ADA Lawsuits: Part Deuce
A couple months ago, an article was posted from Richmond Bizsense on the latest ADA lawsuits. Needless to say, the conversation that followed was poignant, as it should be.
Ironically, a week later I found myself in a lecture with one of the men behind many of the lawsuits. His name is Michael Chenail and he serves with the Compliance Alliance, a consulting company based in Virginia.
In an effort to bring some clarity to the nature of these lawsuits, I took some time to talk with Micheal and interview him via email. Below are some of the key points I walked away with, however, I would encourage anyone interested to look at the attachments I’ve posted to hear directly from Michael himself.
(1) Letters of warning are always sent to these businesses (see the attached example letter to Yankees Stadium). If they agree to put together a long term proposal for bringing their building up to code, no lawsuits ensue. However, those establishments that choose to ignore the letter of warning are required to pay attorney fees in an ensuing lawsuit.
(2) “Unlike California and a couple of other states, Virginia does not allow civil damages in Title III cases. Therefore, [those bringing the lawsuit] receive NO financial compensation – only accessibility – the ability to use, enjoy, and participate in the many aspects of society, including work, commerce, and leisure activities just as other “able bodied” American’s do.” (Michael’s Letter, attached).
(3) According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 1 in 7 people (not including people under the age of 5, or those who are institutionalized) have a disability. (US Census Bureau 2006, attached).
Response Letter – Michael Chenail
Sample Letter of Warning – Yankees Stadium
that disability stat is so bogus. what, if you need glasses, you are disabled? let’s get real. think of everyone you know and how many need special consideration to go out in public (wheelchair, blind, etc.). i bet it’s nowhere near 1:7. maybe 1, total. if 1:7 people couldn’t use a company’s facilities, they would gladly fix them to gain that many customers.
ada says existing facilities need to remove barriers when it is “easily accomplished and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” this is intentionally vague to allow for flexibility. but people like Chenail (although I’m not fully aware of all of his specific lawsuits, I am very familiar with others like him) strong-arm small businesses with expensive lawsuits into spending and doing more than was ever intended under the law.
The justice department needs a wing to review and enforce ADA in a fair way and organized way, and not rely on whimsical lawsuits.
Very interesting Blake. Thanks for reaching out to Michael.
I, for one, was quite embarrassed about some of the comments of the previous post on Carytown ADA lawsuits. The fact that Carytown Sushi opened and didn’t meet ADA compliance is their own fault and they should face the music.
face the music, or close?
Or neither. They made a business decision and folks can choose to instead shop at any number of other establishments that DO follow ADA regulations. Vote with your wallets, folks. If you don’t like it there are other options.
Since many of these businesses are renting “commercial” property is any of this the landlords responsibility??
Eric – yes, if you read the response letter from Michael, that is one thing he advocates for. Many of the landlords put the onus on tenants, creating a larger burden for those in business.
@Blake
Thanks for the thoughtful pursuit of this topic
wolf – I appreciate your willingness to dialogue about the issue.
I don’t necessarily agree with your comments concerning the number of disabled persons – that’s certainly a matter of perspective, however I offer this thought to you. Even if the number was drastically less, let’s say 1 in 50, would this still justify having sidewalks with no entrance ramps or bathrooms that wheelchairs can not fit into? Forty years ago we were wrestling with the aspect of race in public places. In light of the disability community, we need to wrestle with the idea of space. If we say that those who attend the Amelia Street School or members of Virginia Home (both located in the Byrd Park neighborhood, serving about 200 disabled persons) don’t deserve equal access to the retail corridor of Carytown, we are reinforcing discrimination.
In addition, the ADA was signed into law 19 years ago. Have we not given building owners a chance to gradually make needed improvements? I’m not implying that we need to enforce immediate changes (even Michael works with people to make long-term plans), but it seems like enough time has passed.
Concerning the methods of enforcing the ADA, I think it best to let Michael speak for himself. “I agree! Rather than relying on “whimsical” lawsuits, I as well as millions of other people with disabilities would prefer a better system of control over the matter. Unfortunately the ADA and its present system of enforcement is all we have to work with thus far. I am saddened however to think that anyone who doesn’t know me would say that they are familiar with people “like” me.”
How about schools in the WOTB area? Are they all ADA compliant?
Albert Hill has recently undergone renovations to complete their compliance, a lift to allow access to a small portion of the school that had previously not been accessible to those with special needs. I had understood that they are now %100 comppliant, but their principal can be reached via email off of the school’s website if anyone needs to know the full scoop. Not sure about JBCary.