Category Archives: Legislation

by | July 23, 2012 · 6:08 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: California Hotel Sued For Discrimination Under "Unruh Civil Rights Act" For Prohibiting Charitable Event

Alleging that they were the victims of discrimination, Ryan, the grandson of Holocaust survivors, and 17 other individuals later filed suit against Adaya and the hotel under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which says no business establishment may discriminate on the basis of sex, race, color or religion. In addition to Adaya, the suit names Indus Investments Inc., the corporate owner and operator of the hotel.

Ari Ryan and other young leaders of the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces gathered on the afternoon of July 11, 2010, at the Hotel Shangri-La in Santa Monica for a charitable event. Soon after the party got underway around the hotel’s pool, apologetic hotel staff and security guards began telling group members to remove their literature and banners, to get out of the pool and hot tub, and to stop handing out T-shirts, according to Ryan and court documents.

The employees were acting on the orders of hotel owner Tehmina Adaya, according to the statements of witnesses and hotel employees in court documents. Adaya is a Muslim woman of Pakistani descent.

In court documents, Adaya said the July event had not been scheduled with the hotel and that the participants were trespassing on hotel property. Philip E. Black, an attorney for Adaya, declined to comment.

A jury trial is slated to begin Monday in Santa Monica Superior Court. The plaintiffs are seeking more than $1 million in damages.

According to the lawsuit, the charitable event was for the Legacy Program, a branch of the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces that raises funds to send children of fallen Israeli soldiers to summer camp. The party was planned by Platinum Events, a marketing firm that had organized other gatherings at the Shangri-La after the property underwent a $30-million renovation and reopened in mid-2009, the complaint said.

For more:  http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-shangri-la-lawsuit-20120723,0,868164.story

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: California Hotel Sued For Discrimination Under "Unruh Civil Rights Act" For Prohibiting Charitable Event

Filed under Guest Issues, Legislation, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | May 30, 2012 · 6:53 am

Hospitality Industry Compliance Risks: Hotels Must Have "Written ADA And Local Accessibility Policies And Procedures" To Avoid Costly Litigation

 “…(without) written ADA and local accessibility policies and procedures for your hotel or timeshare property, then you are taking unnecessary risks…New Guest Room Requirements for Mobility and Communication Features requirements apply to new and altered public accommodations…”

What Can You Do to Avoid Liability?

  • Training – Training is critically important, and it can help prevent expensive litigation. Thought must go into the preparation of an accessible room, and the approach must be different depending on the disability of the individual who has booked the room. JMBM performs site inspection surveys and works with hotel operators to train the staff to address the needs and concerns of individuals with disabilities.
  • ADA Surveys/Site Inspections – Even if you own or operate a newly constructed property, an ADA Survey will likely reveal areas of non-compliance and rooms for improvement in policies and procedures. By working with a CASp (Certified Access Specialist program) certified consultant, you may enjoy certain protections against liability while you seek to bring your property into compliance.
  • Website Accessibility – This is an area of focus for the Department of Justice. This area is evolving, but your website must already comply with all current reservation requirements.

For more:  http://hotellaw.jmbm.com/2012/05/ada_compliance_panel.html

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Compliance Risks: Hotels Must Have "Written ADA And Local Accessibility Policies And Procedures" To Avoid Costly Litigation

Filed under Guest Issues, Insurance, Labor Issues, Legislation, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | May 25, 2012 · 8:26 am

Hospitality Industry Guest Disability Risks: "Q&A: Accessibility Requirements For Existing Swimming Pools At Hotels And Other Public Accomodations"

