Hey, there! Log in / Register
Turnpike rest areas not fully handicap accessible, lawsuit charges
By adamg on Sat, 08/06/2016 - 3:14pm
A Jamaica Plain man is suing the state Department of Transportation over what he says is the way Massachusetts Turnpike rest areas are not fully usable by people with handicaps.
In his suit, filed this week in US District Court in Boston, Raoul Marradi cites numerous examples of ADA violations, such as these at the Framingham plaza on the westbound side of the highway: No wheelchair seating areas outside; aisles in the plaza store are less than 32 inches wide - and many of the items for sale are too high to reach from a wheelchair; the store does not have parking spaces designated for handicapped customers; restroom stall doors have no pull handles, not that any of them meet ADA requirements anyway;
At the next rest stop, in Westboro, he charges, the ramps and designated parking spaces are too steep, the "accessible" parking spaces are too narrow and aisles in the store, while as wide as required, are effectively impassible due to potato-chip and beef-jerky displays at their ends.
He cites similar issues at the turnpike's other rest areas.
Marradi asks that a judge order MassDOT to fix the problems and to pay him damages and attorneys' fees.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete complain, Raoul Marradi vs. Massachusetts Department of Transportation | 160.42 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
States should be immune from
States should be immune from this nonsense. We have Tennesee v Lane to thank for making these lawsuits possible and lucrative.
I disagree
People who are supposed to comply with regulations sometimes try to see what noncompliance they can get away with. The threat of legal action that has actual teeth is the best tool we have to keeping this from getting totally out of control.
This is extortion by sleazy
This is extortion by sleazy lawyers. It does absolutely nothing to improve the accessibility situation in these businesses, nor any others.
Nobody made a conscious business decision to risk cheating the ADA regulations by skimping on bathroom stall door handles.
The plaintiff, and his lawyer, doesn't care about fixing the problems. If they did, they'd talk to the building manager, or state regulators, about their concerns. They only care about racking up legal fees, since the law allows for suing to recover plaintiff legal fees.
Accessibility is very important. But this is the entirely wrong way to make sure everyone has access to places of public accommodation.
No.
No.
State actors should not be
State actors should not be above the law. Sovereign immunity leads to abuses.
WELL SAID
well said no more needs to be said.
I hope
you get kneecapped one day, anon troll. A new perspective may do you some good.
LMAO
I wish no harm come to anybody but I certainly found that incredibly humorous.
I do not condone any types of violence however karma is a bitch.
Oh I didn't actually mean it
(aside from the perspective part) but your reaction is exactly what I was aiming for ;)
Why not fix it?
These violations should be easy to fix without a lot of expense or effort.
The ADA allows for private
The ADA allows for private lawsuits that cover plaintiff attorney's fees, but doesn't require the plaintiff to ask the business owner to correct the problems first.
Nope
The state should never be immune to any law. That is what is known as the Rule of Law. I suggest you google it.
Meanwhile, I bet this would be a totally different issue for you if it were an issue for you. The Americans With Disabilities Act went into effect over 20 years ago. No excuses for this bullcrap whatsoever.
Wrong!
There's this thing called the Eleventh Amendment the to US Constitution.
There's also a guy who will also gladly lend you his copy.
Oh my
We have one of those lurking here.
Full text of that amendment:
You may want to pretend that Jamaica Plain is a foreign country or in a different state, but, um, no.
Let me guess: that "copy" you offer has lots of annotations by Cleon Skousen telling you what the founders REALLY meant.
Even the Supreme Court says that you blew this one, anon: (citing wiki for synopsis and lay language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alden_v._Maine
The court has also ruled that the 14th Amendment overrides Sovereign Immunity - as in when Tennessee was sued when they arrested and prosecuted someone for not attending a 2nd floor court hearing because they didn't see why he couldn't just crawl up the stairs(!).
Yes you are!!!
Google "us supreme Court title II Garrett ADA".
20?
It was signed by President Bush in 1990.
We're over 35 years into the ADA. There's really no excuse for these rest stops to not be in compliance.
Agreed but
one of the complaints is that "stuff for sale is higher than can be reached in a wheelchair."
Is that really feasible for any retail store, to not have anything higher than 4 feet off the ground?
This isn't about any retail store
This is about a state-owned* rest stop. I think it's entirely reasonable that government buildings go out of their way to be even more accessible. Is the 4' rule part of the ADA as written? Dunno. IANAL, etc.
* Vageries here. Might be a quasi-government org, etc. Still, it's public with a capital 'P' -- it's owned by the people, not merely accessible to (most of the) people.
2015 - 1990
That isn't 35.
Also: laws like this don't go into effect immediately - the MBTA celebrated the 1993 deadline for compliance with the avoidable death of a blind woman named Margaret McCarthy at Davis Square.
Sorry, dumb math
Brain didn't do math good. Apologies.
It went into effect in 1992
How insensitive
I am totally surprised that anyone could make such insensitive statements such as the one that you have made here. I guess once someone like yourself live or ride in the shoes of a physically challenge individuals you might can understand what it's like. I am appalled and disgusted at you're insensitive comment. it speaks volumes about your character. Keep it coming, please continue to expose the person you really are.
if you discriminate against the physically challenged it is easy for you to discriminate in all aspects of life. bostonians keep your eyes on this one.
As bad as the ones closer to
As bad as the ones closer to Boston are for ADA compliance- was just at the one eastbound out in Blandford last week and it is a total cluster via comparison- the area outside the bathrooms is probably narrower than the area outside the bathroom in my place and the parking area/ setup there is a total mess
Blanford
How about the large cement trash can they put in the middle of the sidewalk in front of the convenience store, does not give enough room for a W/C to get around and being cement you can't move it.
It will be interesting to see
It will be interesting to see what comes of it.
I'm far from being a legal expert, but I wonder how much of the "inside store" stuff is DOT's responsibility and how much is Gulf's. I suppose it might be a question whether it is a landlord-tenant situation or an owner-contracted operator situation.
I don't often stop at Framingham WB, but...
Parking? There's designated spaces for the complex, mostly at the food court end of the building. I don't know if they're required at each entrance of such a small building. I don't know how old the Google aerial view is, but it does show designated spots outside the shop entrance.
Restrooms? I don't know why the stalls wouldn't have pull handles on the doors. Fully accessible stalls in the main restrooms? In part, that might depend on when the last time there was any substantial renovation work (changing layout, walls, plumbing) as opposed to just a facelift. If it's like any of the other rest areas, there's the stopgap measure of a separate, accessible, individual restroom (faint consolation, I know).
Picnic tables? I have no idea. Might depend on when they were installed compared to when that portion of the law went into effect.
When buildings come into compliance
I vaguely recall that buildings need to come into compliance with the ADA or MAAB (our Massachusetts legislation) when renovations of a certain level are made or when someone sues. If the Commonwealth has been ducking making these facilities accessible then taking them to court is entirely reasonable. Accessibility in buildings like these is easy enough to do and has lots of benefits not just for the people who are obviously helped. All it takes is a broken leg or a baby in a carriage to realize how much the accommodations help out.
The building designs DO
The building designs DO comply with MAAB standards.
But then a lawyer shows up with a tape measure and finds an aisle with a beef jerky display that narrows it to slightly less than 32", and it's lawsuit time.
Weren't all the Pike rest
Weren't all the Pike rest areas totally rebuilt within the last 10 years?
Take a look at what someone
Take a look at what someone from the MA chapter of the Federal Bar Association thinks of this type of lawsuit: http://www.fedbar.org/Image-Library/Chapters/Massachusetts-Chapter/Newsl...
In the lawsuit, I see lots of
In the lawsuit, I see lots of claims of not meeting technical details of the law.
I don't see any part about how the plaintiff suffered as a result. Nowhere did it say that he was unable to make it down an aisle because of said potato chip rack, or that he was embarrassed because of this, or that store employees were unwilling to help him reach things he needed.