Your Americans with Disabilities Act at Work

From the SF Weekly, an aggravating tale of disability access laws providing lawyers with a cheap means of making money, harassing small business, and not really making anyone's life much better. The story stars San Fran attorney Thomas Frankovich and his wheelchair-using client Craig Yates:

Frankovich...has made a legal practice of suing places that his wheelchair-using proxies find in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Frankovich's most frequent San Francisco flier, Yates, has had a recent two-wheeled field day in the Mission. In addition to the building that houses Chile Lindo, he's filed suit against Cafe GratitudeElsy's PupuseriaMikado SushiPete's Bar-B-Q, and Balompie Cafe. Yates has also targeted the Richmond District's Pot De Pho Noodle House and Pho Clement Restaurant, West Portal's Cafe For All Seasons, and Nob Hill's Pizza Pino, among many, many others

[Chile Lindo owner Paula] Tejeda says she got a letter from Yates earlier this year saying he couldn't enter her restaurant and suggesting she make changes to put her in compliance with the law, but she tore it up in disgust. Chile Lindo is a take-out restaurant, not a sit-down, she says, and they've always accomodated Yates: "He comes to the front door and we hand him an empanada," Tejeda says. "Where's a wheelchair going to fit in there? If you're too fat, you won't fit in there."....

"It's going to be like Patton on his way to Berlin," Frankovich says of restaurants who don't correct their wrongs before he files suit. "If you don't go ahead and get it taken care of, Big Bertha is going to level the guns and clear the decks." Yes, that was what he said. Verbatim.

Frankovich says he has no patience for the "mom-and-pop crap" as an excuse to not be complaint with ADA requirements that have been in effect since 1990....

Frankovich says often, as in the case of Chile Lindo, he doesn't sue the restaurant if it appears they don't make much money. He instead goes after the building's landlords, although he says that in "95 percent" of cases, the landlords will then file suit on the restaurants, saying it's their problem to get compliant with the law.   

The State Bar charged Frankovich in 2008 with two disciplinary charges for allegations of extorting settlements, seeking to mislead a judge, and committing acts of moral turpitude. Yet the State Bar Court cleared Frankovich, only finding him guilty of an unrelated matter of improperly communicating with a represented party in a foreign jurisdiction.....

But Tejeda says lawyers like Frankovich abuse the spirit of disability law. "It's really disgusting. When people are having such a hard time running their businesses nobody needs this added stress. It is clearly not a case where someone with a disability has been discriminated [against], but rather it's a way of milking a law that was put in place to benefit the handicapped community. These people have no compassion for the people they say they represent; rather they're just a mafia." 

The story ends with Yates, with his lawsuit against them in process, returning to Chile Lindo to buy more empanadas, which he calls "muffins." An angry Tejada completed the sale, but doesn't want anymore of Yates' business.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Warty||

    Who the fuck is stupid enough to confuse muffins with empenadas? I don't care how crippled you are, that's just unforgivable.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    Unforgivable, and retarded.

    Take that, ADA!

    I thought these crooks went after random victims: I can't believe the guy actually goes after places he actually frequents, where he has to look at the owners in the face. What a dickbag.

  • ||

    Yeah, I was a bit stunned to read the part where he went back for more "muffins". I mean, shit, dude, you just shook these people down, and you're going to go back and buy a "muffin" as if nothing happened?

    He's probably retarded.

    UH-OH I PEED MY PANTS

  • ||

    I wonder what a shit-muffin tastes like? Must be good if Frankovich keeps coming back.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    Serving feces is asking for trouble from the health dept. That fucker is litigious enough already.

    Ball sweat is just salty water... stinky salty water. Serve up the scrote.

  • marlok||

    Or serve it with the extra-tangy sour cream.

  • Cyto||

    That's been tried recently. Didn't go so well.

  • ||

    What a jerkoff.

  • DBN||

    Who the fuck is stupid enough to confuse muffins with empenadas? I don't care how crippled you are, that's just unforgivable.

    Yates comes off as mentally disabled as well. This guy Frankovich is a fucking gem.

  • People Power Hour||

    This guy Frankovich is a fucking gem.
    He's a gem if your idea of precious stones are rabbit turds....

  • Oso Politico||

    sorry for the nitpick: empanadas

  • Subsidize Me!||

    Slimy Congress makes shitty law.

    Slimy lawyer makes bank from shitty law.

    Slimy Congress makes bank from campaign contributions and directorships.

    Sounds like the American dream to me.

  • City Wok||

    Shitty lawyer order shitty beef, shitty flied lice, shitty noodle..

  • Neu Mejican||

    Not that abuse of any law should be ignored, but some context is always important. What's the bigger picture? What percentage of ADA complaints are abusive like this?

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    What if it's "low", like 5%? Does that matter to the victims?