  • What is the effective compliance date of the ADA standards for accessible pools? The effective date of the 2010 Standards generally is March 15, 2012. However, and in response to public comments and concerns, the Department has extended the date for compliance for the requirements related to the provision of accessible entry and exit to existing swimming pools, wading pools, and spas to January 31, 2013.
  • What does the ADA require for accessibility of pools?Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by places of public accommodation, including many private businesses.  Title III requires newly constructed and altered business facilities to be fully accessible to people with disabilities, applying the ADA Standards for Accessible Design.  In addition, Title III requires businesses to remove accessibility barriers in existing facilities when doing so is readily achievable.The 2010 Standards require that newly constructed or altered swimming pools, wading pools, and spas have an accessible way for people with disabilities to enter and exit the pool.   The Standards also provide technical specifications for when a means of entry is accessible, such as, for pool lifts, the location, size of the seat, lifting capacity, and clear floor space.  You can see the 2010 ADA Standards at http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm.For existing swimming pools built before the effective date of the new rule, the 2010 Standards provide the guide for achieving accessibility.  However, full compliance may not be required in existing facilities (see question 4).The 2010 Standards explain whether a newly constructed or altered pool needs to have one or two accessible means of entry and exit.  Section 242 provides that large pools (pools with 300 linear feet of pool wall or more) must have two accessible means of entry and exit. One means of entry/exit must be a fixed pool lift or sloped entry; the other entry can be a transfer wall, transfer system, or pool stairs.  Small pools (pools with less than 300 linear feet of pool wall) must provide at least one accessible means of entry/exit, which must be either a fixed pool lift or a sloped entry.

    The 2010 Standards also provide details about what features an accessible means of entry or exit should have.  Specifically, section 1009 addresses the location, size of the seat, lifting capacity, and clear floor space required for fixed pool lifts, as well as the requirements for sloped entries, transfer walls, transfer systems, and pool stairs.  A copy of the 2010 ADA Standards is available at http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm.  

    The 2010 Standards require that new or altered wading pools have a sloped entry. New or altered spas must have at least one accessible means of entry, which may be a transfer wall, a transfer system, or a pool lift.  See sections 242.3 and 242.4 of the 2010 Standards.

  • Does a community pool have to provide an accessible means of exit and entry?Community pools that are associated with a private residential community and are limited to the exclusive use of residents and their guests are not covered by the ADA accessibility requirements.  On the other hand, if a swimming pool/club located in a residential community is made available to the public for rental or use, it is covered under Title III of the ADA.  If a community pool is owned or operated by a state or local government entity, it is covered by Title II of the ADA, which requires “program accessibility.”  See http://www.ada.gov/pools_2010.htm.

    REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING POOLS

  • My pool already existed before the effective date of the new rule. What am I required to do to provide pool access to customers with mobility disabilities?The ADA requires businesses to make existing pools accessible only when it is “readily achievable” to do so.  Readily achievable means that providing access is easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense.  The 2010 Standards provide the benchmark, or goal, for accessibility in existing pools.  (See Question 2for the 2010 Standards requirements for pools).  However, owners of existing pools need to comply with the 2010 Standards only to the extent that doing so is readily achievable for them.The 2010 Standards for pool lifts require lifts to be fixed and to meet additional requirements for location, size of the seat, lifting capacity, and clear floor space.  Therefore, if a business can provide a fixed lift that meets all of the 2010 Standards’ requirements without much difficulty or expense, the business must provide one. If no fully compliant lift is readily achievable for the business, the business is not obligated to provide a fully compliant lift until doing so becomes readily achievable. In addition, the business may provide a non-fixed lift that otherwise complies with the requirements in the 2010 Standards if doing so is readily achievable and if full compliance is not.
  • Are there any tax credits or deductions to help me comply?Yes.  To assist businesses with complying with the ADA, Section 44 of the IRS Code allows a tax credit for small businesses and Section 190 of the IRS Code allows a tax deduction for all businesses. The tax credit is available to businesses that have total revenues of $1,000,000 or less in the previous tax year or 30 or fewer full-time employees. This credit can cover 50% of the eligible access expenditures in a year up to $10,250 (maximum credit of $5000). The tax credit can be used to offset the cost of undertaking barrier removal and alterations to improve accessibility; providing accessible formats such as Braille, large print and audio tape; making available a sign language interpreter or a reader for customers or employees; and for purchasing certain adaptive equipment.  The tax deduction is available to all businesses with a maximum deduction of $15,000 per year. The tax deduction can be claimed for expenses incurred in barrier removal and alterations.  To learn more about the tax credit and tax deduction provisions, contact the DOJ ADA Information Line (at 800-514-0301 (voice); 800-514-0383 (TTY).
  • What if I can’t afford to install a fixed lift in my pool, or it would be difficult to do so?In that case, installation is not required. If it is not readily achievable for a business to provide a fixed lift – that is, if it would be too difficult or expensive to make these changes – then a business may use other ways, such as a non-fixed lift, to provide access to the pool.  If it is not readily achievable to provide access to the existing pool, even by way of a non-fixed lift, the business need not do so. Nonetheless, it should make a plan to achieve compliance with the pool access requirements when doing so becomes readily achievable.
  • What is the difference between a “portable” lift and a “fixed” lift?The real issue is not whether a lift is “portable” versus “fixed,” but rather whether a lift is “fixed” versus “non-fixed.”  A fixed lift means that the lift is attached to the pool deck or apron in some way.  A non-fixed lift means that it is not attached in any way.  Therefore, a portable lift that is attached to the pool deck would be considered a fixed lift.  Thus, owners of portable lifts can fully comply with the access requirements by affixing their lifts to the pool deck or apron.  They are required to do so if that is readily achievable, except in certain circumstances discussed below.
  • How do I determine if it is readily achievable for me to install a lift in my existing pool? Readily achievable means that providing access is easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense.   This is a flexible, case-by-case analysis, with the goal of ensuring that ADA requirements are not unduly burdensome, including to small businesses.  The readily achievable analysis is based on factors such as the nature and cost of the needed action; all the financial, staff and other resources available to the business and any parent entity; and the impact on the operation of the site, including legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.1   Generally, a mere franchisor-franchisee relationship, where the franchisor does not own or operate the franchisee business, will not require consideration of the franchisor’s resources in determining what is readily achievable.This is the same standard that places of public accommodation have been using for all covered elements of existing facilities since 1992.  Guidance on “Common Questions: Readily Achievable Barrier Removal” is available at http://www.ada.gov//adata1.htm (1996).
  • I already purchased a portable lift before March 15, 2012.  Can I still use it?Yes.  If you have purchased a non-fixed lift before March 15th that otherwise complies with the requirements in the 2010 Standards for pool lifts (such as seat size, etc.), you may use it, as long as you keep it in position for use at the pool and operational during all times that the pool is open to guests.  Because of a misunderstanding by some pool owners regarding whether the use of portable pool lifts would comply with barrier removal obligations, the Department, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, will not enforce the fixed elements of the 2010 Standards against those owners or operators of existing pools who purchased portable lifts prior to March 15, 2012 and who keep the portable lifts in position for use at the pool and operational during all times that the pool is open to guests so long as those lifts otherwise comply with the requirements of the 2010 Standards.  Generally, lifts purchased after March 15, 2012 must be fixed if it is readily achievable to do so.If a portable lift was purchased after March 15, 2012, the obligation to remove barriers is an ongoing one. If it becomes readily achievable to attach the lift to the pool at a later date you must do so.  Manufacturers, for example, are providing kits to attach portable lifts.
  • I do not have a lift at my pool and it is not readily achievable to provide one now.  Do I have to close the pool?No.  If accessibility is not readily achievable, the Department recommends that businesses develop a plan to provide access into the pool when it becomes readily achievable in the future.  Because accessibility in existing facilities is an ongoing obligation, a covered entity must provide accessible features when it becomes readily achievable to do so.
  • I’ve decided that it is readily achievable to provide a lift, but the lift I ordered is on back order. Do I have to close my pool until the lift arrives?  No.  A business in this situation should order and install a compliant lift and install it when it becomes available.

