Posts Tagged ‘ADA filing mills’

ADA lawsuits up 63 percent

“Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III lawsuits are up 63 percent over 2015, according to law firm Seyfarth Shaw. ADA Title III prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating on the basis of disability. The act applies to a variety of businesses and restaurants, including warehouses, movie theaters, schools, office buildings, day care facilities, doctors’ offices and any new construction of same must comply with the ADA construction standards.”…’More lawyers are finding out that this is a very…lucrative practice,’ said [Seyfarth partner Minh] Vu. The number of suits filed in federal court may top more than 7,000; more lawsuits were filed in the first half of this year than in all of 2013, according to the law firm’s research.” [Insurance Journal]

Related: “Sunshine state attorney seeks website changes, and costs and fees, from snow shoe seller” [John Breslin/Florida Record, and thanks for quote]

Arizona AG, citing “systemic abuse”, asks for dismissal of batch ADA cases

The “Arizona attorney general’s office on Wednesday filed a motion to dismiss more than 1,000 cases focused on business parking lots, brought by a Phoenix lawyer … The lawyer, Peter Strojnik, has filed more than 2,000 disability access cases in less than a year on behalf of Advocates for American Disabled Individuals. The plaintiff reportedly had a standard settlement offer of $7,500” and settled most of its cases for an average of $3,900 a pop, less than the cost of legal defense. The executive director of an organization that “is the federally designated disability protection and advocacy group for Arizona” criticized the AG’s action. [ABA Journal] Meanwhile, the executive director of a disabilities nonprofit represented by attorney Strojnik has resigned. The attorney “is currently under active investigation with the Arizona State Bar Association. Strojnik has been disciplined by the Arizona State Bar Association three times, according to ABC 15 KNXV-TV.” [Phoenix Business Journal, earlier]

The Economist on ADA litigation

“The hundreds of pages of technical requirements [relating to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA] have become so ‘frankly overwhelming’ that a good 95% of Arizona businesses haven’t fully complied, says Peter Strojnik, a lawyer in Phoenix. He has sued more than 500 since starting in February, and says he will hit thousands more in the state and hire staff to begin out-of-state suits. … Violators must pay all legal fees” and courts ordinarily find violations. [The Economist]

Overlawyered has been covering the phenomenon of ADA filing mills since the start of this website and the issue of web accessibility for very nearly as long. Here’s some of The Economist’s reporting on the latter topic:

“[Texas attorney Omar Weaver] Rosales says extending ADA rules to websites will allow him to begin suing companies that use color combinations problematic for the color-blind and layouts that are confusing for people with a limited field of vision.

The DOJ is supporting a National Association of the Deaf lawsuit against Harvard for not subtitling or transcribing videos and audio files posted online. As such cases multiply, content may be taken offline. Paying an accessibility consultant to spot the bits of website coding and metadata that might trip up a blind user’s screen-reading software can cost $50,000 for a website with 100 pages.”

“Law firm targets real estate companies for ADA suits over inaccessible websites”

Yes, mass production of web accessibility suits is under way: “A partner of [Pittsburgh-based] Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, which represents plaintiffs in such cases, tells the [Chicago] Tribune that it sent out about 25 demand letters to real estate companies in recent months.” [ABA Journal; Kenneth Harney; our 15+ years of coverage of the slow-motion legal disaster that is web accessibility]

California: “New law seeks to protect small businesses from ADA lawsuits”

California’s unique Unruh Act provides automatic bounty entitlements (often $4,000, plus attorney’s fees) to successful discrimination complainants without having to show any actual injury from their treatment. For many years this has led to a distinctive cottage industry of ADA filing mills that mass-generate accessibility complaints against California businesses to settle for cash, often based on minor instances of noncompliance in facilities open to the public. Correcting the bad incentives created by the Unruh Act appears to be politically out of bounds, but now, at least, following a multi-year push from the business community, Gov. Jerry Brown has signed SB 269, which lays out two escape paths from liability for smaller businesses: by hiring a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) they can get 120 days to fix any violations, and by providing a 15-day grace period before legal penalty for small business to fix the most minor violations, typically involving signage and surface display. [KXTV, NorCal Record, L.A. Daily News] “The number one complaint [in 2015]? Non-compliant loading zones. Number two? Problems with parking lot signage.” [Capital Public Radio]

Meanwhile, in Fresno, some disabled plaintiffs are now suing the lawyers who solicited their involvement in mass ADA filings, saying they broke promises, behaved deceptively, and kept nearly all the proceeds for themselves. [KFSN]:

One of the places the Moores sued is a donut shop in Reedley and one of the problems was with the signage.

The shop had a disabled parking only sign up, but it didn’t have the half that states “Minimum Fine $250” and without that part, this is a violation.

What the Moores may not have known is Doughnuts To Go is managed by Lee Ky, who suffers from cerebral palsy.

“Here I am all my life in a wheelchair and I get around in the community just fine,” Ky explained.

Ky says she never had any accessibility problems at her own store, but she made some updates after she was sued for violations and settled with the Moore Law Firm to make the lawsuit go away.

So when an Action News reporter showed her the video of Ronald Moore, the man who sued her, lifting his wheelchair into his SUV, then walking up to the driver’s seat, she was pretty upset.

