ADA Access Reform Bill

[Lord Coke]

So there is a bill in Congress that is designed to reform the Americans with Disabilities act so that before you can sue you need to write the business and give it time to fix the issue. I am all about this. There are way to many lawyers that use disabled people or are disabled themselves just to make a buck by shaking down small business. E.g. read this link

https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/04/10/serial-ada-lawsuit-filer-striking-bay-area/


https://sandiegofreepress.org/2018/...essive-activist-calendar-february-16-26-2018/

Legislation co-sponsored by San Diego Congressman Rep. Scott Peters has drawn the ire of civil rights organizations and advocates for the disabled. On Thursday as the House of Representatives passed the ADA Education and Reform Act (HR 620) by a 225-to-192 vote, with 12 Democrats joining all but 19 Republicans.

Supporters of the bill claim it is a reasonable reform aimed at stopping bad actors from abusing the law for personal gain. Opponents claim it limits the power of the Americans with Disabilities Act and turns back the clock on disability rights.

At issue is a change in the language currently requiring ‘providing access’ to making ‘substantial progress.’ This may seem like small potatoes to some, but for those who are wheelchair bound and still seeing access problems three decades after the original ADA was enacted, it’s a big deal.

Newsweek:

The motivation for the bill stems from reports of trial lawyers and firms across the country submitting dozens of lawsuits against businesses for not complying with the ADA. A 60 Minutes segment from earlier this year showed lawyers in California filing ADA complaints simply after noticing violations by driving by a business or going online via Google Earth.

But critics say that these issues can be addressed at the state level and through district courts.

“[Frivolous] ADA lawsuits…are not an ADA issue; they are a state and court problem,” disability rights lawyer Robyn Powell wrote in an op-ed for Rewire in May 2017. “Indeed, ethics rules bar attorneys from bringing frivolous lawsuits. Rather than go after people with disabilities, attention should be focused on stopping these few bad attorneys.”

Washington Post:

Under the bill, those wishing to sue businesses in federal court over an ADA public-accommodations violation must first deliver a written notice to that business detailing the illegal barrier to access and then give that business 60 days to come up with a plan to address the complaints and an additional 60 days to take action.

The legislation garnered some bipartisan support, including from one of the most liberal members of the House.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a lead co-sponsor of the bill, said in an interview that she has “witnessed too many rip-off artists in California that are in it for just making a buck.”

Rep. Scott Peters spoke on the floor prior to the vote, saying he’d met with disabled activists and introduced amendments he believed addressed their concerns.

“The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is critical to protecting every American’s right to accessing public and private spaces. That’s why we must stop bad actors who are abusing this landmark civil rights law for their own personal financial gain and standing in the way of real improvements to access,” said Rep. Peters. “This bipartisan bill allows business owners to spend their money to fix problems and improve accessibility, rather than paying off lawyers to settle cookie-cutter lawsuits.”

Peters’s office issued a press release outlining three amendments included in the final version of the bill.

“The first amendment clarifies that the “cure” period is a maximum of 120 days, rather than 180 days. The second amendment clearly defines that a business can only claim “substantial progress” toward addressing a barrier to access when the business can prove it is unable to comply through no fault of its own. Finally, the third amendment allows the notice to business owners to be provided in plain language, without requiring specific citations which might prove challenging for non-lawyers.”

Disabled advocates were not impressed, and disrupted proceedings chanting “Hands off ADA” as they were removed by Capitol Police.

Senator Tammy Duckworth objected to provisions of the bill via Twitter:

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, via Twitter

Ever since I lost my legs when an RPG tore thru the cockpit of my Blackhawk I was flying over Iraq, getting around has been difficult—even w/the #ADA, I can’t always enter public spaces & have to spend a lot of time planning how to get frm 1 place to the next…

…Supporters of #HR620 don’t deny that they’re violating the law—they just resent being sued for “minor” #ADA infractions. But an incline that is “only” a few degrees too steep, or an entrance that is “only” a few inches high, can determine if I’m able to access an area w/out help…

….Being unable to independently enter a movie theater, store, hotel or restaurant is not only humiliating, it limits the freedom to pursue certain jobs, access necessary services & enjoy basic conveniences that most Americans don’t think twice about…

…I understand that not everyone thinks about these things because for most of my adult life I didn’t either. But the truth is that everyone is just one bad day away from needing accessible options the #ADArequires to help them get around…

…If you don’t live with a disability, you might not think of #ADA violations as significant at 1st glance, but I assure you they’re significant for those of us who do live with disabilities…

…That’s why I STRONGLY urge all of my colleagues in the House to recognize that#DisabilityRightsAreCivilRights by voting NO on #HR620

The ACLU was among dozens of organizations speaking out against the bill.

