mark handler
SAWHORSE
California Businesses Beware, He’s a Professional
By Alison Parker
http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/09/27/california-businesses-beware-he%E2%80%99s-a-professional/
For some, filing lawsuits can be a pretty good way to make a living–no, we’re not talking about lawyers, we are talking about “professional plaintiffs” suing under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Case in point: Jim Cohan of California. And though most of his cases have settled under confidential terms, it’s reasonable to believe that Mr. Cohan has done quite well in this arena.
Since 2007, Mr. Cohan has filed over 164 ADA lawsuits against various California business establishments, with allegations ranging from a lack of wheelchair access, because he claimed he was wheelchair bound, to a lack of Braille, because he claimed he was nearly blind. In a March 2011 lawsuit, Mr. Cohan claimed an additional ailment: “end-stage emphysema,” a severe condition that would limit his ability to walk, work, speak and breathe.
But – and this is strange – last month, KABC News actually caught him on tape during a seemingly rigorous uphill hike near his Sun Valley home in Los Angeles.
Of course, if he actually lied in his lawsuits, he is guilty of fraud. But even if he was once wheelchair-bound, and partially blind, and had trouble breathing, it does seem that he’s taken suing under the ADA too far – doesn’t it?
The angry readers who commented on the article certainly think so. For instance, Grillflame wrote we should “put this criminal in jail. He’s a parasite,” while Grigrn opined that “the business owners that he sued should turn around and sue HIM.” They all seemed to agree Mr. Cohan should be prohibited from filing any further lawsuits under the ADA. The question is: can he be? Or is it his legal right to sue? LASIS did some research.
First, a bit about the ADA. Broadly speaking, the ADA was designed to protect disabled people, but not by allowing them to cash in; instead, the ADA allows plaintiffs to get an injunction against the business to conform with certain requirements and, sometimes, to recover court fees
But some states, like California, have enacted state laws that allow plaintiffs to recover monetary damages from businesses that violate the ADA, and it’s the potential to pocket some dough that makes suing businesses appealing to people like Mr. Cohan.
In order to stop Mr. Cohan’s excessive filings, the court can order that he must obtain a court’s permission before suing again. California has done this to an ADA plaintiff before: Meet Jarek Molski, a paraplegic dubbed the “hit-and-run plaintiff” who filed over 400 lawsuits in California under the ADA after a 1985 motorcycle accident. In 2004, the court ordered that Mr. Molski must forevermore petition the Central District Court of California and all state courts before suing under the ADA again. No surprise: he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and (again, no surprise), the Court rejected his case without comment.
In addition, California courts have the discretion to sanction the attorneys who have filed frivolous ADA actions on Mr. Cohan’s behalf. In 2003, a District Court judge sanctioned a Miami lawyer for filing 13 lawsuits on behalf of a man he claimed was a quadriplegic, but who showed up to a deposition by walking through the door.
KABC reported that at least two of Mr. Cohan’s attorneys have recently ceased representing him, and many California small business owners will be gratified; Mr. Cohan’s actions have been described by one such business owner as “modern day extortion.” Mr. Cohan’s energies against the ADA are even more remarkable than his lawsuits on his own behalf would indicate: he has represented a few dozen clients himself and kept 10-20 percent of their settlements. And although he claims that he never held himself out to be a lawyer, he has used a local disability law firm’s letterhead and replaced the firm’s name with his own concoction: “J. Cohan and Associates, Disability Rights Advocates.”
The truth is that ADA lawsuits are plaguing California businesses; conservative estimates indicate that ADA litigation costs California businesses $20 million each year. The minimum statutory damages are $4,000 per offense and lawsuits often allege multiple violations at one location.
The truth is also that some establishments are violating federal and state disability laws and need to be brought into compliance. And we don’t want you get the wrong idea — although statutes like California’s allow plaintiffs to recover monetary damages and encourage ADA lawsuits, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. One California court has noted that most ADA suits are brought by a small number of private plaintiffs, and for the ADA to grant equal access for the disabled, it may be “necessary and desirable for committed individuals to bring serial litigation, advancing the time when public accommodations will be compliant with the ADA.”
LASIS agrees with that sentiment, but we also empathize with California businesses. Mr. Cohan’s crusades have crossed the line between advocating for the disabled and abusing the system. And yes, he can be stopped by the court system.
