Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas
June 29, 2017 —
Richard E. Morton - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPPlaintiff Ivana Kirola, who suffers from cerebral palsy, sued the City and County of San Francisco, in a class action contending certain public areas, including rights-of-way, pools, parks and other recreation areas, did not meet the mandate of Title II of the American With Disabilities Act (Kirola v. City and County of San Francisco, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 14-17521, 2017 DJDAR 5982). Title II provides that no qualified individual with a disability “shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
Title II’s implementing regulations mandate that each facility constructed after January 26, 1992 be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” And, for each facility “altered after January 26, 1992,” the altered portion must, “to the maximum extent feasible,” be likewise accessible. The Federal Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board creates nonbinding Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to ensure compliance with Title II, and that the Department of Justice (DOJ) adopt its own binding regulations, consistent with the ADAAG standards. Here, the District Court interpreted ADAAG standards as not applying to public rights-of-way, parks, and playground facilities. The District Court concluded that none of Kirola’s experts were reliable in their interpretation of the standards and how the standards applied to the public rights-of-way, etc. Conversely, the District Court concluded that all of the city’s experts were reliable. It thus disregarded and discarded every ADAAG violation identified by Kirola’s experts, accepting only the small number of violations identified by the city’s experts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard E. Morton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Morton may be contacted at
rmorton@hbblaw.com
District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements
May 01, 2019 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Cellar Advisors, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10655 (E.D. Mo.), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri considered the scope of a waiver of subrogation clause in two wine storage agreements. The court held that the subrogation waivers were limited in scope and, potentially, did not apply to the damages alleged in the pleadings. This case establishes that, in Missouri, waivers of subrogation are narrowly construed and cannot be enforced beyond the scope of the specific context in which they appear.
In 2005, Krista and Reid Buerger (the Buergers) contracted Marc Lazar (Lazar) to assist with purchasing, transporting and storing their wine. In 2006, the Buergers entered into a contract with Lazar’s company, Domaine StL, for the storage of their wine in St. Louis. In 2012, the Buergers contracted with Lazar’s other company, Domaine NY, for storage of their wine in New Jersey. The 2006 and 2012 contracts included subrogation waivers. Pursuant to the contracts, Lazar and the Domaine companies (collectively, Defendants) would buy wine for the Buergers by either using the Buergers’ credit card or invoicing them after a purchase.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
You Are Your Brother’s Keeper. Direct Contractors in California Now Responsible for Wage Obligations of Subcontractors
January 31, 2018 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIf there’s one law from the 2017 Legislative Session that’s garnered a lot of attention in the construction press, it’s
AB 1701. Under AB 1701, beginning January 1, 2018, for contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018, direct contractors may be found liable for unpaid wages, fringe or other benefit payments or contributions, including interest, but excluding penalties or liquidated damages, owed by a subcontractor of any tier to their workers. Here’s what you need to know about AB 1701.
What code section did AB 1701 amend?
AB 1701 added a a new section 218.7 to the Labor Code.
To whom does AB 1701 apply?
AB 1701 applies to direct contractors only. A direct contractor is defined as a “contractor that has a direct contractual relationship with an owner.”
On what types of projects does AB 1701 apply?
AB 1701 applies to private works projects only.
When does AB 1701 take effect?
AB 1701 took effect on January 1, 2018 and applies to all contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret, Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black, Dean, LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
EEOC Builds on Best Practice Guidance Regarding Harassment Within the Construction Industry
August 12, 2024 —
Abby M. Warren & Christohper A. Costain - Construction Law ZoneIn June 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued
guidance tailored to the construction industry concerning harassment in the workplace or at the jobsite. The guidance is important for construction industry leaders and employers to understand how to prevent and remedy harassment in the workplace — more than a third of all EEOC discrimination charges filed between 2019 and 2023 asserted harassment. The guidance represents the EEOC’s latest effort in executing its Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2024 to 2028, which, in part, focuses on combatting systemic harassment and eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring, particularly for underrepresented groups in certain industries, including women in construction, through the EEOC’s enforcement efforts. In this article, we highlight key principles and practices from this guidance
Leadership and Accountability
The guidance reiterates that consistent and demonstrated leadership is critical to creating and maintaining a workplace culture where harassment is unacceptable and strictly prohibited. Worksite leaders, including project owners, crew supervisors, and union stewards, are each expected to regularly communicate that harassment is intolerable through several suggested efforts.
Reprinted courtesy of
Abby M. Warren, Robinson+Cole and
Christohper A. Costain, Robinson+Cole
Ms. Warren may be contacted at awarren@rc.com
Mr. Costain may be contacted at ccostain@rc.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate
April 20, 2020 —
Jeffrey J. Vita & Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & VitaOn March 26, 2020, Michelin-rated Napa Valley restaurants, French Laundry and Bouchon Bistro, and their celebrity chef, Thomas Keller, filed the second known
coronavirus-related declaratory judgment (DJ) lawsuit by a restaurant. The restaurants filed their DJ against Hartford Fire Insurance Company just seven days after Napa County issued a Shelter at Home Order.1 Chef Keller’s suit comes on the heels of the first such suit by a restaurant seeking to recover business income losses, filed by iconic New Orleans French Quarter restaurant Oceana Grill2 on March 17, just four days after the Louisiana governor issued an order prohibiting gatherings of more than 250 people.
As local governments seek to protect their citizens and prevent an onslaught of cases in area hospitals, they are issuing various “stay home,” “shelter at home,” and similar orders to force social distancing and to help flatten the curve of the growth in COVID-19 cases. Restaurants nationwide are especially hard hit by these orders, as many of these orders contain size limitations on gatherings, which have required that restaurants and bars limit capacity (as in the March 13th Louisiana order). Other such orders require non-essential businesses to “cease all activities in the County” (as in the Napa County Shelter at Home order). The Napa County order does not exempt restaurants as “essential businesses,” except when providing food for take-out or delivery. Other orders, still, directly address restaurants and require them to cease allowing public consumption of food and beverages (as in the subsequent, March 17th Louisiana order).
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Ms. McDonald may be contacted at mam@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
You Cannot Arbitrate Claims Not Covered By The Arbitration Agreement
March 16, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesRegardless of the type of contract you are dealing with, “[a]rbitration provisions are contractual in nature, and therefore, construction of such provisions and the contracts in which they appear is a matter of contract interpretation.” Wiener v. Taylor Morrison Services, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D3012f (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). This means if you want to preserve your right to arbitrate claims you want to make sure your contract unambiguously expresses this right. Taking this one step further, if you want to make sure an arbitrator, and not the court, determines whether the claim is arbitrable if a dispute arises, you want to make sure that right is expressly contained in the arbitration provision.
For example, in Wiener, a homeowner sued a home-builder for violation of the building code – a fairly common claim in a construction defect action. The homeowner’s claim dealt with a violation of building code as to exterior stucco deficiencies. The home-builder moved to compel the lawsuit to arbitration based on a structural warranty it provided to the homeowner that contained an arbitration provision. The structural warranty, however, was limited and did not apply to non-load-bearing elements which, per the warranty, were not deemed to have the potential for a major structural defect (e.g., a structural defect to load-bearing elements that would cause the home to be unsafe or inhabitable). The trial court compelled the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the structural warranty.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
What Happens When Dave Chappelle Buys Up Your Town
June 05, 2023 —
Tyler J. Kelley - BloombergAmerica’s most reclusive comedian isn’t hard to find. Dave Chappelle hangs around downtown, buys coffee and shops like any other resident of Yellow Springs, Ohio. He smokes cigarettes and chats with passersby. He knows people, and they know him.
Yellow Springs is a special place. “Growing up here, literally on any given Saturday or Sunday, in any house that you walked into, there was going to be someone who was Jewish, someone who was an atheist, someone from a different country, somebody who was a person of color,” says Carmen Brown, a Black village council member whose family has lived in the town for 150 years. “There was going to be a clown, an astrophysicist, a janitor and a doctor—all hanging out.” Chappelle is a product of this environment, this culture of “discourse without discord,” she says.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires
November 21, 2017 —
Kirsten Lee Price & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOriginally published by CDJ on February 16, 2017
In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages.
In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
