Thanks Cammie!

Some of the family knows the verbal and written battle we had with our local Mervn's over Christmas merchandise that crowded the isles to the point that the cards hauled in for the season, made it impossible for Sue to look over the luggage. We were headed for a cruise. The only accommodation that Mervyn's did was allow for her to point to a display and the salesperson would grab the luggage and bring it to her. All of this happened in 2003. I wrote an email to Mervyn's and got a hand pat and a disclaimer that the aisles were really not barriers. It seems that other folks with legal connections also had the same experiences.
Granted, Our store is one of the older ones in a mall were physical expansion was not possible.. but over the years we have seen that their range of merchandise as shrunk. At one time they carried all kinds of kid toys. They had a full fabric department. That was the reason that we got a Mervyn's card. Then these departments went by the way of the salad bar and now they are a jewelery clothing store and that is about it.

They also have gone from providing for all sizes of people to just the average to smaller size people. Their buyers must be all of 22. We have not bought anything from Mervyn's since our run in with the luggage with the exception of some work clothes for one of the daughters. Then because they were not on my usual monthly pay group we missed a chance to pay them off. We were called and harassed for those clothes for the next 3 weeks. Finally I went down and paid it off at the store. It was no small task and they did not even have an accounting of the amount due. So I guessed.. and overpaid.

So in some ways it is not surprising that they are filing bankruptcy and still will not accommodate the mobility handicapped.

Here is the transcript of the SF Gate article that Cammie sent me>

Thursday, July 31, 2008 (SF Chronicle)
Court orders Mervyns to accommodate disabled
George Raine, Chronicle Staff Writer


Mervyns, the department store chain that on Tuesday filed for bankruptcy,
on Wednesday lost a round in a long-running legal dispute when the
California Court of Appeal ruled it must find ways to make all merchandise
available to disabled consumers.
A three-judge panel, ruling unanimously in a case filed in 2002 by
Californians for Disability Rights reversed a 2004 judgment by an Alameda
County Superior Court judge and told the company to produce a remedy for
access problems for disabled consumers.
That is not expected to be coming forthwith, however, said Sid Wolinsky, a
lawyer with the Berkeley nonprofit advocacy group, because of Mervyns'
bankruptcy filing.
"What it means in the case of Mervyns remains to be seen because of its
financial woes," Wolinsky said. "If the whole business collapses, it does
not mean much."
The ruling is specific to the troubled Mervyns, but it is significant, if
it stands, because it could have broad implications for retailers
statewide. It will establish a precedent in California for how retailers
will have to accommodate disabled consumers, Wolinsky said.
The suit claimed that Mervyns denied access to people with mobility
disabilities by failing to provide adequate pathways between merchandise
displays. The nonprofit said the Hayward company violated the state's
Unruh Civil Rights Act and Disabled Persons Act.
The Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday that Mervyns discriminated against
people with disabilities by blocking aisles with removable fixtures
without providing effective means for making merchandise available.
"It means that every retail establishment that is newly built or
substantially remodeled in the last 15 years - from 1993 on, the date of
the Americans with Disability Act - must comply with regular building
standards," said Wolinsky. "They have to provide accessible aisles."
Mervyns said in a statement Wednesday: "As a California-based and
family-friendly promotional department store, Mervyns is committed to
making all our customers feel welcome and providing them with the best
shopping experience. Customers with disabilities are no exception."
In 2004, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Henry Needham Jr. found that
20 percent of Mervyns merchandise was inaccessible to the disabled, but he
accepted Mervyns' case that it would face financial hardship if made to
remodel all its California stores. The company had said it might have to
close its stores, if forced to widen aisles and remove merchandise to
accommodate wheelchairs.
Needham's ruling said Mervyns could provide greater accommodation in new
and remodeled stores.
Californians for Disability Rights appealed that ruling, and while it was
pending, voters amended the statute under which the case had been brought.
The vote in favor of Proposition 64 barred private lawsuits for unfair
business practices unless the plaintiff had suffered or had been
threatened with personal or financial harm.
That became effective on Nov. 3, 2004. On Dec. 6, 2004, Mervyns moved to
dismiss the disability rights group's appeal, saying Prop. 64's change in
standing requirements applies to pending actions.
That dispute was subsequently resolved when the state Supreme Court
allowed Californians for Disability Rights to proceed with its appeal.
On Tuesday, Mervyns announced it had filed for bankruptcy at the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.
Mervyns filed for bankruptcy 59 years to the day after it opened its first
store in San Lorenzo.