Your small biz doesn't accomodate my handicap, shut-u-down!

from JoeUser Forums
With a nod to another blogger, as I found the original link to this one while doing a bit of blog-clicking...

The news in the last few days is just oh, so inspiring....

Small business owners in an area of San Diego known as Julian have been receiving letters from a handicapped (wheelchair bound) attorney from the San Diego area by the name of Theodore Pinnock. In all, 67 shop owners have received letters threatening a lawsuit if those shop owners don't make their businesses handicap accessible, most likely with an unspoken requirement that such access be to the liking of Mr. Pinnock.

This is yet more of the result of the flawed Americans with Disability Act that was passed back during the elder George H.W. Bush's term as President of the United States. It was a well meaning law, but it has come to be abused in many unforseen ways as scum like Mr. Pinnock have waged personal wars against the rest of the world, or at least another small part of it in their immediate area of the United States.

I would say I feel for people like Mr. Pinnock, but Mr. Pinnock's actions make it awfully difficult to be compassionate, and typically lead to a feeling that is much closer to a deep seated loathing.

There has to be a balance between providing access for all and driving small businesses out of business. What people like Mr. Pinnock fail to realize is that many shops that exist today were built long ago. Back in a time when we didn't have so many shapes and sizes to accomodate. Am I entitled to sue because I can't control my weight, and I need a larger personal space than others might? If I have bladder control issues, am I entitled to sue because there's not a bathroom every 10 feet along my path waiting for me to use it? Where does the line get drawn, and who gets to decide when someone like Pinnock is being a nuisance and abusing a well-intentioned law instead of simply trying to help make life better for all?


Original news article snippet follows. Please see original for complete story.





Julian Businesses In Turmoil

Shopowners In Julian Worried About Lawsuits

SAN DIEGO -- It's a battle that's pitted a lawyer against a town's merchants. The dispute is over disability access in Julian.
At the Bell, Book and Candle Shop in Julian, business is brisk and owner Debbie Hickey couldn't be sadder.
"It's a bittersweet end," said Hickey.
The shop will close its doors next week. Ever since the October wildfires decimated local tourism, the shop's sales have been cut in half -- then the letters came.
She isn't alone. In all, 67 businesses got a letter from San Diego attorney Theodore Pinnock.
Pinnock, who uses a wheelchair, is threatening lawsuits over disability access -- a legal battle Hickey said she just couldn't afford.
"I don't have any fight in me. I've fought to stay in business for the last two years," said Hickey.
Her shop is the first casualty in a brewing war that's consumed a tranquil town full of historic buildings.
In the past months, some shop owners have started getting things up to code.
Throughout Julian, disabled access signs are now the most popular in town. They are displayed prominently in storefronts. Most of the businesses named in the letters have banned together for a fight, 10News reported.
They must make the case they're compliant, versus a lawyer known for lawsuits against individual businesses.
Now, he's taking on an entire town, and shop owners worry about where he's going next.


... more at linked article

Please see original for complete story.
4,326 views 54 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Quick forum post to check to see if any legal eagles want to start suing on my fat behalf!? (just kiddin')
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Your small biz doesn't accomodate my handicap, shut-u-down!'
It's interesting that you consistently use the word 'handicap' here, when, in general, people with disabilities rejected this word as demeaning some time ago. I don't mean to suggest for a moment that you should be prevented by political correctness from using such terminology as you deem fit, but one can't help but make certain inferences on the basis of your choice of words. To use a parallel, if a blogger chose to use the terms 'coloured people' and / or 'negroes' in a discussion about race, might one not be inclined to make certain assumptions about their position on the subject?

''Mr. Pinnock's actions make it awfully difficult to be compassionate'
I take the point of your thread, but isn't the whole idea of people with disabilities relying on the 'compassion' of others horribly outdated? I would humbly suggest that these days people with disabilities want equity, not compassion. People with disabilities don't want business owners to make their shops accessible out of charity, but out of an obligation to the community as a whole.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
People with disabilities don't want business owners to make their shops accessible out of charity, but out of an obligation to the community as a whole.


