Modesto A&W closes due to ADA lawsuit

[storewanderer]

Can't believe these borderline scam ADA lawsuit people are still finding old non compliant businesses to go file lawsuits against. They were hitting stuff around Lake Tahoe 10 years ago.

[marshd1000]

I could see the reasoning for the lawsuit if the restaurant refused to accommodate. But it sounds like they were more than willing to try to help a handicapped person! Too bad A&W corporate couldn’t help them!

[storewanderer]

I could see the reasoning for the lawsuit if the restaurant refused to accommodate. But it sounds like they were more than willing to try to help a handicapped person! Too bad A&W corporate couldn’t help them!

The franchisor can be held liable for damages in these lawsuits for allowing a location that is deemed non-compliant to continue operating. So the franchisor will quickly demand the location to be closed. Not clear if this is what happened here.

This is what caused the last Arctic Circle in California to close.
https://www.times-standard.com/2008/05/ ... a-lawsuit/

[Retailuser]

There are a lot of restaurants that would be closed in Prescott (AZ) due to this as some of them can not be ADA compliant.

[veteran+]

I do not think this was frivolous.

Making this a heart string pulling story laced with nostalgia does not change the law.

Sorry, he should have been compliant many years ago.

[Bluelightspecial]

So are you claiming that the A&W store owners are less moral than these scam artists because they had a decades old business(probably before ADA laws went into affect). It's the same logic that a perfectly healthy person uses a handicap placard when they clearly don't need it. They might have scammed a way to get it legally, but they are not moral.

[veteran+]

I'm not claiming anything except when the law was put in place, owners are obligated to comply as soon as possible.

It is the cost of doing business.

[ClownLoach]

I'm not claiming anything except when the law was put in place, owners are obligated to comply as soon as possible.

It is the cost of doing business.

I'm going to disagree on this site specifically after watching the video and seeing what the site and building looks like. This should be a protected building and it's unfortunate that the A&W system did not send in lawyers to fight this case because they should be able to win. I doubt this guy had the money to fight it himself which is the real problem, he was just scraping by and now has lost his retirement and everyone there has lost their jobs which the ADA laws were supposed to protect.

Older buildings with historical design aspects that cannot be reasonably retrofitted are grandfathered in under the ADA law. The entire situation seems to be rooted in parking which normally would be an easy fix, new striping and then a conditional use permit variance from the City for now having less parking spaces than the original permit. This is a historic 1950s building on a funky shaped site. Looking at the parking, more specifically the fact that the closest parking is all covered with that structure that's integrated into the building, I see no way to retrofit it to perfect ADA compliance without demolishing the entire restaurant. Worse, a new building meeting all codes could not possibly be constructed on this funky site either. He is obligated to accommodate because of the building problems, which he says he understands and does, and I highly doubt that the alleged victims here were mistreated or refused service which would be the only reasonable cause of action. But it's a nightmare to fight these cases even though the law is on his side.

So even though it's rather obvious that the owner has tried to maintain compliance as best as possible, he has to close down, lose all the money he invested into the business, fire all his workers, for a matter where in fact the law says he is 100% in the clear. If he chose to modernize the restaurant or remodel it, then he would be required to do so in a manner that is compliant and we should expect nothing less. But this is a old fashioned food stand that's nearly 80 years old and we are saying he should have been forced to address the matter that can't be addressed? Why should our court system be designed in such a way that it's damned near impossible to defend yourself without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars?

I'm sorry, I wanted to agree with you that by now it should be remedied but after looking at the unfixable nature of this old property the way it's designed, this is exactly what grandfather clauses are about. Do we really want to live in a world where everything older than 1990 has to be demolished, even if it has historical interest, if it can't be retrofitted without being demolished? I've seen many cases where this can be done, in fact I frequent a coffeehouse in an ancient building from the 1850s that has fully modern plumbing, electrical, air conditioning and could be made ADA compliant thanks to clever redesign of a side entrance. But if it couldn't have been modified, it would have been fine to just require the coffeehouse to post a phone number for a disabled person to call, take their drinks and food outside for them, assist in whatever way possible. The alternative of demolishing the coffeehouse building would have been a horrific tragedy as the building has major historical importance as the site of a war treaty signing. This A&W is one of the few originals left and should be able to remain open. To hell with this scumbag lawyer, he probably thought he was going up against deep pockets and would possibly get a fat settlement to go buy himself another Bentley or a Lambo for his girlfriend for Christmas. Instead of gold, he struck fools gold and this guy will just discharge his claim with a bankruptcy but he's still going to have to shut down and fire everyone since he could not afford to fight for his rights. This is wrongful prosecution and I hope that a good lawyer up there takes on his case pro-bono and sues the ADA lawyer for malicious prosecution and demands every penny he has, as he cannot claim as a specialist lawyer that he is unaware of the grandfather clauses and statutes that protect this man and his restaurant.

Just food for thought, even with the ADA it's perfectly legal to build non compliant buildings and operate them today. The key is reasonable accommodation. CVS builds prototypical stores with a 2nd story loft for storage. It has no elevator. They have thousands and thousands of these stores. There are other retailers with similar storage formats. Should CVS have to close all of these stores, which compose probably half their chain, or build elevators into all of them? Is it reasonable to say that they must maintain ADA access for a clerk in a wheelchair to restock the merchandise stored up there?

The law says no, because it's not reasonable for a person in a wheelchair to be able to demand a job as a shelf stocker. And because shelf stockers are the employees most likely to use that area, since the job doesn't have to be compliant neither does the building space. Just food for thought about what's allowed, which seems to be much further from the spirit of the ADA law than this parking lot stripe situation.

[storewanderer]

I've heard these groups will target a business and they will not take no for an answer. They will demand the business rebuild so it is able to have proper access/spacing. Really they just want a settlement of some kind but they don't care if they bankrupt the business in the process. As long as they get their settlement payment first.

I agree it is the responsibility of the business to comply with the law "as soon as possible." If the structure makes it impossible to remodel (too old), economics do not allow for you to demolish/rebuild, then it is not "possible" anytime soon. So you provide service to make up for it as they did.

I don't think this business did anything wrong. Operating from an old outdated building isn't doing something wrong.

[veteran+]

I will just have to respectfully disagree.

People before business. This whole rationalization (and story) does not consider the disabled folks who deserve the dignity of independence (however helpful others may be).

They want to park their own car in a space close to the entrance, convey themselves inside and order or be "seated" to dine.