 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the subject of suits? > I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut. In this case? Maybe. You made a statement about all the cases they brought. I responded to that general statement, not this specific case. It's possible every suit they brought against a business was for a situation where people with disabilities really were harmed. If that's the situation, I'm not sure why someone with a real disability didn't bring the cases then. There are reasons why people are required to have standing to bring a case. I think it's pretty obvious what some of those reasons are.
    - erichocean 7y ago
      Not to mention, there's literally the exact same business two blocks away that IS ADA-compliant. This has nothing to do with not being able to buy coffee, and everything to do with hurting the business in the hopes of getting a large settlement.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  ADA has affordances for "nearly compliant" facilities. § 36.304 Removal of barriers. (d) Relationship to alterations requirements of subpart D of this part. (3) If, as a result of compliance with the alterations requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section, the measures required to remove a barrier would not be readily achievable, a public accommodation may take other readily achievable measures to remove the barrier that do not fully comply with the specified requirements. Such measures include, for example, providing a ramp with a steeper slope or widening a doorway to a narrower width than that mandated by the alterations requirements. No measure shall be taken, however, that poses a significant risk to the health or safety of individuals with disabilities or others.

I don't see anything predatory there? 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the subject of suits?

BoorishBears 7y ago

If you don't see the problem, that's intentional. How many ADA complainants end up facing federal racketeering charges?

wpietri 7y ago

The theory of the ADA is that rather than just enforce everything via bureaucracy, we'd give individuals the right of private action to push for the accommodations they need. Then we get a hopefully-good level of accommodation without a lot of the kind of waste that goes with central planning. But if somebody is going to use the legal system to make a lot of money by generating spurious complaints for every business in an area, then that's not the right mechanism. If every business should be immediately compliant, we should just make it part of the building code and/or part of the business licensing process.

Pfhreak 7y ago
Are there federally enforced building codes?

kbenson 7y ago

No, lawsuits require standing. If nobody is actually harmed, there is nothing to sue over. Where this might factor into this ethically is that these building may not have been compliant with the law, but they might not have had problems because they were close enough to legal requirements that people with disabilities did not have actual problems using the facilities, or other situations that in practice made it a non issue. For example, ramps must be 36 inches wide. If it was not possible or feasible for the business to change a ramp that was 34 inches wide, that's unlikely to cause actual problems for someone, so they would have no reason to sue, but if someone is faking a disability to qualify for legal standing, whether they actual had problems is of little consequence, they are already committing fraud to qualify, what's a bit more to fake a situation where they were caused harm?

Pfhreak 7y ago
I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut.
- kbenson 7y ago
  >>> 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the subject of suits? > I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut. In this case? Maybe. You made a statement about all the cases they brought. I responded to that general statement, not this specific case. It's possible every suit they brought against a business was for a situation where people with disabilities really were harmed. If that's the situation, I'm not sure why someone with a real disability didn't bring the cases then. There are reasons why people are required to have standing to bring a case. I think it's pretty obvious what some of those reasons are.
  - erichocean 7y ago
    Not to mention, there's literally the exact same business two blocks away that IS ADA-compliant. This has nothing to do with not being able to buy coffee, and everything to do with hurting the business in the hopes of getting a large settlement.
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
ADA has affordances for "nearly compliant" facilities. § 36.304 Removal of barriers. (d) Relationship to alterations requirements of subpart D of this part. (3) If, as a result of compliance with the alterations requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section, the measures required to remove a barrier would not be readily achievable, a public accommodation may take other readily achievable measures to remove the barrier that do not fully comply with the specified requirements. Such measures include, for example, providing a ramp with a steeper slope or widening a doorway to a narrower width than that mandated by the alterations requirements. No measure shall be taken, however, that poses a significant risk to the health or safety of individuals with disabilities or others.