Apple sued for alleged violation of accessibility laws at retail store

It looks like Apple's facing a lawsuit of a different sort than the ones it's used to, with two California women now suing the company over alleged violations of accessibility laws at its flagship retail store in San Francisco. According to AppleInsider, the pair say the store poses a whole range of difficulties for people in wheelchairs, with products out of reach and the Genius Bar in particular all but inaccessible. They also say the store's presentation theater has no wheelchair accessible seating areas or passageways, making it impossible for them to attend instructional workshops. While the two women are seeking a jury trial and compensation for "emotional and physical losses," they apparently aren't giving up on the store entirely, saying they "intend to return and patronize this Store, once legally required access has been provided."

[Thanks, Mark]

[Khris @ Aug 30th 2007 1:24PM]

Emotional and Physical losses?!?! Perhaps they should worry about their current mental state first!

"Never underestimate the power of idiots in a large group!"

[mr friggles @ Aug 30th 2007 2:36PM]

You're a delusional idiot. There are laws that mandate wheel-chair accessibility. Just because Apple puts shiny designs on weak products doesn't mean they can discriminate against classes of people.

How do you think a disabled iraq vet would feel if they tried to enter this store and had these problems. I guess you would call them greedy idiots too?

[PK @ Aug 30th 2007 3:01PM]

How does the origin of one's disability or the perceived pluses and minuses of Apple's products have any bearing on this?

Regardless of whether a wheelchair-bound shopper was disabled from birth, hit by a car, maimed in war, or lost his leg in a tragic bass fishing accident - the fact is that this suit isn't well-founded and reeks of money-grubbing. And who cares if Apple 'puts shiny designs on weak products' - that doesn't have a thing to do with it either. Even if this suit was filed against a high-end, legendary, admired retailer like Tiffany or Neiman Marcus how can one claim physical and emotional losses due to difficulty getting around a store?

And Apple doesn't discriminate against a whole class of people in their stores. I've received top customer service from a wheelchair-bound Apple employee at their Pentagon City store in Virginia, and wheelchair-using customers have been able to purchase and use Apple products at their stores for years. The store design may need some tweaking to increase accessibility or some employees need to be taught how to better serve those who can't get around as easily, but Apple doesn't discriminate against these people.

[Khris @ Aug 30th 2007 3:23PM]

@ mr friggles

Hi Kettle, this is the pot. YOU'RE BLACK!

[mr friggles @ Aug 30th 2007 4:12PM]

Guess what PK that might be convincing for a geek fanboy like yourself but guess what! When they show the court the law, and then show how the store is in violation of that law, Apple will lose.

As I said, Apple is more likely to seek a quiet settlement, because the longer this plays the more likely Disabled Rights groups will take up this issue and work on a class action lawsuit - which I hope happens. If Apple wants to work in the real world, they have to play by the rules.

[Khris @ Aug 30th 2007 4:20PM]

@ mr friggles

It's ironic for you to speak of the "real world" when it's quite obvious that the world you live in is far from that.

These two women are looking for a cheap, pathetic, cash grab. Nothing more! Did you notice where it says "Alleged Violations"? In other words, these two women are trying to make a case out of nothing and haven't even proven that there is in fact a violation being committed.

Perhaps I should go into McDonalds and claim that they are violating my healthy breakfast routine by not trying to dissuade me from ordering 3 Big Breakfasts and 6 Sausage McMuffins.

Pull your head out of your ass and understand the situation for what it is. Two pathetic people trying to make a quick buck!

[FreeRange @ Aug 30th 2007 4:38PM]

Nothing like siding with the one voice of reason...

The "alleged" works both ways here. If it's decided that there is no violation, the case is dismissed. If it's decided that there is a violation, these women win and so will every other handicapped person who ever enters this store. If the violations were defined as anything other than "alleged" there would be no question.

Your "alleged" breakfast routine sounds unhealthy, by the way.

[Nick @ Aug 30th 2007 4:42PM]

is it just me or is there room right behind that last row of stadium seats that people in wheel chairs would be able to park in order to see and listen to the instruction? I know that the Apple Store on Michigan also has room behind the last row for people to stand and watch.. why cant a person in a wheel chair watch from there? I'm not trying to be insensitive, but why rip up chairs that were being used and make big empty spaces when people that are already in chairs could use the pre-existing empty space (where people stand?)

Its just so odd that its been how many years and now someone has complained.. either they are very very touchy sensitive people.. its really not as much of a hassle as they are making it out to be and decided they wanted a payout. If they are looking for a solid case these two women should look into visiting a Whole Foods store that place is impossible to get around in.

[Khris @ Aug 30th 2007 4:45PM]

@ FreeRange - Can I borrow your rose colored glasses?

As others have already pointed out, there are strict building codes which must be adhered to. I find it VERY hard to swallow that the store would have been built, and no one noticed that it wasn't accessible for differently abled people.

These two women are probably just pissed off because they've had problems with an Apple product and figure this is an appropriate way to get back at them.

I find it amusing that the loudest voices when it comes to discrimination, are generally the biggest hypocrites.

[mr friggles @ Aug 30th 2007 4:47PM]

...Khris the violations are listed as "alleged" because its a pending lawsuit & until they win the case the violations are legally defined as "alleged". In America the law is "innocent until proven guilty". If I rob you and 500 witnesses saw me, its still "alleged" until I'm proven guilty in a court of law. Their claims being listed as "alleged" have nothing to do with their validity because the case is still pending judgment! Are you slow or something?

Oh, and you can go to McDonalds and claim anything you want, but if you file a *frivolous* lawsuit they can sue you back and seek potential damages.

What a dunce.

[Khris @ Aug 30th 2007 4:53PM]

Better look in the mirror before you start calling other people names there princess.

You're just full of irony today aren't you? The lawsuit by these two women is nothing short of frivolous.

I'll laugh my ass off when their "Allegations" are proven to be false and they no longer have a leg to stand on.......in court that is! ;)

[Penguin Warlord @ Aug 30th 2007 5:06PM]

I think the main thing that people have a problem with here is that they are suing for emotional losses. Cut the crap you didn't lose anything emotionally from not being able to access the "genius" bar. Instead of going for a cash grab they should be getting apple to make their stores more accesible not suing them.

[FreeRange @ Aug 30th 2007 5:21PM]

I defined "alleged" and said your breakfast sounded unhealthy. Where were the glasses rose-colored?

Are you reading anything or just jumping up and down like a moron?

Yes, there are strict building codes and these women are alleging that Apple (or their contractor) did not adhere to them. I'm not saying they won't be proven wrong, just that you don't know what "alleged" means. I'm sorry you learned something today.

[Khris @ Aug 30th 2007 5:31PM]

@ FreeRange

I'm sorry that you've completely missed the point that these two women are suing because of "emotional and physical" losses. The only physical loss they have is the use of their legs!

Honestly, how much emotional damage do you experience when you can't reach something on the shelf? Do you sit down on the floor and cry until someone reaches the item for you? Do you run off and write slanderous statements on your blog about the mean nasty person who did this to you? Or do you find another way to get the item you want? OOoo....I'll take option number three please!!

Jesus Christ! The sooner people start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions, the sooner shit like this will be a thing of the past.

[FreeRange @ Aug 30th 2007 5:35PM]

Do you need a hand up from the floor now that your little tirade is over? Can I get you some kleenex to help wipe away those tears?

We can all pretend like you didn't just make a fool of yourself, k?

[Khris @ Aug 30th 2007 5:43PM]

The only one making a fool of themselves are the ones who get suckered into thinking these women have actually "suffered" at the hands of the big bad Apple store.

If you had any amount of common sense and rational thought, you'd know that these are two money hungry people looking for a quick buck.

Unfortunately it seems you have nothing left but cheap insults. I'm sorry you've used up your intelligence quota for the day. Try back tomorrow.

[FreeRange @ Aug 30th 2007 5:55PM]

I appreciate your views but disagree with them.

I think the important thing that you are missing is not their motivations but their suggestion that apple has opened a store that does not cater to their needs. Whether or not this is the case will be decided by people more qualified than you or I. (I'm assuming you do not work for any governing body that decides these sorts of things or else your argument may have been more apt to the situation). I, honestly, work in a different field.

I would like, in parting (for the moment) to quote something you, yourself, said, "Jesus Christ! The sooner people start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions, the sooner shit like this will be a thing of the past."

You meant it in terms of the two women (how, I don't know, because they are in wheelchairs so I'm unsure how their "actions" are in question) but I'd like to apply it to Apple. If it turns out they did not make their store to code, they should take responsibility for themselves and their actions. The sooner companies make their stores/buildings to code, the sooner they'll be free of frivolous lawsuits.

[Larz @ Aug 30th 2007 6:10PM]

"Apple puts shiny designs on weak products"

Haha, so true. You forgot to mention their horrible overpricing of said products.

Anyways, your main point is quite valid. That store should cater to the disabled as well. I have a disabled sibling and it really hurts that often people look down on the disabled as lesser people.

But, since these particular people are seeking compensation and not just accommodations, it seems they might just be gold diggers.

[Khris @ Aug 30th 2007 6:13PM]

I won't deny for one second that if there are violations on Apple's behalf, they should take actions to correct them. Anything less is unacceptable.

I do feel that the "grounds" for the lawsuit are less than ideal which in turn, leans opinions towards it being frivolous.

Anyone can suffer emotional loss from events ranging from stubbing their toe, to losing a loved one. Perception is reality....the way we perceive an event makes up what we consider reality. What one person deems as an emotional loss, another person may not and that's where things become tricky. How do you properly decide how much "emotional loss" a person has been subjected to by a specific event?

I don't doubt that those two women feel they've been wronged, however I do feel that they have ulterior motives and are using this event to further their quest for monetary compensation.

Had they approached the situation from a slightly different angle, and argued simply that the store does not allow proper access for everyone, I think they would get further. Taking the position that they have experienced emotional and physical loss because of this, is simply their own greed getting the best of them.

[FreeRange @ Aug 30th 2007 6:25PM]

I will concede to your argument. Good show.

[gee @ Sep 2nd 2007 9:50PM]

@ mr friggles

You're a delusional idiot saying Apple puts out weak products. LOLx3

[bobwilldooka @ Sep 3rd 2007 5:20PM]

Resolution- If uncompliant. Apple makes store compliant, pays city fines.
For the customers Physical loss. Give them a power bar.
For the customers emotional loss. Give them a tissue.

[CorpCommander @ Aug 30th 2007 2:47PM]

So why does everyone in this country feel a need to sue? Did they even seek to address their issues with the company to see if there could be an accomodation for them? Are they even wheelchair bound? I hate greedy people.

[Luke @ Aug 30th 2007 1:25PM]

Once again, anything for a quick buck.

[Michael @ Aug 30th 2007 1:26PM]

It looks to me like they just want money. Too bad too, because I'm sure there really are impediments to many wheelchair-bound individuals out there that warrant a lawsuit, as opposed to this.

I mean, give me a break. The instructional presentations they have are in the store, a person could easily park their wheelchair right next to all the seats. Second, there is nothing actually stopping them physically from getting help with their computers (I'd even like to know how they'd expect to bring it in, first off). Moreover, as shown in the above photo you provided, they could easily clear off all those OS X boxes on the lower counter, and conduct the business there. Lastly, the "emotional" losses is the biggest crock. Give me a break, if they're willing to go back if their demands (see: money) is met, they clearly didn't suffer much of an emotional loss at all.

[BigD145 @ Aug 30th 2007 2:18PM]

No, they probably can't just park in the aisle. That would potentially pose a risk in case of a fire or earthquake. The store would be breaking the law that says all pathways to an exit or emergency exit must be kept clear at all times if it allowed that.

[chris @ Aug 30th 2007 3:50PM]

I hope they have deep pockets and endless amounts of time responding to requests, interrogatories and other legal matters. I doubt that a jury or judge would give these women any money, unless something egregious was committed on the part of Apple. The most likely outcome will be that Apple fixes the problems and fights the case until the other party becomes tired and gives up any hope of seeing a payday.

[Evan Labbe @ Aug 30th 2007 5:27PM]

I agree, Money is speaking through these women. Cities heavily mandate what can and cannot be done in a store, and control the building through permits and inspections. If Apple was in violation of the law, they wouldn't have been awarded a building permit and business license.
I hope the court throws this out, its on the steep edge of frivilous.

[shmoober @ Aug 30th 2007 1:28PM]

You can't open a commercial space without passing inspection. I seriously doubt the City of San Francisco failed to analyze Apple's flagship retail establishment.

[tony @ Aug 30th 2007 4:22PM]

They don't inspect for ADA requirements though.

[Nex @ Aug 30th 2007 5:08PM]

i used to work as a contractor.. the building inspectors dont always inspect as thoughly as they ought to... for example.. i worked on a house in a particularly (sp..) poor area.in one part of the house there was a dirt foor and the ceiling was too low to allow a wooden floor to be installed. so we excavated the existing floor down a foot and poured in a cement floor. oregon building codes say that a cememnt floor must be structural, using at minimum 1/4 inch rebar protruding 4 inches into new cement and set into existing at minimum 2 inches.. when the isnpector arrived to make sure it was done correctly he poked his head in and asked if it was finished. we said yes and he left.. point is.. most inspectors dont fully check to make sure everything is done to code.. not trying to start a flame war or anything because ultimatly i dont care. horray for the disabled people if the win, Hazzah for Apple if not! i dont care either way.

[Zach @ Aug 31st 2007 1:29AM]

@Tony,

Yes they do. We couldn't renovate a new section of my moms credit union without making sure that the ADA regulations were met. The inspectors wouldn't allow it. We even had to go back and include a handicap bathroom and a ramp... despite the fact six people work there and none are handicap.

[Neil Bradley @ Aug 30th 2007 2:30PM]

Whatever happened to "if you don't like a place, don't shop there"? Sheesh.

[tikirob @ Aug 30th 2007 1:30PM]

The store here is the same way (Portland, Or). My friend (who is in a wheel chair)went into the store and he had problems accessing things. I was there and it was no big deal but if he was there alone...there is barely any service there.

http://www.movie-cat.com
Rob

[bob @ Aug 30th 2007 2:17PM]

I have a feeling you just made that story up so you could advertise that website...

[tikirob @ Aug 30th 2007 4:11PM]

My friend lost the use of his legs when he was hit by a car on his bike. This city has a huge biking community and this kind of thing happens. Second the counters and displays are quite high (standing hight)and he was unable to see some of the displays.
There were a couple of desk displays he could get to but they did not have what he wanted. The checkout desk was too high and he had to use the service desk to check out.
As for the website, yes I am promoting it for my brother, I figured it is OK because I saw many similar post in other forums (Autoblog. I do not normally post here, so I am sorry if I offended you in any way and I will refrain from adding that to my posts here.
Rob

[ryan @ Aug 30th 2007 7:18PM]

I don't know if he's trying to advertise his website, but he's right as far as the downtown Portland Apple store goes. There's no way a person in a wheelchair could use either the Genius Bar or the other table where they do demonstrations and the like; they are very high. And a lot of the accessories have been moved onto walls from display racks, forcing a lot of it high enough that I have to stretch up to reach it even when standing. I don't know if this is enough for an ADA violation, but it would certainly be inconvenient if you were in a chair, to say the least.

[David K @ Aug 30th 2007 1:33PM]

"Now I ain't sain' she a gold digger..."

Oh, well, if they don't like the retail stores, there's always the online store.

[andy @ Aug 30th 2007 1:38PM]

I hate people like this!!

I am in a wheelchair too and a product being out of reach on a shelf has never caused me "emotional or physical losses", just ask someone to pass it down if you have to. Apple stores have always been awesome to me whenever I have visited, I wonder if either of them actually used the Genius Bar at all or just looked at it and decided they could make money from complaining. Every Genius Bar I have been to has a slide out counter at one end that is designed and meant for use by people in wheelchairs. The first time an Apple employee pulled it out for me I was fanboy-like impressed!

[Michael @ Aug 30th 2007 1:55PM]

@Andy

I totally agree. I used to work in retail, and every time a person in a wheelchair came in to shop, I was even nicer to them than other customers, because I felt they deserved it since they couldn't shop like walking individuals. My guess is Apple employees did the same.

[bcamp92979 @ Aug 30th 2007 2:29PM]

I worked in an Apple store, and I know for a FACT that when any handicapped individual came into the store, management would immediately send an employee to tend to there needs if one wasn't already helping them. They have cameras in the back office, and management would immediately radio out to the whole team to help them. They would even take over if you were busy in order to free you up. These woman are F**ked...

[bobartig @ Aug 30th 2007 2:47PM]

Exactly! Every genius bar is engineered with low counter-level extensions (around 29" instead of the full height genius bar). This is great for assisting customers in wheel chairs, with stroller/chair thingys, or who aren't very tall. Their ignorance does not warrant a lawsuit.

As for product out of reach, I defy anyone to name a major retailer that doesn't have product more than 4' off the ground.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who make their living based on the fact that they're restricted to a wheel chair.

[rp @ Aug 30th 2007 2:50PM]

Not to mention the fact that, if in the off chance that an Apple employee will not be there to help you, a nearby customer would probably be willing to help you out, ESPECIALLY in the Apple stores. Chances are good that the guy who's messing around on the Mac Pro next to you is a rabid Apple fanboy and would gladly bend over backwards to answer any question you had. I do it all the time.

[Revrant2394 @ Aug 30th 2007 1:35PM]

The fanboys will be denying the allegation and decrying the women, who are obviously just seeking a quick buck, but I'd like to see some evidence proving the stores are, or aren't, generally accessible via wheelchair.

[foodle @ Aug 30th 2007 1:46PM]

The Apple store in Durham NC (in the Southpoint shopping center) at one time had an employee in a wheelchair (one of the big motorized ones). He seemed to be able to get around ok.

[Revrant2394 @ Aug 30th 2007 5:27PM]

I more meant, pictures, perhaps a basic blueprint around somewhere.

[Bad Beaver @ Aug 30th 2007 1:36PM]

So, did they try to have things improved first, or did they head straight to court?

[Jason @ Aug 30th 2007 2:29PM]

I'll say court first.

[Clayj @ Aug 30th 2007 1:36PM]

The fact that they're suing for money shows that this is nothing more than a grab at someone else's deep pockets.

And for that, I say, "Fuck 'em."

I understand if they have a legitimate complaint; in that case, they should work with Apple to get their complaints addressed. And Apple, if they are not ADA-compliant, should probably pay the legal fees of the complainant. But as far as money being paid to these two women, again, I say:

Fuck 'em.

[Lamerz @ Aug 30th 2007 1:39PM]

There is plenty of ADA lawsuit abuse going on. It's a problem in California, with businesses being shaken down on a regular basis with threats of lawsuits.

http://www.busjournal.com/content/archives/0505/commentary.htm