  • Neu Mejican||

    I am sure it doesn't matter to the victims. Like I said, this kind of stuff shouldn't be ignored...but context seems important if you want your journalism to be more than meaningless anecdote.

    Thing is...in the context of H&R, this kind of anecdote is used for as part of a larger argument that the law serves no purpose...but as an anecdote it doesn't really do much to advance that case. Unless, of course, you are already convinced and just want to FEEL better about your position on the issue.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    If the context you're looking for has something to do with the ratio of "good" lawsuits to bad, nobody here really gives a shit about the law's “success” from a utilitarian point of view. It's an immoral law, and the intent is obvious - Congress wants to "do something" about the "problem" of businesses not accommodating the needs of handicapped people. Nobody says the law serves no purpose - it serves a shitty, immoral purpose.

    As far as the post's utility... Stories like this highlight the fact that ADA is a bad law. Like many other bad laws, this one helps larger businesses push out smaller competition. Considering all the fluff stories that came out celebrating the anniversary of ADA, I'd say this post serves a worthwhile purpose.

    Thing is...in the context of H&R, this kind of anecdote is used for as part of a larger argument that the law serves no purpose...but as an anecdote it doesn't really do much to advance that case.

    Mere commenting is not enough! Post policy analysis or die irrelevant!

  • jif||

    Are you insane? Take the copy of Atlas Shrugged out of your bung, because you are hardly among the ubermen. Peopl with disabilities deserve to live a life of dignity and respect, not one where every moron who doesn't feel like it can discriminate against them for reasons completely out of their control. There is nothing immoral about treating people equally. When you graduate high school and take on real responsibilities in life, you'll understand that.

  • ||

    There is nothing immoral about treating people equally.

    The dsiabled are already being treated equally.

    But, you knew that already.

  • ||

    Hi Jif, I go between using a walker and a wheelchair depending on how much my MS is acting up. If someone doesn't want my money, then they should have every right to exclude me from their business. It is people like you who do the most harm to the disabled. Get bent you paternalistic scumbag.

  • ||

    Peopl with disabilities deserve to live a life of dignity and respect,

    Too bad that a habit of filing lawsuits like this deprive them of dignity and my respect.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    You're communicating somewhat incoherently here, so I'll do my best to deconstruct your utterance.

    Are you insane?

    No, but if I was, you would have to accommodate me even if I walked into your business and immediately shit myself.

    Take the copy of Atlas Shrugged out of your bung[sic] because you are hardly among the ubermen[sic].

    This is really, really bad. I know you thought it was funny and insulting when you typed it, and I pity you.

    Peopl[sic] with disabilities deserve to live a life of dignity and respect...

    Agreed. I would say that all peopl(e) deserve to live a life of dignity. Inasmuch as it relates to federal legislation, I don't feel government compelling private citizens to make expensive accommodations for protected classes (as defined by said government) is very respectful at all.

    ...not one where every moron who doesn't feel like it can discriminate against them for reasons completely out of their control.

    I support the right of any business owner to refuse service or employment to any person at any time for any reason. If you don't like it, I support your right to take your business somewhere else.

    There is nothing immoral about treating people equally.

    Taken out of context, I agree with this statement. But, unfortunately, you are of the mistaken belief that ADA leads to equal treatment of all people - it most cetainly does not.

    When you graduate high school and take on real responsibilities in life, you'll understand that.

    This went over about as well as your previous attempt at an insult. If you should reply, I'd advise against making ad hominem attacks. I'm not bothered by them (in fact, I find them entertaining), but it's pretty clear you're not quite big enough to ride the rides here.

  • People Power Hour||

    You are correct. You are free to treat everyone as equally as you please. Everyone else should be afforded the same consideration.

  • JohnD||

    Jiff just exposed his disability.... He is a freking moron.

  • ||

    If 5% of the people in prison were innocent you'd be saying something very different.

    But for some reason because it involves "business" "money" and "profits", suddenly it's unimportant whether the victims are innocent.

  • Congress||

    The victims here are the handicapped. How dare you deny them accommodation. They deserve to live as normal a life as possible, and if that means businesses lose their precious profits, so be it.

  • SIV ||

    What percentage of ADA complaints are abusive like this?

    Consider where you are commenting Neu.
    About 100%.

  • sloopyinca||

    Actually, that's pretty accurate. If the goal is access, these suits aren't necessary. It's as simple as requesting the fire marshall do an ADA inspection and the owner complying.

    Of course, if your restaurant isn't an eat-in establishment then access isn't an issue. That would be akin to someone in a chair knocking on my front door and asking to use my bathroom. If I let them in and they can't get through the bathroom door, will they sue me? I'd be willing to bet you that this jackoff would.

