The crowd included five attorneys, over a half-dozen St. Paul business owners, and at least as many city and state code workers. All congregating at Mancini’s Char House on West Seventh Street to talk about one thing: the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Over the past year, dozens of St. Paul businesses have been served with a slew of lawsuits alleging violations of the decades-old act. Critics have dubbed them “drive-by lawsuits” — pointing out that numerous businesses on West Seventh Street were all hit by the same client.

An attorney bringing many of the St. Paul suits, Patrick Michenfelder, has countered by calling his clients crusaders, advocating for a greater cause. And so far, none of the suits have been deemed frivolous.

The businesses served over the past year include St. Paul institutions — Candyland, Cecil’s Deli, Mickey’s Dining Car, Red’s Savoy, Mancini’s, the Grand Ole Creamery, DeGidio’s, Shamrock’s and the Blue Plate Group, which owns the Highland Grill and Groveland Tap, Keenan’s 620 Club, McGovern’s Pub and Shamrocks. Even McDonald’s was sued.

Some — such as Red’s and DeGidio’s — settled; some — like Candyland and Keenan’s — have not. Others, like Mancini’s, are mulling it.

STATE, CITY OFFICIALS ADVISE

Related Articles St. Paul PD highlights surveillance photos of looting suspects, seeks tips

As memories of George Floyd fade, activists make sure his legacy does not

Minneapolis and St. Paul to add 70 electric car charging stations with $6.7M grant

Neighborhood girl finds and returns chef Justin Sutherland’s stolen knife roll

Therapy dog-in training stolen in St. Paul found, reunited with owners And so state and city officials came forth to advise, at the meeting Wednesday at Mancini’s.

“We want to provide you with resources so you don’t get sued,” David Fenley, access coordinator with the Minnesota State Council on Disability, started out.

And indeed, the group handed out current disability guidelines on bathrooms, parking areas and access ways — the three primary subjects of the suits. Things like whether there’s a ramp outside, grab bars in toilet stalls or low-hanging towel dispensers.

But he later said, several times, on specifics, “that can all be hashed out, in court, by lawyers.” Which some business owners noted afterward was the problem.

Stephen Ubl, St. Paul’s senior building official, came forward to note that city inspectors aren’t authorized to enforce the federal ADA. If you get new work done in your business, the city will check whether the part you worked on matches the state building code, but that’s it.

“I’m not going to walk into your building and start pointing fingers,” he said. If you want more, you have to — and should, Ubl urged — ask.

At times the complexity of figuring out which law to abide by was on display.

IT’S COMPLICATED

One example put it into perspective. Warning: it’s complicated.

So many of the lawsuits are now being filed under federal law, rather than state law. That’s because just this year, the state Legislature passed a law saying businesses would get a 60-day grace period to fix violations before they could be served a lawsuit.

Fenley told the Mancini’s crowd to pay attention to the state building code for guidance. Until an audience member — an attorney representing one of the businesses being sued — said that in some cases the state code was less stringent than the federal law. Which is what they’re being sued under.

“I didn’t realize that,” Fenley — again, the access coordinator with the State Council on Disability — replied.

Then Karen Gridley, an accessibility specialist with the state department of labor and industry, got up. She was asked whether that’s true.

It’s complicated, she said. Lawyers could argue it.

Asked for an example, Gridley took a deep breath. There’s a federal law, she said, that requires eight foot spaces next to some van-accessible handicapped parking spaces — at least one in six. And those spots have to be labeled “van accessible” under federal law.

But here in Minnesota, all handicapped spaces have that eight-foot space. They’re all van accessible. So why label them? State code doesn’t require us to: It’s redundant.

But technically, some could argue that not requiring that labeling makes it a “weaker” law. Could you be sued under the federal law for not having that labeling?

“Anybody can sue you for anything, for the perception in their mind of a violation,” Gridley noted.

But wait, there’s more: If every space is labeled “van accessible,” would that lead some disabled people not driving vans to think they had nowhere to park? An argument has been made on that in another state, Gridley noted.

So yes, it’s complicated.

Fenley said that while “a lot of these lawsuits do have the appearance of what we’d call ‘shakedown’ suits,” he pointed out that when the ADA was passed in 1990, the expectation was that businesses — in the interim 27 years — would gradually comply with it. There was no grandfather clause.

“That didn’t really happen,” he said.

Still, he noted that none of the fixes could cause an undue financial burden — they must be “readily achievable,” as the law states.

“If you hear somebody say the ADA put me out of business, there’s probably something else going on,” he told the audience.

Ubl, with the city — after pointing out his department didn’t regulate or enforce the ADA — urged people to document any work done.

“Having a documented plan will definitely help your case (if someone sues),” Fenley told the group, before posing a question to one of the attorneys in the audience. “Is that correct?”