Old Zinnies continues to pay for resistance.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article is from MCIL twenty years ago this month. The Center had embarked on a campaign to make Zinnies accessible for our community. The resistance to accessibility was more expensive welcoming our community, but the lesson was slow in coming. From the MCIL Journal back in 2003.
Old Zinnies has provided the most recent resistance to the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and have staked the legitimacy of their Tennessee liquor license to avoid extending customer access.
The restaurant and bar has settled with a pro se plaintiff, in part stating that further compliance may cause the establishment to fall below the state’s legal business requirements.
In reality, Zinnies was in jeopardy of losing its liquor license before the pro se lawsuit was filed. Patrons had noticed non-bar seating for only seventy-one patrons more than a year ago. The Tennessee Alcohol Control Board requires 75 non-bar seats for the state liquor license. In fact, the manager of Zinnies, William Baker meeting with ADAPT on September 22, 2001, admitted that he met that state requirement only because of creative seat counting techniques.
In an ORDER OF JUDGMENT filed by Judge John McCalla in December of 2002 Zinnies was ordered to install a ramp to the front entrance of the restaurant at 1688 Madison in 60 days. Advocates for people with disabilities are disappointed that judgment did not go further to require a permanent ramp. Zinnies could have chosen to provide a permanent ramp at any time to diffuse the situation. Instead, Zinnies pushed and was successful in being ordered to supply minimal access by claiming that their state liquor license was in jeopardy. “Such compliance and method is not ‘readily achievable’,” Zinnies argued in
their Offer of Judgment, “due to its loss of any number of seats in the restaurant would certainly cause the loss of the corporations liquor license [p. 2].”
Zinnies has had several opportunities to build a ramp and abruptly end the pressure that now threatens their license. Although William Baker, the manager of Zinnies, had promised to build a ramp back in the fall of 2001, he never kept that promise. Even after the pro se plaintiff filed suit in federal court againstZinnies, building a ramp would have completely derailed the advocate’s efforts because the ADA does not allow individual plaintiffs to recover any damages.
“Five dollars of concrete would have completely upset the advocacy efforts at Zinnies. It would not have made a good ramp, but it would shown some effort on their part and wrecked the pro se legal approach,” said Tim Wheat who has built more than 30 wheelchair access ramps in Memphis. “It is incomprehensible why they would spend thousands of dollars to basically keep their customers from getting in.”
Similar the resistance of Yosemite Sam’s down the street, Zinnies opted to spend an estimated five times on lawyers what they could have spent to provide minimal access to their customers, without endangering their business. Zinnies, of course, has the right to use the court system to better define theirrights and responsibilities under the ADA. Zinnies had their lawyers resist access; however, while seemingly never approaching the concept of using their resources to provide a way into the store for their customers.
For Zinnies, the cost of the legal services continues indefinitely. Now that the legitimacy of the state liquor license is entangled with accessibility, the restaurant lingers on the edge of validity. If the seatingarrangement is changed, the space inside the business is altered, the restrooms suddenly need modifications or the state waives the minimum seat rule, the lawyers will be called on to protect the licenses.
On the other hand, the advocates for accessibility, who have not spent a dime in legal fees, hold all the cards. At their leisure they may press the state to waive the minimum seat rule, which would most likely open a new round of legal costs for Zinnies. Even if the state is not willing to waiving the minimum seat rule, advocates may complain that Zinnies does not meet local code requirements, or does not live up to the terms of the settlement. Every action seems to encourage Zinnies to become accessible; yet, Zinnies has invested their time, effort and funds in resisting accessibility and spiraling up the costs.
The ADA is a tool for individuals to protect and assert their civil rights it does not ultimately define equality and assimilation of people with disabilities in America. There is a price to pay to leave the definition of civil liberties to the legal community. The price is of course paid to lawyers who profit from the legal wrangling regardless of the outcome.
