Comments on: December 5 roundup

By: Vickie Pynchon

Vickie Pynchon — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:02:43 +0000

Yes, Walter, you’re right. I mediated this case pro bono for the Los Angeles Superior Court, so it was a state, not a federal, claim. Thanks for the enlightenment. As I said in my more lengthy response to Smoke on my blog, I am not an ADA expert. I don’t judge. I help attorneys help their clients settle cases the attorneys believe are best settled rather than tried or further defended. It’s not my job to decide what the true “facts” are or who’s “right” or “wrong.” Life is simply not as black and white as that even though all of us sometimes wish it were.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:14:21 +0000

I think you’ll find the answer is that California discrimination law has damages provisions that do turn these into money cases. Common usage is to describe these as ADA cases even though they actually invoke state law.

By: SmokeVanThorn

SmokeVanThorn — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 05:54:00 +0000

As I pointed out in a comment on Ms. Pynchon’s blog, her tale lacks credibility. Damages are not available to a Title III ADA plaintiff.

By: AZFlyer

AZFlyer — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:55:50 +0000

WV racial discrimination story : “What was really surprising to the petitioner was the overall subracial behavior attitude that was displayed through reverse negative behavior displayed through pencil-pimping,” the suit states.

Who wrote this stuff? For the life of me, I can’t understand what it’s supposed to mean. I also found it interesting that the plaintiffs claimed late fees were also discriminatory, while admitting that they never paid rent on time. How is anyone expected to take a case like this seriously?

By: Glenn Dale

Glenn Dale — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:21:33 +0000

Victoria Pynchon: It’s still extortion, just legalized extortion. her story didn’t detail any conversation with the handicapped complainant or –more importantly– his/her attorney where she explained that the defendant had only recently purchased the bldg. and had immediately made the required improvements after receiving the complaint. I’m sure, the plaintiff’s attorney was similarly moved to reduce the essentially mandatory settlement fee. I wonder if the plaintiff had been moved by the defendant’s account whether he could have done anything to change the ending. We all know these types of serial plaintiffs essentially sell their claims to these ADA lawmills who are simply using the law to extort settlements.