    OTHER QUESTIONS

  • What if I have two pools or a pool and a spa?  Can I share a lift between pools? In new construction, each pool or spa must provide accessible entry and exit.  For existing pools, whether each pool or spa must have its own lift (or other accessible means of entry) depends on whether it is readily achievable.  If it is not readily achievable for a business to provide a lift at each pool or spa, it does not mean the inaccessible pool or spa must be closed.  In these circumstances, the business should make a plan to purchase and install a compliant pool lift or other accessible entry when it becomes readily achievable to do so.Sharing non-fixed pool lifts between pools can pose safety risks to swimmers with disabilities because if a lift has been moved to another pool, a person with a disability might be unable to get out of the pool.  Sharing lifts between pools also requires people with disabilities to rely on staff assistance to find, move, and set up the lift each time.
  • If I can’t provide a lift at every pool, do I have to close the one(s) that has no lift? No.  If it is not readily achievable to provide a lift at each pool, the inaccessible pool(s) may remain open.
  • Do I have to leave my pool lift out at poolside when my pool is closed?No.  Pool lifts are required to be available only when the pool is open and available to the public.  If a pool is closed during the winter months or at night, the public accommodation is free to remove the lift from the pool and store it.
  • Can I store my lift and bring it out only when it is requested by a person with a disability?No.  A pool lift must remain in place and be operational during all times that the pool is open to guests.  The ADA and its implementing regulations require equal and independent access for people with disabilities for all covered facilities (not just pools).  Allowing covered entities to store lifts and only take them out on request places unnecessary additional burdens on people with disabilities.  People with disabilities have long faced the challenges of dealing with portable accessibility features – e.g., staff are unavailable or too busy to help locate and set up the equipment, the equipment is missing, the equipment isn’t maintained, or staff do not know how to safely set up the equipment.  In addition, the ADA Standards specify that a lift must be located at the proper water depth and with the necessary space around it to maneuver a wheelchair.  Moving a portable lift around raises the likelihood that the lift will be improperly located, making it difficult or dangerous to use.
  • I think a lift poses a safety risk at an unattended pool.  I also have heard that my insurance rates will increase if I have a lift in my unattended pool. Can I consider safety risks?The ADA allows businesses to consider “legitimate safety requirements” in determining whether an action is readily achievable, as long as the requirements are based on actual risks and are necessary for the safe operation of the business. However, a “legitimate safety requirement” cannot be based on speculation or unsubstantiated generalizations about safety concerns or risks.  We note that businesses cannot rely on limitations on coverage or insurance rates as a reason not to comply with the ADA.
  • I’ve provided a pool lift.  Do I have any further legal obligations?    Once an accessible means of entry to a pool, such as your lift, has been provided, it needs to remain available and in working condition while the pool is open to the public. Staff should also be trained so they will know how the lift works, where it is located, and how to operate and maintain it.  For example, a pool lift that operates on batteries may need to be recharged periodically.  To be sure that lift remains operable, staff should know how to charge the battery and be assigned to perform the task as necessary.

    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE 2010 STANDARDS

  • What is the Department’s approach going to be to ensuring compliance with the new regulation pertaining to pool lifts? As a general matter, the Department favors voluntary compliance with the ADA from covered entities. The Department seeks collaborative approaches.  To achieve these objectives, the Department has a robust outreach and technical assistance program designed to assist businesses and State and local governments to understand their obligations under the ADA.

    RESOURCES

  • If I have a question about the new requirements, where do I go? The Department’s wide-ranging outreach, education and technical assistance program is designed to assist businesses and State and local governments to understand their obligations under the ADA. Additional information about the ADA’s requirements, including the 2010 ADA Standards, is available on the Department’s ADA Website at www.ada.gov.If you have questions and would like to speak to an ADA Specialist, please call the ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (voice); 800-514-0383 (TTY).  Specialists are available Monday through Friday from 9:30 AM until 5:30 PM (Eastern Time), except on Thursday when the hours are 12:30 PM until 5:30 PM.ADA experts are also available to present to conferences and training sessions through the ADA Speakers Bureau.

