A client of mine who is reliant on a wheelchair for mobility complained about his local Chase Bank branch not having an lowered teller window.  My client complained to the manager.  The branch manager did not offer to move the conversation to a different location, he just looked down on my client over the raised teller counter and told my client that decisions regarding how the branch is configured are made at a higher level and there was out of his control.

          My client called me and we sued Chase.  Chase’s attorney said, “we have an accessible teller window.”  Chase did have a lowered counters, but there was no signage, no equipment (computer, cash drawer, etc.) and, even after my client complaining, no one pointed these counters out as the “accessible” teller windows.

          After my client sued filed suit, Chase implemented a practice offering to perform the transaction at the lowered counter area.  The attorney for Chase was indignant to my assertion that  Chase has a requirement to staff the accessible teller window during all business hours.  However, the law is clear on this.

The Law:
Chase, and all retail banking locations,  have a legal obligation to (1) have a sign that identifies the accessible transaction area and declares it to be open at all times and (2) to keep that accessible location area open at all times.

Under both the ADAAG and the California Building Code, a bank must provide an accessible transaction counter [ADAAG § 7.2; CBC § 1122B.5].

          Under the California Building Code, banks are in the category called “Group B Occupancies.”  (CBC § 1105B.3.1(3)).  Under this section of the Code, it states, “In addition to the requirements of this section, all areas used for business transactions with the public shall comply with Sections 1110B.1, Sales, and 1122B, Fixed or Built-in Seating, Tables, and Counters.”  (CBC § 1105B.3.1(4)).  Section 1110B.1 “Sales”  addresses, inter alia, what the CBC calls “Check stands,” which is defined as “including service counters requiring a surface transaction.”  (CBC § 1110B.1.3)).  Under this section of the CBC, not only must there be an accessible service counter but these counters “shall always be open to customers with disabilities and shall be identified by a sign clearly visible to those in wheelchairs.  The sign shall display the International Symbol of Accessibility in white on a blue background and shall state: ‘This check stand to be open at all times for customers with disabilities’.”   (Ibid.)

          Thus, the law is clear that a bank must: (1) have an accessible transaction counter area, (2) keep it open at all times, and (3) have a sign identifying the location of the accessible counter and declaring it to be open at all times.  In the present case, Chase does not have the required signage and does not keep the accessible counter area open at all times.

          If your bank doesn’t transact your business at an accessible counter or you experience any other problems with facilities being inaccessible, contact me, Mark Potter at 800-383-7027 or Mark@PotterHandy.com.

          The President of the California State Bar presented Mr. Handy with his award in a ceremony on March 9, 2010, for his work the result in a unanimous decision from the California Supreme Court in Munson v. Del Taco.  The Center for Disability Access has long been at the forefront of disability civil rights litigation.  Mr. Handy won this distinguished award for his work on behalf of a disabled client who had filed suit against a prominent and national retailer under the American with Disabilities Act.  Mr. Handy won the case at the trial level and defended it in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then Mr. Handy and his partner Mr. Potter appeared in front of the California Supreme Court and pulled down a unanimous victory.  It has had a “profound” impact on disability civil rights in California.

          Each year, the California Lawyer magazine determines who is their “Attorney of the Year.”  The magazine’s editorial advisory board is made up of prominent law firms, District Attorneys, Judges, the Special Counsel to the White House and the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.  To be named Attorney of the Year, an attorney must have “made a profound impact on the law” by either “changing the law, substantially influencing public policy or the profession, or achieving a remarkable victory for a client or for the public.”

          The award was presented to Mr. Handy because of his work in obtaining a key ruling in the case Munson v. Del Taco, where the California Supreme Court upheld the right of persons with disabilities to sue businesses who fail to provide accessible facilities without having to prove that the businesses intended to discriminate.  With this ruling, the California Supreme Court confirmed the continued viability of both the ADA and California’s disability civil rights statutes and the right of persons with disabilities to sue for damages under these laws.  It has been heralded as a tremendous victory for persons with disabilities.

          In fact, a growing number of courts have publicly recognized the great value in having persons with disabilities file these lawsuits.

          One federal court noted, “successful ADA plaintiffs confer a tremendous benefit upon our society at large” and their efforts are “an important part of the underlying policy behind the law.”   Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines  (N.D. Cal. 2000) 107 F.Supp.2d 1135, 1143.  Another court recently noted: “most ADA suits are brought by a small number of private plaintiffs who view themselves as champions of the disabled.  For the ADA to yield its promise of equal access for the disabled, it may indeed be  necessary and desirable for committed individuals to bring serial litigation advancing the time when public accommodations will be compliant with the ADA.” Evergreen Dynasty Corp., (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F.3d 1047, 1062.   In fact, one court went so far as to claim, “Indeed, were it not for the efforts of those attorneys willing to undertake the representation of ADA plaintiffs, there would be little, if any, enforcement of this landmark statute.” Hansen v. Deercreek Plaza, LLC, 420 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1349 (S.D.Fla. 2006).  Courts have increasingly understood the frustration felt in the disabled community: “the reason there can be so many lawsuits about access to public accommodations is that there are so many violations of the laws that seek to assure access, and so many disabled people are thwarted from participating equally in the activities of everyday life.”  Evergreen Dynasty Corp.  (9th Cir. 2008) 521 F.3d 1215, 1220.

          In fact, as recently as August 28, 2008, the California legislature specifically found that despite the passage of federal and state disability laws, “persons with disabilities are still being denied full and equal access to public facilities in many instances.”  S.B. 1608 sec. 8299, now Cal. Gov’t Code § 8299.  The legislature went on to note, “there is so little, if any, public prosecution of access violations, that thus private enforcement efforts are central to the means by which these laws, like other civil rights laws, are designed to be enforced.”  S. B. 1608 Senate Bill Analysis at 4 (Aug. 28, 2008).

          In light of these recent pronouncements and rulings, the Center for Disability Access wants to remind its current clients, past clients and prospective clients about how very important private enforcement is to the continued success of the ADA.  The ADA has been the law for 20 years.  You do not have to suffer the indignity and frustration of facing illegal physical barriers or discriminatory policies.  Perhaps some of us were reluctant to haul a discriminatory business into court in years past.  Well, it has been two decades.  There should be no further hesitation in saying, “enough is enough.”  With the Center for Disability Access, you have a law firm that is ready and willing to investigate your complaints and to prosecute your cases with no cost to you and you will be represented by a firm that has earned the highest of respect and professional accolades within the legal community.

          Don’t hesitate to call or email us to discuss any concerns, issues, grievances, complaints, or other scenarios where you feel that your rights may have been infringed upon.