Except this person with a disability seems to want to make people conform out of spite rather than the good on the community as a whole. Does he patronize any of the business he's threatening to sue? Has he spoken to the owners himself and notified tham that they are legally required to make their premises disabled accessible? The article doesn't say whether that's the case or not, but I'm betting that he doesn't frequent any of the business he threatened to sue, and I'm also prepared to bet that he hasn't spoken to any of the owners. Why he's doing this, I can't say....but it appears to me that he is, to be blunt, being a spiteful little prick about the whole thing.

I guess beng disabled doesn't make a person less prick-ish, now does it?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have to say I don't much care if someone that is differently abled, or has a disability, or is handicapped, or is special, or whatever other politically correct term is wished to be applied is offended by my use of the term handicapped or handicap.

If I claimed to have a verbal communication handicap, could I use it to my advantage and start suiing the bejeezus out of the world because I just happen to suffer from occasional dyslexia? Would it matter at all that even with such an impediment, even with the fact that I'm almost legally blind if I don't wear corrective lens either via glasses or contact lens, that I've never felt compelled to sue the world and claim that I'm owed something by everyone else?

Labelling someone as handicapped is demeaning, heh? So is handicapping a small business owner by demanding that the biz owner or the landlord for the biz owner spend thousands of dollars in upgrading the facilities so that just on the off chance a differently abled individual can go visit the book and candle shop that was barely making ends meet to begin with ok to some?!

I'll have to remember that in the modern world I have to expunge the word HANDICAP from my vocabulary. Ooops, sorry, I am differently abled and remembering the politically correct term of the day is outside the realm of my abilities. I guess others that are differently abled will just have to deal.

Now I wonder if I can get Mr. Pinnock to sue on my behalf. I'm sure if there's a buck to be made at it, he'll take the case in a heartbeat.


I really, sincerely, hope that the small businesses that are banding together to fight this jerk win their case and get the clown bounced out of court. I've seen, read, and heard of too many cases where individuals like Pinnock go out on a personal rampage because they know they can easily convince the business owners that the law is on the opposing side and upgrading will cost thousands. They do it to settle out of court and walk away with settlement money that is nothing more than the type of greenmail that shakedown artist Jesse Jackson is famous for extorting out of his targets. That our overloaded court system has to suffer with these harrasment suits is insane, but again, such is the result of good hearted attempts to make laws that will benefit one class of individual at the cost to the greater society.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Why he's doing this, I can't say....but it appears to me that he is, to be blunt, being a spiteful little prick about the whole thing.'

I dare say you may well be right, Dharma, and I do take the general point of terpfan's thread.

However, regardless of Pinnock's motives, ignorance on the part of the business owners of a law that has been in place for many years is surely no defence. In the absence of any external pressure, how many more years would it take before they elected to install access for people with disabilities out of the sheer goodness of their hearts?

Pinnock may well not 'patronise' the businesses he is targetting, but how can he? The whole point is that they don't provide access to people with disabilities. By having ignored their legal obligations in this respect for well over a decade, the business owners are not EVEN 'patronising' (groan) those members of their community who happen to have disabilities.

My point being that Pinnock's motives may be wrong, but that doesn't mean his cause isn't a good one.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here's another site with several entries on this madness.
Link

Read it and try not to weep...
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
'I'll have to remember that in the modern world I have to expunge the word HANDICAP from my vocabulary. Ooops, sorry, I am differently abled and remembering the politically correct term of the day is outside the realm of my abilities. '
I made it quite clear above that as far as I am concerned you are free to use any language you choose, but - having made that choice - don't be surprised if people make inferences. So this rant (above) is just plain silly.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
However, regardless of Pinnock's motives, ignorance on the part of the business owners of a law that has been in place for many years is surely no defence


Have you ever had the misfortune of actually dealing with the ADA laws? If not, check the link I referenced above -- from another lawyer no less -- which mentions the difficulties in complying with the complex beast that is known as the ADA.

There are exceptions built into the law, but when and how the exceptions exist can be hard to determine.

As noted in the linked site, it's normally much easier to just give up without a fight. Settle. Pay the money. Make the suit go away. And then hope you have a business left when that is all over and done with.