For complete information:  http://www.ada.gov/qa_existingpools_titleIII.htm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Guest Disability Risks: "Q&A: Accessibility Requirements For Existing Swimming Pools At Hotels And Other Public Accomodations"

Filed under Guest Issues, Labor Issues, Legislation, Liability, Management And Ownership, Pool And Spa, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , ,

by | May 18, 2012 · 10:12 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Dept. Of Justice Extends Deadline For ADA "Pool Lifts" Requirements Until Jan 31, 2013; "Fixed Lift" Requirements Still Apply To Pools & Spas Under Construction Or Being Altered

“…the Department of Justice (DOJ) last night announced a substantial postponement of the ADA compliance date for existing pools and spas with ADA requirements for accessible entries.  The new compliance date – January 31, 2013 – is more than an additional nine months beyond the original date of March 15, 2012…”

“The extension is fair and sensible and the lodging industry supports it,” said AH&LA President/CEO Joe McInerney.

AH&LA began its efforts immediately after DOJ first announced in a guidance dated January 31, 2012 that pool lifts used to provide accessible entries into existing pools and spas must be “fixed” unless not “readily achievable,” next to the pool/spa at all times when the facilities are open, and cannot be shared between two bodies of water even if they are in the same location.  DOJ subsequently clarified that that “fixed” means attached to the pool deck in some way.  This means that “portable” lifts brought out upon request would not be acceptable, raising new concerns among members about safety risks and costs posed by “fixed” lifts.   The hospitality and business community viewed this announcement to be a significant change from the pool lift requirements issued by DOJ in its September 15, 2010 final regulations and began its intensive campaign to both reverse these substantive changes and delay the compliance date.

For more:  http://www.ahla.com/pressrelease.aspx?id=34522&hq_e=el&hq_m=1729871&hq_l=1&hq_v=e98908d08d

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Dept. Of Justice Extends Deadline For ADA "Pool Lifts" Requirements Until Jan 31, 2013; "Fixed Lift" Requirements Still Apply To Pools & Spas Under Construction Or Being Altered

Filed under Guest Issues, Health, Insurance, Legislation, Liability, Maintenance, Management And Ownership, Pool And Spa, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , ,

by | May 15, 2012 · 7:36 am

Hospitality Industry Restaurant Safety: California Restaurant Playground Areas Face New "Sanitation And Safety Requirements Under State Assembly Bill; Must Post Inspection And Cleaning Plans

Under the bill, sponsored by Democrat Michael Allen of Santa Rosa, restaurants would be required to post signs informing customers that food is not allowed on play structures and to provide adults who ask copies of their playground inspection and cleaning plans.

Fast-food restaurants in California could face new sanitation and safety requirements for the playgrounds they install to attract children. The Assembly on Monday approved a bill that would expand food safety laws to cover the indoor and outdoor playgrounds.

Allen says the bill was promoted by research showing that restaurant playgrounds can be breeding grounds for illness-causing bacteria and are not always well-maintained.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/14/state/n151405D10.DTL#ixzz1ux75aeHF

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Restaurant Safety: California Restaurant Playground Areas Face New "Sanitation And Safety Requirements Under State Assembly Bill; Must Post Inspection And Cleaning Plans

Filed under Food Illnesses, Guest Issues, Health, Injuries, Legislation, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | May 8, 2012 · 7:04 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: "Americans With Disabilities Act" (ADA) "Website Accessibility" Lawsuits Will Force Hotels To Update Websites To Service Disabled Guests

“…Charles Schwab… announced last week that they settled a year-long claim by a blind customer that its website was inaccessible to blind, low vision and cognitively challenged customers….”

 Not only does your website need to comply with the substantive requirements for listing hotel accessible features, for example, but the website itself needs to be accessible to disabled customers.

You need to ask yourself some questions. For example:

  • What standards of accessibility is your website hosting?
  • How do you measure website compliance?
  • How often do you audit your website for ADA compliance?

Charles Schwab joins a list of 15 prominent companies which have settled website accessibility complaints. Charles Schwab agreed that it will make its website more accessible and inclusive for all customers, and agreed to implement the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Version 2.0 Level AA which will make its website navigable by disabled customers.