This bill would also effectively change Title III’s requirements from providing access to making ‘substantial progress’ in removing barriers. Progress is not access. Changing the standard under the ADA from access to substantial progress would not only harm the civil rights of people with disabilities but would also increase litigation due to uncertainties about what constitutes ‘substantial progress.’

California enacted legislation in 2016 supported by both business groups and trial lawyers giving companies 15 days following an ADA complaint to resolve alleged violations if the violations fall under certain categories, including those related to signage.

 

[tonni]

I saw a video about lawyers cruising around town in the USA looking for minor infractions at businesses, so they can sue them and make a profit. That's obviously not what the law was meant for and I don't think this bill is unreasonable at all. Seems like a bunch of lawyer sharks abused the law to line their pockets.

Unless I'm missing out on something here.

"“[Frivolous] ADA lawsuits…are not an ADA issue; they are a state and court problem,” disability rights lawyer Robyn Powell wrote in an op-ed for Rewire in May 2017. “Indeed, ethics rules bar attorneys from bringing frivolous lawsuits. Rather than go after people with disabilities, attention should be focused on stopping these few bad attorneys.”"
Seems to have a point

 

[Fawlty]

So this sort of removes the responsibility of these public places to plan for disabled access in the first place, and further gives them 120 days to dick you if you have a problem. Sounds terrible.

 

[Trotsky]

If I remember correctly, there was already a common law solution to this, where the business could correct the defect and render the case moot before discovery.

 

[Fawlty]

I saw a video about lawyers cruising around town in the USA looking for minor infractions at businesses, so they can sue them and make a profit. That's obviously not what the law was meant for and I don't think this bill is unreasonable at all. Seems like a bunch of lawyer sharks abused the law to line their pockets.

Unless I'm missing out on something here.

"“[Frivolous] ADA lawsuits…are not an ADA issue; they are a state and court problem,” disability rights lawyer Robyn Powell wrote in an op-ed for Rewire in May 2017. “Indeed, ethics rules bar attorneys from bringing frivolous lawsuits. Rather than go after people with disabilities, attention should be focused on stopping these few bad attorneys.”"
Seems to have a point

It's another law that sounds reasonable until you realize it's just another barrier for disabled people. Fraudulent lawsuits should be handled for what they are- not by punishing the people those lawsuits are meant to protect. It's a false solution.

 

[tonni]

It's another law that sounds reasonable until you realize it's just another barrier for disabled people. Fraudulent lawsuits should be handled for what they are- not by punishing the people those lawsuits are meant to protect. It's a false solution.

How damaging is this potentially for disabled people?

 

[Fawlty]

How damaging is this potentially for disabled people?

Companies will plan with it in mind that they don't actually have to do anything to accommodate (city/state or other local laws can guard against that). If you know that you can be sued for not complying from the start, you will comply from the start. But if you know that you have 120 days after the first written complaint (this is another physical barrier, the delivery of the complaint), then you're dicking all of the people who don't want to go out of pocket for a legal battle, or who just don't want the hassle. So it turns the system against cripples to protect businesses from doing what they are already supposed to be doing. IMO it's morally indefensible.

 

[tonni]

Companies will plan with it in mind that they don't actually have to do anything to accommodate (city/state or other local laws can guard against that). If you know that you can be sued for not complying from the start, you will comply from the start. But if you know that you have 120 days after the first written complaint (this is another physical barrier, the delivery of the complaint), then you're dicking all of the people who don't want to go out of pocket for a legal battle, or who just don't want the hassle. So it turns the system against cripples to protect businesses from doing what they are already supposed to be doing. IMO it's morally indefensible.

Right. It does seem like an example of a law that seems reasonable at face value, until you realize the full consequences and the real intent of it.

 

[Fawlty]

Right. It does seem like an example of a law that seems reasonable at face value, until you realize the full consequences and the real intent of it.

The US has a habit of pursuing these sorts of laws for the benefit of corporations against the public, and it's done because of "frivolous lawsuits." This has been a theme in this country all my life, unfortunately. There is definitely abuse of the legal system by trash lawyers, no doubt. It's so morally wrong that it's easy to use as a reason to make bad laws. It does seem to make sense, I agree.

