3 ms·

> But under California law, a disabled person cannot claim money if they send the business owner a letter with their complaint first. Seems like a decent thing

> But under California law, a disabled person cannot claim money if they send the business owner a letter with their complaint first. Seems like a decent thing to do to at the least raise an issue with a business owner and bring it to their attention, ideally face to face. > ...businesses are not given warnings or a “grace period” to correct violations. > > Plaintiffs can simply sue with little or no notice. That’s why law firms like Moore’s can easily swoop in with a lawsuit. Seems like businesses should be given a chance first. Seems like the barrier is too low to get these lawsuits dealt out. Give folks a fair chance. This may even be an opportunity for some civic body of volunteers or even a chamber of commerce to proactively approach businesses in advance and get them into shape.

krisoft 7y ago
> Seems like businesses should be given a chance first. Said busineness had 13 years to come into compliance. How long do you think a coffe shop which does not comply with the tax code would be in busines for? If anything this story is about how slow and innefectual the enforcement is.
- LorenPechtel 7y ago
  There is no enforcement other than lawsuits. The problem is that requiring this ramp is not a reasonable accommodation to most people. You basically have to wreck the business to make it accessible. In practice the result is the building is unusable, it's going to have to be razed because someone was greedy.
satyrnein 7y ago
Face to face? The issue is they can't get up the stairs to the door. That said, I don't understand why sending a letter should cost you there ability to claim damages later.
- jxramos 7y ago
  Sure, a phone call should suffice to arrange some face to face discussion. They'd basically call to arrange meeting at a more accessible location, even if its only the sidewalk immediately outside. I don't understand that restriction either about forfeiting damages. I'm not sure the details precisely, but I'm of the opinion of second chances and a three strikes you're out sort of deal here. Maybe not literally three but obstinate refusal to address the problem.

krisoft 7y ago

> Seems like businesses should be given a chance first. Said busineness had 13 years to come into compliance. How long do you think a coffe shop which does not comply with the tax code would be in busines for? If anything this story is about how slow and innefectual the enforcement is.

LorenPechtel 7y ago
There is no enforcement other than lawsuits. The problem is that requiring this ramp is not a reasonable accommodation to most people. You basically have to wreck the business to make it accessible. In practice the result is the building is unusable, it's going to have to be razed because someone was greedy.

satyrnein 7y ago

Face to face? The issue is they can't get up the stairs to the door. That said, I don't understand why sending a letter should cost you there ability to claim damages later.

jxramos 7y ago
Sure, a phone call should suffice to arrange some face to face discussion. They'd basically call to arrange meeting at a more accessible location, even if its only the sidewalk immediately outside. I don't understand that restriction either about forfeiting damages. I'm not sure the details precisely, but I'm of the opinion of second chances and a three strikes you're out sort of deal here. Maybe not literally three but obstinate refusal to address the problem.