“I wish I could be him sometimes,” Ky said. “I wish I could just get up and then walking and all the sudden becoming in the wheelchair. It looks bad.”

Did ADA serial claimant pay taxes on his loot?

“IRS and federal prosecutors have launched a criminal investigation into serial disability access plaintiff Scott Johnson, who has moved his lawsuit operation to the Bay Area in recent months, to determine whether he has paid taxes on his alleged millions of dollars in settlements, multiple sources told this newspaper.

“Unless a plaintiff suffered physical injuries as a result of a civil settlement, that individual must pay taxes on the monetary award, tax experts said. It is unclear whether Johnson paid any taxes on any of his Americans with Disabilities Act settlements with thousands of businesses in California that he alleged obstructed his access as a paralyzed customer using a wheelchair. He and his attorney did not return requests for comment.” [San Jose Mercury-News, more of its coverage on Scott Johnson, earlier on ADA filing mills generally and on Johnson in particular here, here, here, here, and here]

Minnesota bill would curb ADA frequent filer

Attorney Paul Hansmeier has sued more than 100 small businesses in Minnesota charging lack of handicap accessibility, sometimes “on behalf of the Disability Support Alliance, a nonprofit group that finds non-compliant businesses. A 5 Eyewitness News report from last summer found Hansmeier sought quick settlements from businesses for thousands of dollars and made little effort to ensure the buildings were brought into compliance.” Hansmeier has now denounced as “silly” a bill developed by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, working with the Minnesota State Council of Disability and Human Rights Department, aimed at curbing opportunistic accessibility complaints. “The legislation would give businesses at least 30 days to respond to lawsuits, shift the burden of proof in some cases to those filing the lawsuit and restrict attorneys from demanding immediate settlements.”

Attorney Hansmeier, according to the broadcast report, “is currently facing disbarment or suspension for running a copyright infringement scheme involving a pornographic video. A district judge in Hennepin County said last year that Hansmeier’s history reinforced concerns that the ADA lawsuits raised ‘the specter of litigation abuse.'” [KSTP] Last year I noted his adventures in copyright law and his more recent rolling out of multiple suits alleging that businesses had not adequately designed their online presence to accommodate disabled web users.

Lawyers see boom in cash-seeking web-ADA suits

I’ve predicted that with wider acceptance of the legal theory that the ADA requires websites to reflect the needs of blind, deaf, paralyzed, and other disabled users in their design, there will eventually emerge filing mills generating form complaints alleging lack of online accessibility, just as we see with ADA complaints in some states against brick-and-mortar stores on Main Street. Now, after years of effort from disabled advocacy groups and the Obama administration to overcome unfavorable court precedent, we may be several steps closer to that day [Amanda Robert, Legal NewsLine]:

Defense attorneys say there has been an “explosion of activity” from payment-seeking plaintiffs lawyers and their blind clients who are alleging violations of federal disabilities law in lawsuits over companies’ websites – particularly in three jurisdictions [California, New York, and Pennsylvania].

One Pittsburgh attorney representing two blind plaintiffs has brought cases against Hard Rock Café International, Toys “R” Us, and Pep Boys over their online operations, as well as a case now consolidated against 16 different defendants including Ace Hardware, Brooks Brothers, the National Basketball Association and Red Roof Inns. As for smaller businesses, they are for the most part not exempt under the law, so their time will come too.

Much more on web accessibility here and on ADA filing mills here.

Because bad things keep happening to her

“Since the beginning of 2015, three plaintiffs have brought more than 200 lawsuits against Arizona hotels, retailers and restaurants alleging American with Disabilities Act accessibility violations. One of the three, Theresa Brooke, has filed 151 of the 237 total ADA lawsuits that aren’t related to employment. These suits, brought mainly in Arizona by two law firms, allege the defendants’ premises aren’t in compliance with ADA standards.” She is represented by Phoenix attorney Peter Strojnik. [Laura Wilcoxen, Legal NewsLine]

Disabled rights roundup

  • Effort to qualify California ballot initiative to curb state’s infamous ADA filing mills; Harold Kim (US Chamber) podcast on lawsuit abuse and small businesses;
  • Costly canines: Ohio’s Kent State will pay $145,000 for not letting two students have emotional support dogs in housing [Insurance Journal]
  • USC football coach Sarkisian and alcohol: “Lessons In Disability Accommodation and the Interactive Process” [Nancy Yaffe, California Employment Law]
  • “Does ADA require nursing homes to admit obese patients?” [Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal]
  • “It’s difficult to think of a piece of legislation that failed more abysmally than the ADA. So now what do we do?” [Scott Sumner; we’ve been on the post-ADA decline in labor force participation by the disabled for a long, long time]
  • After football player collapses on field with heat stroke, resulting in nine-day coma that brings him near death, team doctor refuses to clear him to play again due to re-injury risk; Fourth Circuit reverses lower federal court that had ruled for his claim of disability discrimination [Gavin Class v. Towson University, opinion]
  • Second Circuit: hearing-impaired IBM employee can’t get to jury after rejecting sign-language translation and transcripts of company videos as reasonable accommodation on the ground that captioning would have provided overall nicer experience [Wait a Second! via Daniel Schwartz]