 

[xcvbn]

I saw a video about lawyers cruising around town in the USA looking for minor infractions at businesses, so they can sue them and make a profit. That's obviously not what the law was meant for and I don't think this bill is unreasonable at all. Seems like a bunch of lawyer sharks abused the law to line their pockets.

Unless I'm missing out on something here.

"“[Frivolous] ADA lawsuits…are not an ADA issue; they are a state and court problem,” disability rights lawyer Robyn Powell wrote in an op-ed for Rewire in May 2017. “Indeed, ethics rules bar attorneys from bringing frivolous lawsuits. Rather than go after people with disabilities, attention should be focused on stopping these few bad attorneys.”"
Seems to have a point

Duh?

 

[HomeCheese]

I work for a mid size company, about 175 employees and $12 million annual revenue. About 75% of revenue goes to employees wages and benefits.

We just had to spend 25K on redesign of our web site so that it would be ADA compliant. Apparently there is a lawyer in Florida that has been going after organizations like ours shaking them down for money. Kind of a bummer to have to spend that much money on this.

 

[hillelslovak87]

The intent here seems rather clear. It's for companies to skirt regulation, and to get away with saying they will remedy any bad infractions. It sounds laudable, because fuck lawyers, and seriously, fuck lawyers, but the details matter.

 

[Limbo Pete]

It stinks

 

[nostradumbass]

Companies will plan with it in mind that they don't actually have to do anything to accommodate (city/state or other local laws can guard against that). If you know that you can be sued for not complying from the start, you will comply from the start. But if you know that you have 120 days after the first written complaint (this is another physical barrier, the delivery of the complaint), then you're dicking all of the people who don't want to go out of pocket for a legal battle, or who just don't want the hassle. So it turns the system against cripples to protect businesses from doing what they are already supposed to be doing. IMO it's morally indefensible.

Right, because what better way to solve a problem than someone suing for a few million because a place didn't have handle bars in a toilet stall? Totally worth bankrupting some store.

If they have 120 days to fix whatever the problem was, doesn't that kind of resolve the original complaint? Why is it always a truck load of cash that solves the problem? Has there been a single time where you haven't been cheering on gouging a business?

 

[Fawlty]

Right, because what better way to solve a problem than someone suing for a few million because a place didn't have handle bars in a toilet stall? Totally worth bankrupting some store.

If they have 120 days to fix whatever the problem was, doesn't that kind of resolve the original complaint? Why is it always a truck load of cash that solves the problem? Has there been a single time where you haven't been cheering on gouging a business?

They're already breaking the law. Give them the same 120 days to fix it, but don't interfere with the legal rights of the injured party.


In before you shift the goalposts to the law being invalid in the first place...

 

[nostradumbass]

They're already breaking the law. Give them the same 120 days to fix it, but don't interfere with the legal rights of the injured party.


In before you shift the goalposts to the law being invalid in the first place...

Well shit, you couldn't take a comfortable dump in home depot. Clearly $5 million will solve the issue for "emotional distress". How do you shit a goalpost?

 

[Fawlty]

Well shit, you couldn't take a comfortable dump in home depot. Clearly $5 million will solve the issue for "emotional distress". How do you shit a goalpost?

And as predicted, you "shit" the goalposts right to the validity of the law. So predictable. Very uncouth.

 

[nostradumbass]

And as predicted, you "shit" the goalposts right to the validity of the law. So predictable. Very uncouth.

That goalpost had better have handle bars, otherwise I have $5 million headed my way.

 

[Fawlty]

That goalpost had better have handle bars, otherwise I have $5 million headed my way.

What's wrong with giving them the same sort of grace period to fix their shit, but without interfering with the injured party's legal rights?

 

[nostradumbass]

What's wrong with giving them the same sort of grace period to fix their shit, but without interfering with the injured party's legal rights?

Fixing their shit should be the beginning and end of the goal. We had a "professional plaintiff" when I was in school who was specifically trying to get injured at places to file lawsuits. "Legal rights" shouldn't be what you wouldn't make in 20 lifetimes. If someone gets actually injured, yeah, the company can pick up the tab for medical expenses and maybe wages for the recovery period, but not some wild amount that amounts to a lottery jackpot. The goal should be for places to comply, not seek out ones that aren't so you can get a payday.