Lansdowne Sav-A-Lot and the Americans With Disabilities Act

As a former truck driver in Center City Philadelphia for twenty years I had spent hours dragging freight to and from both delivery and pickup points using various wheeled contraptions such as hand trucks, push carts, and dollies, and had often faced the same challenges to access that many individuals with disabilities face. Many times I had blessed the American’s With Disabilities Act (ADA) for such changes as curb cuts and access ramps, but had often cursed properties that were out of compliance with this wheel friendly law. I had often commented to people about my appreciation for both compliance and non-compliance in these locations and had received responses ranging from, “I have a relative/friend in a wheelchair”, to, “They just have to rent an apartment somewhere else”. It really is no joke, and I now have a sincere appreciation for the challenges that individuals with disabilities face.

Interestingly, I had to deliver shelving in my own neighborhood of Lansdowne, PA in 2006 to a new Sav-A-Lot grocery store which was being renovated to replace an Acme store. I was thrilled because I had often done my weekly grocery shopping in nearby Folcroft Sav-A-Lot and have enjoyed the deeply discounted prices as compared to larger stores like Acme and Giant. I have been faithfully patronizing this new store in my town since it opened and I have developed friendly relationships with many of the employees. I knew that this was a perfect candidate for this project for this reason, my familiarity with the site, and the fact that since it was newly renovated that it was more likely to be in compliance with the ADA.

The first challenge that an individual with a disability faces at this location is the inclined parking lot which is set at an approximately 3-degree tilt until the pavement is reached. This is in compliance with the 1:12 ratio as prescribed by the ADA guidelines. The parking lot includes two marked parking spaces within 50 feet of the entrance to accommodate vehicles of individuals with disabilities. Sadly, this is inadequate because there are 100 parking spaces and the ADA guidelines calls for a minimum of 4 accessible spaces in a parking lot with 76 to 100 parking spaces. There is a compliant curb-cut ramp leading from the lot to the pavement in front of the store, (Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, 2010).

Upon entering the store immediately to the left is a wheelchair equipped with a basket for shopping to accommodate those who need it. I always thought that it was a nice accommodation, but also thought it odd because someone with an ambulatory disability is likely to enter the store already riding such a device. When I asked store employee Bobbie about it she said, “Some people who can walk use it because they simply have difficulty walking”. I often considered using it to gain the perspective of an individual with a disability, but Catholic guilt always prevented me as I thought that someone who really needed it may be counting on it being there and it wouldn’t be available because of my fraudulent utilization of the assistive device.

Honestly, as far as I can observe the structural components of this store such as rest room configurations and aisle width complies with ADA requirements. This is not surprising since the renovations to the store are recent. The signage is adequate and complies with finish, font, location, and size requirements of the ADA regulations. Problems develop with readily moveable features and the way the inventory is displayed, (Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, 2010).

The first problem that I noticed in the store was the display of fruit immediately to the right of the entrance. Bananas are the price leader at 39 cents/lb and dominate the shelves. These shelves are divided into 3 sections, are tilted forward at an approximately 30 degree angle, and range from 40 to 75 inches from the floor. This is fine but I noticed that the easiest bananas to reach are spotting, and the choicest ones are positioned at the top. But that’s just good business practice; to rotate the stock in order to reduce spoilage. The real problem emerges with the lesser volume fruits such as peaches, nectarines, and pomegranates which share a vertical section of these shelves. These are spherical items that must be chosen from the highest levels downward in order to avoid an embarrassing avalanche of fruit. The fruits on the first 2 vertical levels can readily be reached, but whichever fruit occupies the top shelf is inaccessible to someone in a seated position.

Once the fruit is chosen then one must weigh it in order to understand the expense. The next problem emerges as the scale is hanging such that the basket is positioned at least 60 inches from the floor. This is surely too high for someone in the sitting position to both deposit and withdraw items for weighing. Another problem with the scale is the glass covering of the metric needle. The glass creates a gloss that is out of compliance with gloss regulations for signage, but I suppose one could argue that it is not a sign; yet the spirit of these regulations is to reduce vision hindrances. That’s a call for the courtroom.

A huge problem in my view is a pie vendor table positioned at the head of the first aisle which houses the fresh vegetables. It spans a 4-foot width of a 6-foot aisle. This leaves merely 24 inches of clearance on either side, and is out of compliance with the regulation of 36 inches, (Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, 2010). This problem is easily remedied and I plan to discuss it with management during my next visit.

The inventory on the shelves in this store is generally arranged vertically by singular item. This is good because the same items can be accessed at various heights. The only difficulty is that this store follows the discount store model which displays its items in bulk such that cases of items are stacked and the several cases are opened for access. This reduces employee stacking time but encourages picking items off the top which can be as high as 72 inches. Certainly one can wrestle items from lower case levels, but too many items taken from the support level case can again cause an embarrassing and even dangerous avalanche as in the event of a can-good collapse.

Another problem caused by this store model is the practice of depositing palletized special sale items on the floor. Workers use pallet jacks to position these skids and their ultimate resting place is dependent on the worker. Sometimes these pallets protrude such that it becomes a hazard for tripping or hindering a wheeled vehicle. Once my daughter was pushing a cart and crashed into one, causing her to smash her mouth into the cart’s handle. I told her to suck it up and grab the cereal box (just kidding; calm down). We informed a clerk who gave her some ice for the injury.

In general the cold storage items such as meats and frozen foods can be problematic to individuals in the sitting position. The meats are displayed in a stratified manner in open freezers that rise 36 inches from the floor and have sloped shelves which recede from the front in depth as they rise to 60 inches in height. Different meats reside at various height levels and it would be difficult for someone in a wheelchair to select from the top shelf. Also the closed-door freezers are hinged rather than sliding so one must get out of the way of a door in order to access the items. These freezers range from 6 inches to 72 inches from the floor in height and various items are positioned at different levels, again making it difficult to reach top-shelved items.

The check-out lanes are adequate at 36 inches in width and the conveyer belt counter is 42 inches from the floor. Certainly there is no problem with presenting the items for scanning, but there is a problem with the electronic card-reader. This device is located 48 inches from the floor but is tilted upward to accommodate a person of typical height in the standing position. I asked Bobbie the clerk about it and she told me that the clerks usually help if there is a problem. Other stores like the Family Dollar in the same shopping center have readers that are adjustable and would be a better mechanism for this Sav-A-Lot store.

A similar difficulty with an inaccessible card reader at a San Francisco Apple computer store led to a U.S. District Court case in the Northern District of California. In Brown-Booker v. Apple Inc. plaintiff Nicole Brown-Booker complained that she was humiliated as she struggled with the device while other customers waited behind her, (www.informationweek.com). There were several ADA compliance issues associated with this establishment and the case was settled such that Apple Inc was required to make structural changes to the location as well as settle costs for damages and litigation expenses, (Brown-Booker v. Apple Inc.).

These problems with display height and customers in seated position have as recently as July, 2010 been addressed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a legal battle between a wheelchair bound man and Chipotle restaurant. In this establishment there is a counter of burrito ingredients from which the customers choose their customized meal, and a wall fixture was too high for this customer to see over in his wheelchair. He filed suit under the ADA law and eventually won in this appeals court such that the restaurant was made to alter the structure and won $8,000 in damages plus $550,000 in legal fees, even though a lower court ruled that the servers’ acts of holding up the ingredients for the customer to see was satisfactory, (Maurizio Antoninetti, v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.).

Of course the premise of this Sav-A-Lot store is that it is a bare-bones operation so there are no baggers and bags are sold or brought in by the customer. The unaware shopper is told this during checkout and everyone is expected to get the groceries out of the store without employee help. The clerk merely scans the groceries and places them in another shopping cart for customer removal. Bagging is simply a service that is not offered to anyone who patronizes the store.

A nice feature of this store is a loss prevention system for the shopping carts that incorporates magnet technology which activates a brake on the carts if they pass the outside perimeter boundary of the store. This is a marked improvement over the antiquated bollard-pole system of old which required a wheelchair bound individual to contact an employee for a key to open a special gate for ingress and egress to many supermarkets.

The atmosphere of this store is very simple and is void of overstimulation caused by flashing lights, overwhelming choices, and confusing pricing signage which I observe in large chain name-brand stores. There is music playing on the public address system which is generally described as top fifty choices derived from the past two decades. This shopping accompaniment is obviously on a store created recording because only Sav-A-Lot commercials can be heard which boast a very catchy jingle and often causes me to dance in an effort to embarrass my 10-year old daughter. These are the good old days!

Of course the real test for this store is determined by a person with a disability. I can honestly report from personal experience that it is relatively easy for a person with an intellectual disability to shop there as I often train my 13-year old daughter who is so stricken how to shop for groceries at this store. She is both comfortable and successful at this location. She readily makes choices, removes items from the shelves, and both loads and unloads the shopping cart with ease.

Another test which this store passed is the allowance of a service animal in the store. I recently witnessed a woman with no obvious disability enter this store with a dog. The store manager simply asked if the canine was a service animal to which the woman replied in the affirmative. The employee rightly refrained from asking about the nature of the disability. This interaction was in compliance with the ADA guidelines as enforced by a recent court case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against Shoney’s, LLC. Restaurant which resulted in the directive that the customer may only be discretely asked if the creature is a service animal and not quizzed about the nature of the individual’s disability, (Nancy L. Gilliam and Charles Gilliani v. Shoney's, LLC. and Terre Neesham).

All-in-all this store is relatively compliant and the several problems that I mentioned can be solved with merely the cost of painting 2 more ADA parking spaces, changing the way the fruits and cold foods are displayed, and providing better awareness training to the employees to ensure that the aisles maintain obstruction free. The electronic card-readers could probably be repositioned with relative ease.

I plan to discuss these issues with management in hopes that my neighborhood grocery store remains out of court and competitive in the grocery business. Our dollar truly goes far at Sav-A-Lot.

References

Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (2010). 2010 ADA Standards for
        accessible design. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/
        2010ADAstandards.htm#accessibiltystdscompliance

CabooseMiller101 (2010). Save a Lot jingle: My dollar goes far at Save a Lot. Retrieved from
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=689SubyUw0g

Informationweek.com (2007). Apple store 'Humiliates' the disabled, lawsuit claims. Information
        Week: The business value of technology. Retrieved from http://www.informationweek.com
        /news/201803435

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 3:05-cv-01660-J-WMC (2010).
        Maurizio Antoninetti, v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.ca9.
        uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/26/08-55867.pdf

United States Department of Justice (2009). Americans with disabilities act of 1990, as
        amended. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm

United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, Case No. l:06-cv-
        0033 (2006). Nancy L. Gilliam and Charles Gilliani v. Shoney's, LLC. & Terre Neesham.
        Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/shoneys.htm

United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:07-cv-4397-SI, Civil
        Rights (2009). Nicole Brown-Booker & Jana Overbo v. Apple Inc. Retrieved from
        http://pdf.ifoman.com.s3.amazonaws.com/overbo_final.pdf