By Alison Parker
http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/09/27/california-businesses-beware-he%E2%80%99s-a-professional/
For some, filing lawsuits can be a pretty good way to make a living–no, we’re not talking about lawyers, we are talking about “professional plaintiffs” suing under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Case in point: Jim Cohan of California. And though most of his cases have settled under confidential terms, it’s reasonable to believe that Mr. Cohan has done quite well in this arena.
Since 2007, Mr. Cohan has filed over 164 ADA lawsuits against various California business establishments, with allegations ranging from a lack of wheelchair access, because he claimed he was wheelchair bound, to a lack of Braille, because he claimed he was nearly blind. In a March 2011 lawsuit, Mr. Cohan claimed an additional ailment: “end-stage emphysema,” a severe condition that would limit his ability to walk, work, speak and breathe.
But – and this is strange – last month, KABC News actually caught him on tape during a seemingly rigorous uphill hike near his Sun Valley home in Los Angeles.
Of course, if he actually lied in his lawsuits, he is guilty of fraud. But even if he was once wheelchair-bound, and partially blind, and had trouble breathing, it does seem that he’s taken suing under the ADA too far – doesn’t it?
The angry readers who commented on the article certainly think so. For instance, Grillflame wrote we should “put this criminal in jail. He’s a parasite,” while Grigrn opined that “the business owners that he sued should turn around and sue HIM.” They all seemed to agree Mr. Cohan should be prohibited from filing any further lawsuits under the ADA. The question is: can he be? Or is it his legal right to sue? LASIS did some research.
First, a bit about the ADA. Broadly speaking, the ADA was designed to protect disabled people, but not by allowing them to cash in; instead, the ADA allows plaintiffs to get an injunction against the business to conform with certain requirements and, sometimes, to recover court fees
But some states, like California, have enacted state laws that allow plaintiffs to recover monetary damages from businesses that violate the ADA, and it’s the potential to pocket some dough that makes suing businesses appealing to people like Mr. Cohan.
In order to stop Mr. Cohan’s excessive filings, the court can order that he must obtain a court’s permission before suing again. California has done this to an ADA plaintiff before: Meet Jarek Molski, a paraplegic dubbed the “hit-and-run plaintiff” who filed over 400 lawsuits in California under the ADA after a 1985 motorcycle accident. In 2004, the court ordered that Mr. Molski must forevermore petition the Central District Court of California and all state courts before suing under the ADA again. No surprise: he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and (again, no surprise), the Court rejected his case without comment.
In addition, California courts have the discretion to sanction the attorneys who have filed frivolous ADA actions on Mr. Cohan’s behalf. In 2003, a District Court judge sanctioned a Miami lawyer for filing 13 lawsuits on behalf of a man he claimed was a quadriplegic, but who showed up to a deposition by walking through the door.
KABC reported that at least two of Mr. Cohan’s attorneys have recently ceased representing him, and many California small business owners will be gratified; Mr. Cohan’s actions have been described by one such business owner as “modern day extortion.” Mr. Cohan’s energies against the ADA are even more remarkable than his lawsuits on his own behalf would indicate: he has represented a few dozen clients himself and kept 10-20 percent of their settlements. And although he claims that he never held himself out to be a lawyer, he has used a local disability law firm’s letterhead and replaced the firm’s name with his own concoction: “J. Cohan and Associates, Disability Rights Advocates.”
The truth is that ADA lawsuits are plaguing California businesses; conservative estimates indicate that ADA litigation costs California businesses $20 million each year. The minimum statutory damages are $4,000 per offense and lawsuits often allege multiple violations at one location.
The truth is also that some establishments are violating federal and state disability laws and need to be brought into compliance. And we don’t want you get the wrong idea — although statutes like California’s allow plaintiffs to recover monetary damages and encourage ADA lawsuits, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. One California court has noted that most ADA suits are brought by a small number of private plaintiffs, and for the ADA to grant equal access for the disabled, it may be “necessary and desirable for committed individuals to bring serial litigation, advancing the time when public accommodations will be compliant with the ADA.”
LASIS agrees with that sentiment, but we also empathize with California businesses. Mr. Cohan’s crusades have crossed the line between advocating for the disabled and abusing the system. And yes, he can be stopped by the court system.