It's very similar to the way the RIAA and it's friends have treated music downloaders or suspected music downloaders such as the granny that is well aware of the goings on that have gone on her own home pc, or at least is aware enough to be pretty sure it's never been used to download music files. Still, she gets sued by the RIAA and it's lawyers and if she doesn't settle, she is looking at a potential fine that could bankrupt her many times over. She's done nothing wrong, but the RIAA won't hear of it. Instead, they want to set another example and close another settlement so that they can count their money at the cash registers and have yet another successful case to use as part of the big book of settled cases they'll throw at any other victims in the future.

Lawsuit abuse is real, and Pinnock is doing it now. He should be disbarred and have these suits tossed from the court. I'd swear if I wasn't reading a real news organization's write up of the story I'd feel that I was reading an Ally McBeal script.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
'I'll have to remember that in the modern world I have to expunge the word HANDICAP from my vocabulary. Ooops, sorry, I am differently abled and remembering the politically correct term of the day is outside the realm of my abilities. '

I made it quite clear above that as far as I am concerned you are free to use any language you choose, but - having made that choice - don't be surprised if people make inferences. So this rant (above) is just plain silly.


My rant is about as silly as worrying over the use of any term that might be used to describe someone that is "differently abled", which is part of why the rant is there.

I'm tired of labels. First it was Negro, then African American, then Black. It was Mexican-American. Hispanic. Latino. I can't keep up, so I'll call it what it is, and if someone else wants a different label, then let them sue me. Either way, the ones demanding the different label deserve one alright -- "stupid." As in stupid to be worried about a damned label.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Have you ever had the misfortune of actually dealing with the ADA laws?'
Surely one should not go into business unless and until one is prepared to accept responsibility for adhering to the relevant laws. You yourself made the point that this particular law was enacted under the presidency of George H. W. Bush. It is hardly reasonable to claim 'ambush' after so long a period of time. No doubt there are countless other businesses in the area that managed to comply with the legislative change years ago. I would venture that they are the ones who deserve our support, not those who have ignored the legal rights of people with disabilities for over a decade.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
'I'm tired of labels. First it was Negro, then African American, then Black. It was Mexican-American. Hispanic. Latino. I can't keep up ...'
Oh you poor dear.

'I'll call it what it is'
Ironically, you're actually right here. As long as attitudes like those demonstrated by these business owners prevail, then people with disabilities will, by the prejudice meted out to them, also be significantly handicapped within and by their own communities.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
No doubt there are countless other businesses in the area that managed to comply with the legislative change years ago. I would venture that they are the ones who deserve our support, not those who have ignored the legal rights of people with disabilities for over a decade.


There are other, far simpler ways of dealing with businesses that can't or won't upgrade their facilities to deal with ADA requirements that may or may not apply. The simplest way is to exercise the power of the pocketbook and don't do business with businesses that aren't accessible. That directly impacts the bottom line of those businesses without threatening immediate financial doom upon the business.

A smart business owner will do their part to make sure their business is accessible by all. If they don't, they cut off potential customers.

But just because those potential customers aren't able to use a businesses facilities doesn't mean that they should be sued out of business.


As an example, would you say that I have a right and obligation to sue the crap outta Sears, K-Mart or Wal*Mart because they don't make the spaces between the clothing racks in their stores wide enough for large people like myself to easily navitage through? Or, am I better off to just ignore such stores because they have stupidly tried to squeeze more inventory into their available floor space than they should have? If I send them a letter and threaten to sue, am I not being an extortionist, even though it may be completely legal?

Oh, wait, I forgot, I probably have to get classified as a differently abled individual first so I can be part of a protected class. I guess I should just get my wife, who is medically certified as "handicapped" because of an injury she suffered some years ago, to sue for me. She's a female. Check. Legally/medically certified as handicapped. Check. Overweight so she too has difficulty navigating those damned aisles. Check. Yup, time to find a lawyer to start suing Wal*Mart, Sears, K-Mart and others for as much as we can take 'em for.

Perhaps I too could find a way to join the "rich" by doing something like this.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
However, regardless of Pinnock's motives, ignorance on the part of the business owners of a law that has been in place for many years is surely no defence. In the absence of any external pressure, how many more years would it take before they elected to install access for people with disabilities out of the sheer goodness of their hearts?

Pinnock may well not 'patronise' the businesses he is targetting, but how can he?


I understand that ignorance is no defence, and I've seen people who won't accomodate anyone with a disability util the law forces them to.

As for Mr Pinnock not patronising the establishments...well babe, I know that he CAN'T because they're not wheelchari accessible, but are they places that he'd LIKE to go were they to have access? For instance, if I were in a chair, I'd like to go to places like yarn stores and book shops. I wouldn't go around threatening to sue football helmet stores and chrome dual overhead cam shops - because I wouldn't ever shop there. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that there's a difference between suing as a last resort because you personally think that you're being discriminated against and are satisfied that no resolution will be found out of court, and suing because you can, without ever having spoken to the store owners and without even having any interest in patronising said stores once they've been made acessible. That he's an attorney doesn't go un-noticed either - he has an intimate knowledge of the judicial system and knows what to file, when to file, how to file it and where - something that the average layman will probably not know.
I know that you know what I was getting at, Furry. You're just being awkward - and that's exactly why I love you.
*sigh* we are SO gonna run away together some day.....
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
'I know that you know what I was getting at, Furry. You're just being awkward - and that's exactly why I love you.'
Thank you my dear Dharma, I don't deserve you!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
'There are other, far simpler ways of dealing with businesses that can't or won't upgrade their facilities to deal with ADA requirements that may or may not apply. The simplest way is to exercise the power of the pocketbook and don't do business with businesses that aren't accessible.'

In this case, terpfan, people with disabilities have no option BUT to boycott these businesses, as they are denied access to them. (Who knows, perhaps this is why some of the businesses in question are now finding it hard to make ends meet.) But, given that this legislation exists, at the end of the day / year / decade, why shouldn't those who are still being discriminated against have recourse to it? i.e. Even if the action is instigated by some self-serving lawyer, might not the outcome be a good one?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
What does it really take to comply anyway? Knock down a curb, lower a counter, make a handicapped parking spot, lay down a ramp over some stairs, put a railing next to the toilet.

The most expensive thing would be to widen doorways. I could see where business owners could have problems with that one.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sounds as if someone probably wants to buy a lot of property ( cheap ) in the area!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
This could conceivably be a big part of the propulsion behind mail-order and Internet business. To the best of my knowledge, if you don't have a physical store, the ADA doesn't affect you.

Ain't technology great?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess I'll just sew this braindead lawyer if he or anyone connected with his firm uses any color I can't see, orients anything for a righthanded person. Furthermore, if the floors of his office are not sufficiently padded to protect those of us who pass out once in awhile, then he MUST PAY!!

The hypocrisy and stupidity of these lawsuits is just too blatant for words!!!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's interesting that you consistently use the word 'handicap' here, when, in general, people with disabilities rejected this word as demeaning some time ago.

Uh, no.  Tell that to my Aunt who had Polio at 15 and has been a parapalegic since. Only PC people are insulted, not the actual handicapped.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Having skipped over most of your and Furry's debate, I cant help but wonder. If he is trying to grab a bunch of land for himself cheap! By driving the Businesses out of that. He is concentrating on one area. And he is a lawyer.

Cogito, ergo Sum
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Uh, no. Tell that to my Aunt who had Polio at 15 and has been a parapalegic since. Only PC people are insulted, not the actual handicapped.'
You can't extrapolate from one individual to the world in general, Dr. Guy. I know many people with disabilities who object to being labelled handicapped, just as they object to being labelled cripples or invalids. It's all a matter of referring to people in terms which they do not find offensive. Why some claim this to be such a terrible hardship I find hard to fathom.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting that the people who shut down small businesses with litigation like this are also those who protest big box stores such as WalMart...yet actions such as these have shut more doors thaan Wally World could in 100 years.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
' Interesting that the people who shut down small businesses with litigation like this are also those who protest big box stores such as WalMart...'
Where is the evidence that this guy is targetting big stores?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

You can't extrapolate from one individual to the world in general, Dr. Guy.

I can.  Whether that makes me right or wrong is another matter.  My Aunt is now 71.  So for my entire life, and most of hers, she has been handicapped.  And she still gave birth to and raised 4 great children.  She did a lot more than any of the rest of us, because she had a handicap.  It did not stop her, but makes her my hero.