An informal complaint backed by the threat of litigation and administrative investigations was lodged with Charles Schwab by the lawyer for a blind day trader. The claimant was a long-time Schwab customer and herself a computer programmer. One morning, she found that she could no longer navigate the Schwab website using JAWS software and was prevented from making trades on-line. The

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has not approved and adopted any formal standards for website accessibility and recently withdrew its Notice of Proposed Rule Making for web access standards. The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) has been working for years and has promulgated the WCAG which is widely recognized as the “gold standard” for web access. However, given the almost daily changes in technology and the complexities of cyberspace, there are no official website standards.

Most recent DOJ investigations and settlements have focused on website accessibility. Target Corp. recently paid over $6 million to settle a website ADA class action.

For more:  http://hotellaw.jmbm.com/2012/05/ada_compliance_-_charles_schwab_settlement.html

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: "Americans With Disabilities Act" (ADA) "Website Accessibility" Lawsuits Will Force Hotels To Update Websites To Service Disabled Guests

Filed under Guest Issues, Legislation, Liability, Maintenance, Management And Ownership, Technology, Training

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | May 5, 2012 · 7:43 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Dept. Of Justice Considering Delaying ADA "Pool Lift" Compliance Deadline From May 15 To September 2012

The DOJ could charge $55,000 for the first violation and $110,000 for any subsequent violation. The Justice Department has said it will investigate any complaints of non-compliance but will give pools with financial hardship and a savings plan more time to comply.

ADA regulations instruct hotels to buy one fixed lift for each large pool, hot tub and sauna. The 235,000 to 310,000 hotels needing to upgrade may face total costs of $1 billion, according to the Association of Pool and Spa Professionals.

As a result of widespread misunderstanding about the rule and complaints from hotel owners, the Department of Justice has extended the original March 15 deadline for compliance to May 15, and is considering delaying it until September.

The department is reviewing comments submitted in March and April. A spokesman said the department is considering only extending the deadline — not stripping the requirement altogether.

“If a fixed lift is affordable and easy for that hotel, they need to provide a fixed lift,” DOJ spokesman Mitchell Rivard wrote in an email. “If only a portable lift is affordable and easy for that hotel, they can use a portable lift. If they already have a portable lift, they should explore whether it is affordable and easy to attach the lift. If no lift is achievable, they should make a plan to achieve access when it becomes readily achievable for them.”

For more:  http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20120505/NEWS01/205050303

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Dept. Of Justice Considering Delaying ADA "Pool Lift" Compliance Deadline From May 15 To September 2012

Filed under Guest Issues, Insurance, Legislation, Liability, Maintenance, Management And Ownership, Pool And Spa, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | April 17, 2012 · 8:10 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: "Aggressive" Disabled Plaintiff Attorneys "Identify" Hotels And Restaurants Not In Compliance With ADA Laws And Use "People With Disabilities" To File Lawsuits

“…suits were filed by Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, a lawyer based in Florida, who has a regular group of people with disabilities from whom he selects plaintiffs. One of them, Todd Kreisler, a man in a wheelchair who lives on the East Side of Manhattan, sued 19 businesses over 16 months – a Chinese restaurant, a liquor store and a sandwich shop among them…”

A small cadre of lawyers, some from out of state, are using New York City’s age and architectural quirkiness as the foundation for a flood of lawsuits citing violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The lawyers are generally not acting on existing complaints from people with disabilities. Instead, they identify local businesses, like bagel shops and delis, that are not in compliance with the law, and then aggressively recruit plaintiffs from advocacy groups for people with disabilities.

The plaintiffs typically collect $500 for each suit, and each plaintiff can be used several times over. The lawyers, meanwhile, make several thousands of dollars, because the civil rights law entitles them to legal fees from the noncompliant businesses.

The practice has set off a debate about whether the lawsuits are a laudable effort, because they force businesses to make physical improvements to comply with the disabilities act, or simply a form of ambulance-chasing, with no one actually having been injured.

The suits may claim a host of problems: at a deli grocery in West Harlem, an overly steep ramp without guardrails, high shelves and a narrowing pathway near the refrigerators; at a yogurt shop in the theater district, no ramp, no bathroom doorknob that can be opened with a closed fist and exposed hot water drains under the bathroom sink; at a flower shop on the Upper East Side, no ramp and shelves that are too high.

For more:  http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=939650&f=22

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: "Aggressive" Disabled Plaintiff Attorneys "Identify" Hotels And Restaurants Not In Compliance With ADA Laws And Use "People With Disabilities" To File Lawsuits

Filed under Claims, Guest Issues, Insurance, Legislation, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | · 8:10 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: "Aggressive" Disabled Plaintiff Attorneys "Identify" Hotels And Restaurants Not In Compliance With ADA Laws And Use "People With Disabilities" To File Lawsuits

“…suits were filed by Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, a lawyer based in Florida, who has a regular group of people with disabilities from whom he selects plaintiffs. One of them, Todd Kreisler, a man in a wheelchair who lives on the East Side of Manhattan, sued 19 businesses over 16 months – a Chinese restaurant, a liquor store and a sandwich shop among them…”

A small cadre of lawyers, some from out of state, are using New York City’s age and architectural quirkiness as the foundation for a flood of lawsuits citing violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The lawyers are generally not acting on existing complaints from people with disabilities. Instead, they identify local businesses, like bagel shops and delis, that are not in compliance with the law, and then aggressively recruit plaintiffs from advocacy groups for people with disabilities.

The plaintiffs typically collect $500 for each suit, and each plaintiff can be used several times over. The lawyers, meanwhile, make several thousands of dollars, because the civil rights law entitles them to legal fees from the noncompliant businesses.

The practice has set off a debate about whether the lawsuits are a laudable effort, because they force businesses to make physical improvements to comply with the disabilities act, or simply a form of ambulance-chasing, with no one actually having been injured.

The suits may claim a host of problems: at a deli grocery in West Harlem, an overly steep ramp without guardrails, high shelves and a narrowing pathway near the refrigerators; at a yogurt shop in the theater district, no ramp, no bathroom doorknob that can be opened with a closed fist and exposed hot water drains under the bathroom sink; at a flower shop on the Upper East Side, no ramp and shelves that are too high.

For more:  http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=939650&f=22

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: "Aggressive" Disabled Plaintiff Attorneys "Identify" Hotels And Restaurants Not In Compliance With ADA Laws And Use "People With Disabilities" To File Lawsuits

Filed under Claims, Guest Issues, Insurance, Legislation, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | April 13, 2012 · 1:21 am

Hospitality Industry Employee Risks: California Hotels And Restaurants Are "Not Obligated To Ensure Workers Take Legally Mandated Lunch Breaks"; Unanimous Opinion By State Supreme Court

“…the high court sided with businesses when it ruled that requiring companies to order breaks is unmanageable and those decisions should be left to workers. The decision provided clarity that businesses had sought regarding the law…”

In a case that affects thousands of businesses and millions of workers, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that employers are under no obligation to ensure that workers take legally mandated lunch breaks.

The unanimous opinion came after workers’ attorneys argued that abuses are routine and widespread when companies aren’t required to issue direct orders to take the breaks. They claimed employers take advantage of workers who don’t want to leave colleagues during busy times.

The case was initially filed nine years ago against Dallas-based Brinker International, the parent company of Chili’s and other eateries, by restaurant workers complaining of missed breaks in violation of California labor law.

The opinion written by Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar explained that state law does not compel an employer to ensure employees cease all work during meal periods. Instead, an employee is at liberty to use the time as they choose, she wrote.

For more:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/court-managers-dont-ensure-lunch-breaks-181751682.html

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Employee Risks: California Hotels And Restaurants Are "Not Obligated To Ensure Workers Take Legally Mandated Lunch Breaks"; Unanimous Opinion By State Supreme Court

Filed under Labor Issues, Legislation, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , , , , , ,