Inclusion in the Community-One Shot Coffee Shop

By Claire Frosch

Walking around the North Philadelphia neighborhood of Northern Liberties, one is struck by the diversity of the people that call this neighborhood home.  On such a walk, one might encounter a young mother pushing her child in a stroller, a young male professional getting into his luxury car to head to work, a pair of girls sporting anchor tattoos and Keds and a boy decked out in an unkempt beard and corduroy cut-offs cruising by on his $3,000 Italian racing bike. 
While Northern Liberties prides itself on its diversity, there is one trait that all of the aforementioned individuals share: they do not have a physical disability.  They are able to freely move about their community; their daily life choices are not governed by which shops offer wide enough aisles to navigate through while wearing splints, which shops have a print menu that can be read with a magnifying glass, or which streets have sidewalks clear and wide enough to move a motorized wheelchair down.  Yet, for many people, including the residents of Northern Liberties, this is a daily reality.

            While visiting my favorite coffee shop, One Shot, I noticed just how inaccessible it is.  As a individual without a physical disability, I have never thought about how difficult it might be to navigate this city with one.  Since completing the YouTube unit, I have realized how inaccessible most of this city is for individuals with physical disabilities.  While moving into my new apartment this month (which is not accessible by any means), I have frequently gone to One Shot to use the wifi.  One Shot violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  In 2006, One Shot opened after extensive renovations.  These renovations included major remodeling and structural alterations.  According to Title III, such a facility “must assure that any part of its facility altered after January 26, 1992 is made accessible to individuals with disabilities” (Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania [DRNPA], 2003).  However, a review of One Shot’s floor plan reveals that it is completely inaccessible to individuals with disabilities.

First, just entering One Shot is a challenge for those in wheelchairs.  According to Title II,  “the first priority is to assure access to the accommodation from the sidewalks or parking area (e.g., ramps, accessible parking, widening entrance)” (DRNPA, 2003).  Unfortunately, although One Shot does have a ramp, the door is not automatic and cannot be opened with a closed fist, and the doorway is not 32-inches wide, as mandated by ADA (Disability Law Center).  Once inside, the very design of the floor plan limits mobility.  Upon entering the building, one is funneled into a crowded aisle that is flanked by the counter on one side and tables on the other.  The counter is well above 36 inches high at all points, which violates Title III (Disability Law Center).  The goods displayed on the counter, including the “coffee prep” station, is inaccessible to those in wheelchairs.  According to Title III of ADA, “The second priority is access to the goods or services (e.g.,interior ramps, re-arranging racks)” (DRNPA, 2003).  Even for those individuals who do not use wheelchairs but have a different physical disability, such as visual or hearing impairment, ordering at One Shot would be difficult.  There is no Braille or large print menu available, only a handwritten one that hangs on butcher paper behind the counter.  The lack of a large print menu and employees who were not trained in how to assist customers with disabilities was the basis of a 2008 lawsuit in New York, Camarillo v. Carrols Corporation (Chapman, 2008).  The appeals court announced that “…defendants failed to adopt policies or procedures to effectively train their employees how to deal with disabled individuals. Such a failure to train can constitute a violation of the ADA…” (Chapman, 2008).  Moreover, at One Shot, none of the employees are trained in ASL, so they are unable to communicate with individuals with hearing impairments.  This, too, could pose a potential violation of ADA, as there are no other accommodations or assistive technology provided for those with hearing impairments.  Because the menu is printed on a board as opposed to a handheld menu, pointing is ruled out; the cash register does not even display the total, so an individual would not have an indicator of the total unless told by the cashier.  In the end, an individual with a hearing impairment would most likely have to resort to paper and pencil to place an order.  The ordering process at One Shot is in desperate need of tweaking to make it accessible to those with disabilities.

 Imagine that after all that, one finally managed to place an order and wanted to make his or herself comfortable.  Alas, the perils of One Shot are not yet over.  None of the tables are wheelchair-accessible on the first floor, due to a crowded floor plan.  Chairs that crowd the aisle must be rearranged to make a path wide enough for a wheelchair.  While the second floor does offer some more comfortable accommodations, it is entirely off limits to those in wheelchairs because there is only a steep set of stairs leading up to it.  While this building is very old, making it difficult to install an elevator, it was renovated in 2010.  That would have been an appropriate time to plan the layout to allow wheelchair access.  Tables and chairs are inexpensive, and because they were being purchased anyway, it would have been wise to purchase ones that were small enough to compy with ADA standards. 

Now, imagine that one has finally found a table and wants to use the restroom – oh wait! If you are an individual in a wheelchair or with a visual impairment, you are out of luck.  There is no first floor bathroom and there is not Braille outside the restroom indicating what it is, so if you are in a wheelchair or are visually impaired, you will be unable to use the restroom.  According to the DRNPA (2003), “The third priority is access to restrooms.”  However, this is seemingly not a priority at One Shot. One Shot is setting itself up for potential lawsuits by not being ADA compliant.  In 2010, a rash of businesses in Pittsburgh were hit with ADA lawsuits for not being wheelchair accessible (Litvak, 2010), and it stands to reason that Philadelphia-area businesses could come under similar scrutiny.

One Shot must make changes to be more accessible to those with disabilities.  As it stands, it seems that the shop has made little effort to include members of the community with a physical disability.  It could be that the business owners are not aware of the business’ inaccessibility or do not realize that they must be in compliance, even though the building itself pre-dates ADA.  Many of these changes that could be made are minor, such as Braille outside of the bathroom, a more open floor plan, a lower counter, a door that can be opened with a push, etc.  Yet, making these small changes would make the business more inclusive.  Undoubtedly, One Shot would financially benefit, as the U.S. Department of Labor states that Americans with disabilities have $175 billion worth of discretionary spending power (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). Unfortunately, Philadelphia does not attract individuals with disabilities the way that D.C. and New York do, according to a 2005 study of popular U.S. cities visited by individuals with disabilities (Open Doors Organization, 2006).  Thus, One Shot is only hurting itself by excluding members of the community.

References:

Chapman, M. (2008, February 15).  Rude treatment of customer can spark ADA lawsuit. Business Management Daily.

Disability Law Center.  Access rights to places of public accommodation and commercial facilities. Retrieved on August 14, 2011 from http://www.disabilitylawcenter.org/publications/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Access%20and%20Rights.pdf

Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania. (2003, July). Access to public accommodations and commercial facilities. Retrieved on August 14, 2011 from http://drnpa.org/File/publications/access-to-public-accommodations-and-commerical-facilities.pdf

Litvak, A. (2010, February 1). Access for the Disabled files suit against Pittsburgh-area retailers, citing ADA violations. Pittsburgh Business Times. Retrieved on August 14, 2011 from http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2010/02/01/story3.html

Open Doors Organization. (2006, March 30). Disability travel survey identifies most popular American cities. Retrieved August 14, 2011 from http://opendoorsnfp.org/media/press-releases/#prsurvey

U.S. Department of Justice. (2006, December 20). Customers with disabilities mean business. Civil Rights Division: Disability Rights Section. Retrieved August 14, 2011 from http://www.ada.gov/busstat.htm.