This makes me angry. I suppose you can guess which category I think he fits in.
His photo is going to be in greater demand by restaurant managers/owners than the photos of restaurant critics!
It may be neither.
Don’t commercial buildings all have to be up to current code to get their permits and licenses initially but there are times when you don’t have to retrofit or upgrade? If the Hawaiian resto built 40+ years ago didn’t change hands or undergo renovation since 1990, they might not have ever been required to retrofit it.
I’m sure he’s correct in that accessibility is a problem but I don’t know if he has a case.
The article states that he has filed and “ SETTLED Numerous Times”. No lawyer.
Unless you’re a fly on the wall , who knows. But yeah, I’m inclined to agree with you.
If the local legislation requires restaurants to make specific provisions and they don’t, then there are, rightly, consequences. Whether this guy is a “professional claimant” is a different and not mutually exclusive question.
We have similar anti-discrimination legislation in the UK, although Britons don’t usually have the rush to litigation that seems to be the case with Americans. As I understand British law, any changes to accommodate disabilities have to “reasonable”. So, I think that, say in the case of a restaurant that is on the first floor and can only be accessed by a flight of stair is OK - it would not be reasonable (or, indeed, technically possibly) to install a lift.
Wait this is in Oregon … just claim a religious exemption. All fixed - gluttony is a sin, mentioned a few times.
Actually, we usually win the least religious state sweepstakes whenever they rate those things.
One of the seven deadly ones. I’ve never quite been able to make my mind up whether I’d prefer death by gluttony or death by sloth.
I’ll confess I don’t care for the framing of the question (as other Hos have noted, both and neither are possible answers).
What does seem to be the case is that these restauarants may not be ADA compliant and that is an issue.
I also have to wonder how relevant the morbid obesity as “cause” of his disability is to the issue (it seems to make people shout “scammer” or question the legitimacy of a complaint). I’m not saying amongst you, but it looks like it will be a factor in reporting.
I’m open to a better choice, but when a layman like me can see what’s going on, but the law has no remedy, it is frustrating and causes harm to businesses that try to be hospitable. He seems to have some methodology for which places to hit.
And the fact he’s from Florida and can’t cite specific dates is a flashing red light.
Perhaps the insurance companies predictably pay him a settlement rather than go to trial.
Many, many years ago, I worked for our local council’s social housing department. One of my responsibilities was to deal with those claims for compensation that I felt able to settle. I had a small upper limit to payments but it would be the norm that, assuming there was evidence to support a claim, I would settle it. Claims that were for above my authority level or where I did not feel there was a case would be referred to our legal department.
The ‘sometime in the past two years’ bothered me too. And is it only small independent restaurants that ever fall short? Or does he pick those because they’re easier to intimidate with a lawsuit? What small biz has $300/hr for a lawyer?
I also wonder how he got around the west coast. You wanna talk about legroom, he couldn’t have flown coach . Driving most cars would also be a challenge.
OFFS! You cite one case and the whole state is full of religious zealots. And it isn’t all fixed, read your article.
Sounds like he carefully chooses independent restaurants who don’t have the backing of a legal team like a chain would. He’s counting on them deciding it is cheaper to pay for this to go away. He is the sort of predator who gives lawyers a bad name. If he was unable to represent himself he wouldn’t be pulling this. He should be held accountable for the stress and loss and cost his greed has inflicted on small businesses.
There’s a lawyer like that in the Bay Area (primarily San Jose) who’s the same kind of predator, suing small businesses for not being ADA compliant. One place that had been around since the 1950s was forced to close because they didn’t have the money for legal fees.
This thread so frustrates me! I’ve tried to reply at least a half a dozen times. Nothing I’ve typed has been “balanced” so I’ve killed all my comments before posting.