    SIV, the people who really want reasonable accomodation don't sue very often. They work with the people they need accomodation from....or they vote with their feet and eat elsewhere.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    they vote with their feet and eat elsewhere

    Insensitive bastard

  • sloopyinca||

    OK, fine. They vote with their wheels and eat elsewhere.

    Better?

  • ||

    But then, how will they be able to share in the glory of watching their burrito being made?

  • Subsidize Me!||

    Periscopes.

  • sloopyinca||

    ZING!!!

  • A. Lawyer, Esq.||

    Interesting....

    I represent the blind. They, too, are unable to share in the food-making experience. Perhaps restaurants should be encouraged to post descriptions of the process in braille...

    Thanks, JW!

  • ||

    You're thinking too small. Think personal, dramatic describers. "Now, they are placing the vibrant red hot sauce on your seared flank steak and lucious black beans..."

  • sloopyinca||

    You, too, are thinking too small, JW. Have you forgotten about those poor souls that have lost their sense of smell or taste? Should their enjoyment of said empenadas be any less than those of us who are not smell-challenged or taste-deficient?

    Each restaurant should be asked, nay required, to have a describor on premises that could help these unfortunate patrons. They could go into great detail of the wonderful aroma wafting through the air...the melding of flavors "bold cilantro, succulent scotch bonnets and a hint of lime to bring it down a notch."

    Only then could these misunderstood and stigmatized people live with dignity and respect they rightly deserve.

  • sloopyinca||

    A blind man walks into a bar.......

    /rimshot

  • Ron L||

    Neu Mejican|8.20.10 @ 7:28PM|#
    "Not that abuse of any law should be ignored, but some context is always important. What's the bigger picture? What percentage of ADA complaints are abusive like this?"

    Brain-dead fail.
    It doesn't matter what percentage of folks are caught in a stupid "law"; one is enough.

  • Hugh Akston||

    No, see the bigger picture doesn't matter in the least. If a lawyer can use a law to shake down a business that made reasonable accommodations once, then that law needs to be altered or repealed.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Even in the abstract, without reference to the specific merits of any particular law, this attitude sounds like perfect as the enemy of the good to me.

  • robc||

    And?

    Dont let the good be the enemy of the perfect. Why accept good when perfect is within our grasp?

  • Neu Mejican||

    perfect is within our grasp

    Is this a reference to masturbating?

  • Subsidize Me!||

    Only if you're Scarlett Johansson.

  • ||

    Just like "innocent until proven guilty" makes the perfect the enemy of the good?

    Why is it that you'll bend over backwards to avoid throwing an innocent person in jail. But if you're robbing the inncent person of his livelihood by running his business into eeh ground, then, hey, the state can't be perfect, eh?

  • juris imprudent||

    Well the way the CA version of the ADA was written, it set up a cottage industry of professional victims right from the get-go. Imagine that - the fucking legislators setting up the fucking lawyers like that?

  • ||

    Can you name any that are not?

    How many cases have you heard of that fit the lefty caricature of "evil greedy corporation refuses to build ramp because they hate the disabled"?

  • ||

    FUCK YOU SHITBAG GO EAT AT YOUR LAWYER'S HOUSE.

  • ||

    We're all victims, now.

  • SIV ||

    I blame Bush

    (the old one)

  • Inkblots||

    But remember, Rand Paul only questioned the way the ADA was written because he hates disabled people, not because it's open to abuse or can infringe upon reasonable property rights.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    He hates disabled people you lying ratbagging tea fucker.

  • ||

    What's the bigger picture?

    You have no RIGHT (God-given, Constitutional, or otherwise) to force somebody to make and serve you empanadas.

  • David||

    Also, you have even LESS right to sue somebody who DOES make and serve you empanadas for not making and serving them to you in the way that you would prefer.

  • sloopyinca||

    Why no photo here? We need a picture of the dirtbag attorney and his cripple to put this in context.

    Hahahaha. The first pic that shows up on a google search is a pan of empenadas. That made my night.

  • Jeffersonian||

    But the ADA is a civil rights law! And don't we all know that civil rights are good things for all people?

  • anarch||

    This thread is lamentably genuine-troll-deficient.

    Whom can I sue about that?

  • Ron L||

    You missed neu-mexican.

  • West Texas Boy||

    His post was more like throwing an empanada off a fishing pier.

  • robc||

    You mean a muffin?

  • ||

    "and not really making anyone's life much better."

    That seems like a big assumption. If these places manage to accommodate the law and make themselves accessible, its not unreasonable to expect that might eventually benefit some disabled person other than Yates.

  • Ron L||

    Benefit how?

  • ||

    Ability to access the establishments?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yeah, people in wheelchairs can now go pretty much anywhere. Unfortunately for them, they have fewer jobs, as the litigation possibilities ADA opened up scared companies from hiring the disabled.

    Anecdote: The insurance company where I used to work hired a woman in a wheelchair. She was a terrible worker, for a long time. Any "normally-abled" person would have been fired years before this woman was. They had to get an airtight case against her, so they needed reams of documentation before they could can her.

    After that experience, I seriously doubt they will ever hire another disabled person. Why take the chance?

  • marlok||

    Dude, you can't think of consequences when you're drafting a "compassionate" piece of legislation.

    For example, they should just write a new law forcing your old insurance company to hire a percentage of disabled people.

    Don't worry, the government will fix this up.

  • ||

    On the other hand, the legislation also prohibits companies from discriminating against them during hiring. Or at least I thought it did.

    If your argument is that the ADA scared your employer into retaining a substandard employee for fear of being sued if they let her go, wouldn't the ADA also scare your employer into hiring disabled applicants for fear of appearing to have discriminated by turning them down?

  • ||

    On the other hand, the legislation also prohibits companies from discriminating against them during hiring. Or at least I thought it did.

    Because one is much harder to prove than the other. People aren't hired for all sorts of reasons during the hiring process. It's very easy to subtly discriminate in hiring without getting caught, unlike firing. The vast majority of interviewees don't get the job; firings are relatively rare.

  • ||

    On the other hand, the legislation also prohibits companies from discriminating against them during hiring. Or at least I thought it did.

    If your argument is that the ADA scared your employer into retaining a substandard employee for fear of being sued if they let her go, wouldn't the ADA also scare your employer into hiring disabled applicants for fear of appearing to have discriminated by turning them down?

  • ||

    Has to do with difficulty of proof.

    There's ample academic literature demonstrating this fact.

    Age discrimination suits make it less likely for companies to hire older people, though they'll go to lengths to avoid voicing (or even thinking) their real reasons.

  • BakedPenguin||

    What John T. said

  • Neu Mejican||

    The law also protects the business by making it clear that the person has to be qualified and able to do the job. There is no sense in which the law protects an unqualified worker from either getting or keeping a job. ADA provides no additional tools to a handicapped worker regarding their ability to sue if they are not performing their job adequately.

  • BakedPenguin||

    And when the lawyer asks the woman in a wheelchair up to the stand, it won't affect the jury whatsoever.

  • Joe R.||

    I fired a one-armed black woman once. For real.

  • ||

    If these places manage to accommodate the law and make themselves accessible, its not unreasonable to expect that might eventually benefit some disabled person other than Yates.

    Absolutely, and if it costs $1 million dollar to comply with the shakedown and one more person now has access it's all been worth it hasn't it?

  • sloopyinca||

    The only places where accomodation should be mandated: Government buildings, hospitals and titty bars.

    Since nearly all buildings in San Francisco fall under one of these three categories, Frankovich would not be affected.

  • ||

    Did I say that? I thought what I said was pretty clear. It is not the case that nobody's life is made better by businesses complying with the ADA.

    Personally, I feel like its a burden on small businesses. I'm not necessarily against requiring businesses to make themselves accessible; I just think if the govt. is going to require it then the govt. should pay for it. That is to say spread the cost evenly across "everyone" instead of concentrating it on small business owners.

  • People Power Hour||

    Why aren't you against the idea of "requiring businesses to make themselves accessible"? Shouldn't the government "require" you to make your home accessible just in case a handicapped salesman calls on you, or a handicapped friend stops by?

  • ||

    Basically the concept of public accommodation. I can definitely sympathize with property rights concerns; certainly moreso than most ADA supporters. (In fact, when I discuss the issue with my wife I'm usually cornered into the anti-ADA position). On the other hand, I recognize the benefit (to disabled persons) of having a public sphere that's mostly accessible to them.

    I could maybe go with the idea that the ADA should have applied only to new construction and/or situations of ownership change, and should have included language to explicitly grandfather out the current owners of existing inaccessible establishments.

  • ||

    ---"Basically the concept of public accommodation."---

    Unfortunately, a public accomodation is usually private property. Hotels, restaurant, shops, etc. They are only public because the government says they are. Try hanging a sign that says "No Public Accomadations Here" and see how far that gets you.

    My belief is that ONLY the Government can violate your Civil Rights. You have no Civil Rights while dealing with a private entity in a mutually agreed to business or personal transaction. As dispicable as I believe discrimination for any reason may be, I have no right or authority to force private citizens to respect my personal beliefs.

  • sloopyinca||

    Very well put. If people don't like the way a business operates re: discrimination, then expose them to the public, do not give them your business and tell your friends.

    I stated elsewhere in this thread...the ADA should only apply at government buildings and hospitals.

  • sloopyinca||

    That was in response to cunctator.

  • Neu Mejican||

    That is, in essence, how the law works.

  • sloopyinca||

    I said nothing about litigation. I said by taking your business elsewhere. The law operates through clowns like this lawyer and his client: intimidation, coercion and manipulation. Explain to me how that is in any way similar to what I said.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I was responding to

    I could maybe go with the idea that the ADA should have applied only to new construction and/or situations of ownership change, and should have included language to explicitly grandfather out the current owners of existing inaccessible establishments.

    Not exact, but close enough. Remodeling needs to be ADA compliant too.

  • ||

    It is not the case that nobody's life is made better by businesses complying with the ADA.

    So any expense is okay because somebody's life is made better? There are a lot of things you could be forced to spend money on that would make my life better. Years ago I remember reading that 90+ % of the cost of compliance with ADA was for wheelchair accessibility and less than 10% of the people covered by ADA are in a wheelchair. The fact that the legislators who created the Act failed to predict the actions of human debris like Frankovich and Yates is proof positive that they had no business interfering with even the simplest of exchanges.

    I'm not necessarily against requiring businesses to make themselves accessible;

    So you believe it is Constitutional for the federal government to dictate the design of private property? Would you have a problem if the United States Government demanded that you assume the costs of making your house wheelchair accessible? How about if they demanded that all of your reading material was available in Braille? At your expense of course.

  • ||

    Reading is fundamental, dude.

    "So any expense is okay because somebody's life is made better?"

    Did I say that? Clearly it is not the case that "any expense" is okay because somebody's life is made better. It may, however, be the case that the expensive of the ADA is "okay" with respect to how many lives it improves.

    "So you believe it is Constitutional for the federal government to dictate the design of private property?"

    Generally yes. If not, then it should be.

    "Would you have a problem if the United States Government demanded that you assume the costs of making your house wheelchair accessible?"

    Yes. My house is not a public accommodation.

    As for expense, I already stated that I feel like the fed (i.e. U.S. taxpayers) should have reimbursed small business owners for the cost of retrofitting their property to comply with the ADA.

  • ||

    ---"My house is not a public accommodation."---

    If your house is not a public accomodation, what makes somebody's privately owned restaurant a public accomodation?? Simply the government saying it is. It's still private property, like your house.

  • ||

    There are differences between "my house" and "Starbucks" that exist regardless of whether the govt. calls one a "public accommodation" and the other not. Certain of those differences are expressed in shorthand via the words "public accommodation". Starbucks is private property, but there's a pretty obvious "public" aspect to it that is lacking in "my house". Purely objectively, many more people pass through a Starbucks in a given day than pass through my house. I don't sell any sort of service that people would have to enter my house in order to utilize.

    Now, you can of course make the case that private property rights should be held sacrosanct regardless of what the property is being used for. That's a perfectly valid case to make. I just don't think its as black-and-white as you (and, no doubt most Reason readers) do.

  • ||

    ---"Starbucks is private property, but there's a pretty obvious "public" aspect to it that is lacking in "my house"."---

    The main "public" aspect to Starbucks is that the government won't allow Starbucks to limit access based on the owners preferences. It's only a "public accomodation" because the government says it is, not because the owner says it is.

  • ||

    Prior to the ADA coffee shops (and businesses in general) would still be different from "my house" in that they routinely admit a whole host of individuals (i.e. "the public") in order to sell it ("the public") a service. That is true regardless of any govt. designation w/ respect to "public accommodation".

  • ||

    ---"they routinely admit a whole host of individuals (i.e. "the public")"---

    And again I say, they admit people based on the fact that the government tells them they must. If a business tried to get around the "public accomodation" aspect by admitting only the people they choose to admit, and not claim to be a public accomodation, the government would have a problem with that.

    Whether a home or business, what part of "private property" is confusing you.

  • robc||

    I admit a whole host of individuals to my house. I call them friends.

  • sloopyinca||

    By this logic, country clubs and fraternal organizations would be exempt from ADA laws since they are not "public."

    Could businesses have memberships they could dole out for free to circumvent the law then?

  • ||

    Okay, Buddy, so you have a party in your house and we can make you install wheelchair ramps. Gotcha.

  • ||

    "It's going to be like Patton on his way to Berlin," Frankovich says of restaurants who don't correct their wrongs before he files suit. "If you don't go ahead and get it taken care of, Big Bertha is going to level the guns and clear the decks." Yes, that was what he said. Verbatim.

    C'mo-o-o-o-o-o-n karma.

  • sloopyinca||

    Checked his website. He's got a tank on it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    He needs to move to Maricopa County.

  • sloopyinca||

    Showdown at high noon? Hopefully they'd bow each other's brains out.

  • sloopyinca||

    Showdown at high noon? Hopefully they'd blow each other's brains out.

  • AA||

    No, thank you. We don't need anymore.

  • Hugh Akston||

    No see, we need every rent-seeking "i AM the law" tuff gai in America to move out to Maricopa County to declare their own badass fiefdom.

    Then, phase 2 begins.

  • sloopyinca||

    Earl Turner, is that you?

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Patton didn't go to Berlin. And Big Bertha was a German gun (from the previous war).

  • Ron L||

    Thank you Tim.

  • ||

    ::Shakes fist at Cavanaugh::

  • Magnificent Bastard||

    Read my book!

  • ||

    Frankovich seems to get his history metaphors from third cousins who knew somebody that got the History Channel once before the cable company discovered his illegal hookup, after which Frankovich sued the cable company for discrimination against the history-disabled.

  • ||

    "It's going to be like Patton on his way to Berlin," ... "If you don't go ahead and get it taken care of, Big Bertha is going to level the guns and clear the decks."

    You do realize, Frank-n'-dickhead, that Berlin is landlocked, Patton didn't go to Berlin, Big Bertha was a German howizer and 'clearing the deck' is a nautical term? Right?

    Moron.

  • Ron L||

    And thank you JW.

  • ||

    Only Nixon Patton can go to China Berlin! Only MacArthur can go to Pyongyang! Only Hannibal can go to Rome! Holy shit this is stupid!

  • The Heresiarch||

    And Big Berthas were built in WWI.

  • sloopyinca||

    A (not THE, but a) solution would be to criminalize the ADA laws and fine people who don't comply. First offense, a fix-it ticket. 2nd offense-$50. 3rd offense-$100.

    That'd get the trial lawyers from getting rich on the backs of these cripples.

  • Ron L||

    Care to comment on why a restaurant should be fined at all?

  • sloopyinca||

    I don't think they should, but it's a lot better than the alternative, i.e: the current law.

    Also, let's face it. We're never gonna get this genie back in the bottle, so this would at least be a shit sandwich with cheese as opposed to just a shit sandwich.

  • Almanian||

    Std libertarian disclaimer, etc. etc. as Sloopy notes - it would be an improvement.

  • People Power Hour||

    What is this "std libertarian disclaimer" bullshit which is always followed by an agreement that government needs to have power it shouldn't ought to have, just less of it, because that would be an improvement. WTF? That's libertarian how?

  • David||

    It's realistic. Trying to repeal the ADA wholesale at this point would be like eating the sun. Not just hard, impossible.

  • cynical||

    It could be done, but you'd have to expand the ADA to the point where everyone was directly inconvenienced by and hated the disabled and particularly their lawyers.

  • sloopyinca||

    Is there any realistic chance to unravel ADA? No.

    Is there any chance to unravel half of the bullshit laws that are already so entrenched in our culture? No.

    I could live in fantasyland and say that the perfect solution is the only one we would accept, but that would leave us right where we are not....on the outside looking in.

    Look, man. I hate the control the government has in mire ways than I can count, and yes, some laws should be repealed with a vengeance. That said, we need to understand that the ADA laws are a third raid issue. You can only seek to manipulate it back to a reasonable level, you cannot hope to overturn it. It's too popular and anyone fighting it absolotely comes off as an absolute prick in the public eye.

    All I'm saying is on this issue at hand, my solution sure would be a step in the right direction but would also appease the people who are proponents of the ADA while sticking a thumb in the eye of these bloodsucking attorneys. I believe that's what we call compromise and like it or not, we have to go down that road occasionally.

  • ||

    That actually makes a lot of sense dude.

    lou
    www.privacy-tools.eu.tc

  • sloopyinca||

    Thanks for the input dick-bot.

  • Rick H.||

    How I long for "lou" to get terminal colon cancer.

  • Almanian||

    Neu Mejican - working for a Big Bidness, and leading our compliance efforts re: ADA and similar laws, here's why this is a shitty, pustule-sucking assfuck of a law: Chile Lindo has already complied by offering Mr. Chairtard a "reasonable accommodation", as the law requires - bringing him his food.

    But they're getting sued anyway, with no risk to Chairtard and Howitzer, of course. Chile L incur expenses even if found "not guilty", and, given the SF court system, I wouldn't even bet that they'll "win".

    So, even if you comply, You Lose! That's why it's a wonderful law, and Chairtard and Trollyer can go fuck themselves.

  • sloopyinca||

    Great points. Unfortunately, there is no "spirit of the law" in the case of the ADA. The sole objective is to line the pockets of dirtbag trial lawyers at the expense of all otler parties involved (the private entity that cannot operate privately, the taxpayers because we have to sit on these juries and pay the judges, clerks, etc and even the gimps the laws propose to help because they rarely benefit from the lawsuits financially and are often blackballed from work because employers are fearful they will get sued for trivialities.

    Tort reform would be a start. Beating these scumbags with rubber hoses would be a better one.

  • -||

    (the private entity that cannot operate privately...

    You forgot your closing parenthesis, resulting in a self indulgent run-on sentence. I hate that.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I find it interesting that a comment about lack of journalistic diligence in this story has led to a lot of knee-jerk attacks on the merits of the ADA. As I said, without context this story is just good for reinforcing preconceived impressions of the law. It adds very little to the discussion.

  • robc||

    We got context ON THIS CASE. And that is all that matters.

  • ||

    This Yates fellow seems like a real shitbag.

    I'm guessing paralysis from the waist down. Everything included.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'm guessing paralysis from the waist down. Everything included.


    From his comments, I'd guess from the neck up, as well.

  • sloopyinca||

    I think he's just a stooge for Frankenlawyer. That said, he needs to be checked for mental competence to make sure he's not being abused by this attorney, which would put him in a sticky situation at the California Bar Association.

  • ||

    I dunno, it could be a collaboration.

    Angry disabled man seeks giant penis with which to fuck people. Giant penis obliges.

  • cynical||

    That's an interesting thought. If he was being exploited, maybe he can sue.

  • sloopyinca||

    Hahahahaha. +10.

  • JohnD||

    Damn, you stole my witty comment.

  • threadjack||

    This is a link on the SFWeekly page about this ADA story... It's Hummer mom. I'm imagining myself as a 15 yr old boy meeting this babe... sigh...

    http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thes.....hummer.php

  • zoltan||

    "The young boys were not unresponsive."

    And babe, wow, low standards.

  • thread...er.. ejack||

    And babe, wow, low standards.

    I'm 15, I'm with Hummer mom. Other than moans and grunts, that's basically all the vocabulary I have available.

  • sloopyinca||

    I found this mildly arousing. I especially liked how they made sure to let the readers know she is a Mormon.

    I assume if she were an atheist or a witch like OrganicGirl, the SF media would have printed that as well?

    Progressives: serving up heaping bowlfuls of hypocrisy since Woodrow Wilson.

  • David||

    "...many in her 2006 black Hummer that gave her the neighborhood nickname 'the Hummer Mom.'"

    Yes, that's what gave her the nickname. Sure.

  • ||

    Did she drug them, has she made any films, was it anal?

  • zoltan||

    Both him and his lawyer deserve to be in wheelchairs.

  • kreminitly||

    He deserves to be sentenced to six months of serving as a mascot for Chile Lindo, consisting of dressing up in a giant empenada suit, going out to the roadside and waving at passing cars.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Where the hell are they going to find a muffin costume?

  • sloopyinca||

    Maybe a sandwich board? With the chair, they could really get their money's worth. 4 sheets of plywood and some paint can't cost that much, can it?

  • marlok||

    'Tejeda says. "Where's a wheelchair going to fit in there? If you're too fat, you won't fit in there."'

    Here comes a lawsuit from the fatties.

  • sloopyinca||

    Couldn't they just hang a sign that says they reserve the right not to serve anyone they don't want to and just tell him to fuck off?

    That is a serious question, btw.

  • ||

    In a sane and just world....

  • ||

    "Chile Lindo is a take-out restaurant, not a sit-down," she says.

    She said "sit-down," callously referring to Yates's disability. Not only is Paula Tejeda in violation of the ADA, she is a cold, insensitive monster. Tejeda should be tied to Big Bertha and fired across the decks of America's Patton Office.

  • ||

    Hey, its only money right?

    Lu8
    www.privacy-tools.eu.tc

  • Rick H.||

    That's two spam comments you've shat out in the same thread. Please die.

  • ||

    Yates, has had a recent two-wheeled field day in the Mission...

    He couldn't get his motorcycle through the door?

    Well, at least this jerk's stuck in a wheelchair...maybe. The phrase "wheelchair-using" implies that he's not actually "wheelchair bound", or necessarily severely crippled or paralyzed, since just about anyone can use a wheelchair, crippled or not.

    the State Bar Court cleared Frankovich

    That's what they're paid to do.

  • ||

    This is interesting...

    "Dockets and Filings"
    "Cases filed matching 'Craig Yates'":
    http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Craig+Yates

    There's 128 cases listed, sometimes more than one per day, though a few appear to involve someone else.

  • ||

    Yeah, that's what I thought. This disabled guy, having nothing better to do with his life, makes it his personal mission to harass businesses for ADA noncompliance.

    Probably because, you know, his dick doesn't work anymore. So he has to find some other way to fuck people.

  • sloopyinca||

    Why don't Yates and Frankovich just go for the brass ring and sue the city of San Francisco. Many of their sidewalks do not comply with ADA guidelines as they are at greater than a 3:12 slope. Since these are considered public thoroughfares, would they not be required to comply? They do not have defined crosswalks at each intersection either, meaning they are required to have sloping curbs on their streets for access. Many caltrain cars do not have access and several older Muni trains (epecially the old ones at the Embarcadero) are not retrofitted for access. Also, I've yet to see a cable car with a handicapped lift (but they may be able to tether him to the back).

    I'm sure the compassionate lawmakers there would be willing to bend over and take one for the progressive team if it means this guy will feel better about himself.

  • Ron L||

    Hey, and the city runs golf courses and tennis courts. How's a guy in a chair supposed to use those?

  • ||

    Very slowly?

  • MNG||

    I've heard that some lawyers, who are also jerks, make money defending people utilizing all that stuff in the bill of rights. I guess that makes those provisions terrible too!

  • ||

    I've heard that some lawyers, who are also jerks, make money defending people utilizing all that stuff in the bill of rights.

    The only difference being that the BoR was actually ratified along with the U.S. Constitution. The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 is legislation, not a Constitutional amendment, and it explicitly violates the property rights and freedom of association that are protected by the Constitution.

  • MNG||

    Boy I'd like to see the math on that last part...The Constitution does not reflect the libertarian obsession with sacred "property rights." In fact it explicitly grants the federal government to take property (the tax clause, the takings clause [as long as compensation is given], the due process clause [as long as due process is given]), etc., etc., etc.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Yes, all legal actions are the same, MNG. You are getting progressively more insipid.

  • MNG||

    Well, if you are going to impugn a cause of action because some ass clown lawyer might make money in bringing it, then don't get mad if I point out that assclown lawyers can make money with all kinds of legal actions and devices...

  • juris imprudent||

    "Where's a wheelchair going to fit in there? If you're too fat, you won't fit in there."....

    Someone in PC-central San Francisco said that? Forget ADA, this person needs intensive sensitivity camp.

  • MNG||

    http://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html

  • Rick H.||

    MNG, I'm sure those stats will be a huge relief to all the struggling workers and business owners Craig Yates victimizes in the months to come. HarHar's link has the addresses of his targets. Perhaps you should mail them all a copy of your interpretation of national employment trend data; they'd probably find it very relevant.

  • MNG||

    Well, at least it deals a blow to the oft repeated idea that we must oppose the ADA for, you know , the sake of the disabled it so greatly harms...

  • ||

    I think the ADA has increased disabled unemployment in subtler ways.

    IMO, it has given rise to a new class of morally superior "entitled" disable people. Disable people who appear to assume that you're always going to defer to them because of their sainted status.

    Like the guy in my apartment complex who would invite over his extended family and monopolize the swimming pool every weekend. Nobody would say shit because he was in a wheelchair.
    And then he would get annoyed if you didn't want to be his best buddy.

    I suspect these people either have trouble holding down a job, or feel they should have to get one.

    Mind you this guy sppears to have been born with a disease, it's probably different for people that are disabled due to an accident.

  • Italiano||

    Whatsa-matta with these moolies? Back in the good'ole days, we'd snatch this lawyer scumbag up and let him take a long walk down a short pier... with size 20 concrete sneakers. Ohhhh!

    Fohget about it!

    Hell, he wants to fuckin' fight for disabled people? My cousin Vinnie can break this mooks legs so he can relate better. No charge. That's right. We're quite the philanthropists.

    I swear. Nobody's got balls anymore. Nobody got balls. Nobody.

  • merry||

    Matt didn't even show up in person? No chance he's going to get hit in the face with a chair. What a gyp.

  • ||

    The logical conclusion of ADA is that if a thing cannot be accessed or accomplished by somebody in a wheelchair, NOBODY should be able to go there or do that.

    If there's only one of something, it has to be three feet from the floor. Phone, light switch, drinking fountain...

    Speaking of drinking fountains, my own handicap is that I'm 6' 7" and nearsighted. Handicapped drinking fountains look just like urinals to me. Sorry.

  • ||

    I am certain that the exploits of Frankovich and Yates could not possibly have any relation to this story about restaurants closing.

    From the LA Times story:

    The number of restaurants operating nationwide dropped this year for the first time in more than a decade, a survey shows, with California accounting for almost a third of the losses.

  • BatChainPuller||

    "Speaking of drinking fountains, my own handicap is that I'm 6' 7" and nearsighted. Handicapped drinking fountains look just like urinals to me."

    Jim,
    You probably are victim of a "stooping disability" (I shit you not) That is why drinking fountains in new buildings now come in pairs; high and low

  • ||

    The business set up a bench on the sidewalk outside the shop and serves everyone there now. So Yates's service hasn't changed but since he's being treated like everyone else, it's not an ADA violation anymore. Probably some SF zoning violation now though.

  • ||

    Wow!! Don't know what to say. The law doesn't protect those it is SUPPOSED to protect, and this happens? Both of them should be jailed and any judge going for it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement