I was a construction meme.
It’s the sort of thing that comes up in conversations about the way you build a house or a garage or anything else.
But it’s also a meme that comes out of nowhere, a phenomenon that comes from a combination of the Internet and real life.
There’s a time and place for it, and that’s the construction industry, where the “tricks” of construction can seem like little more than a way for people to make some quick cash, even if it’s a bit ridiculous and pointless.
That’s not to say that memes don’t make people laugh, but they can also turn into a very real danger when they’re directed at someone with disabilities.
A few years ago, construction companies were sued for making the claim that construction projects were a place where people with disabilities were being denied access to public spaces.
A lawsuit filed in October 2016 accused a California construction company of creating a fake construction company and falsely claiming that construction workers are “failing” people with disability, even though construction projects are typically non-profit and run by people with little or no disabilities.
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is Michael Pardini, a member of the California Construction Association (CCA), who told the LA Times that the claims were made in order to “discredit and stigmatize construction workers with disabilities.”
A few months later, another lawsuit was filed by the construction trade group The California Association of Realtors (CAAR), which argued that construction companies are being used to promote a discriminatory agenda and that construction has been a target of harassment and discrimination in the past.
In 2015, CAAR also filed a lawsuit against the California State Board of Equalization (BES), which it accused of creating and promoting an atmosphere that perpetuates discrimination against disabled people.
In 2016, CAIR also filed an anti-discrimination lawsuit against construction contractors, including a lawsuit that claimed that a contractor’s alleged sexual harassment of a disabled woman was motivated by her disability.
In the lawsuit, CAARI claims that the contractor’s behavior was “pervasively and publicly displayed” and that the “purposeful and intentional discrimination” was motivated in part by “discriminatory business practices” and “political correctness.”
CAARI also filed another lawsuit in June 2017, alleging that the construction company had been “fraudulently and knowingly” “selling and promoting” a construction company that did not provide “the essential human services necessary for construction.”
In that lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that the company “sold a service” for $10,000 to people with “no prior construction experience.”
CAAR’s suit was dismissed in September 2017.
In December 2017, a construction worker who sued the company was also dismissed.
In January 2018, a second worker who had been fired from the construction firm filed a separate lawsuit against CAARI.
CAARI had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.
Both lawsuits are still pending, but CAARI’s attorneys claim that the dismissal is “not based on the merits of the case,” but on the claim of discrimination against construction workers.
In a statement, CARAs general counsel, Mark Eisner, said in a statement that the lawsuit “was not a frivolous attempt to harass the construction workers” and said the allegations of discrimination “are entirely without merit.”
The California Department of Building Inspection has not responded directly to CAARI, but the construction association has also received criticism for its use of its resources and employees to advance its cause.
For instance, CARAIS also sued the California Department Of Water Resources, which was in charge of enforcing state law against the construction companies.
The company sued to challenge an injunction that the water agency had issued against construction companies that used the water to make “products containing toxic materials,” according to an Associated Press report.
CARAI also sued CARAS for violating its “moral responsibility” for the safety of its members and the public.
The group said in its complaint that the law enforcement agencies had used its resources to intimidate and bully the members of CARAES and to “encourage their silence in the face of CAIR’s intimidation.”
It also claimed that CARAIs attorneys were paid “with an undisclosed salary.”
The lawsuit also said that CARIs lawyers and members were told “by CARAAs attorneys, members and other CARA employees that they had a ‘moral obligation’ to continue to engage in this type of conduct and that their employment was in jeopardy if they did not.”
CARAIAS attorneys also claimed the association “has been financially harmed by CARAis actions, including the termination of its employment” and also the “loss of its ability to hold the construction contractors accountable.”
The lawsuits have continued.
In October 2018, CACAI filed another suit against CARAIES attorneys for defamation and false imprisonment.
The lawsuit said that in its lawsuit against COBAS, CADAIS and CARAICS lawyers “have lied to, and defamed, CAACA and its