• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Disabled Donut-shop manager asks Congress to put leash on ADA lawyers

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,892
Location
So. CA
Main Street Goes to Washington

Donut-shop manager asks Congress to put leash on ADA lawyers

The Business Journals by Kent Hoover, Washington Bureau Chief

Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2012, 10:09pm EDT

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2012/06/27/ada-defendant-notify-businesses-of.html?s=print

Businesses have long complained about being threatened with lawsuits over Americans with Disabilities Act violations by attorneys who won't even specify what the alleged violations are. These attorneys are more interested in coercing settlements out of the businesses they target than they are in getting ADA violations corrected, business advocates contend. A California donut shop operator came to Capitol Hill this week to ask Congress for help against this practice, which she said is "reminiscent of mobsters requesting protection money."

Witness: Lee Ky of Reedley, Calif., who manages two Donuts to Go shops owned by her mother.

Hearing: House Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing on legislation that would require that businesses accused of Americans with Disability Act violations be notified in writing about the specific violations, and be given 120 days to correct the violations before a lawsuit could be filed.

Why Ky testified: Both of her donut shops were sued, without notice, for alleged Americans with Disabilities Act violations even though Ky, who has been disabled all her life, has no problem moving around the shops and using their restrooms.

Ky’s perspective: “It’s not fair for business owners to receive a lawsuit package not knowing what it is for, being asked for a certain amount of money, and still having to pay for corrections. ... If these frivolous, nitpicky, unnecessary, money-hungry ADA lawsuits continue, many businesses will be forced to shut down because they don’t have the money to pay for the lawsuit or correct the facility.”

Argument against the legislation: If the notice requirement is added to the ADA, businesses won’t have any incentive to comply with the law until they receive a letter citing ADA violations. The ADA doesn’t allow plaintiffs to collect damages for violations, just attorneys’ fees.

How Ky did: As a disabled person who also runs a small business, Ky was an effective advocate for the viewpoint that businesses should first be given a chance to correct ADA violations before they get sued. She was invited to testify by Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., sponsor of the prior-notice bill, the ADA Compliance for Customer Entry to Stores and Services (H.R. 3356).

Her only regret: “I didn’t get a chance to ask questions.”

Impact of testimony: Clint Eastwood, who faced a lawsuit over alleged ADA violations at his Mission Ranch Hotel in Carmel, Calif., couldn’t convince Congress to pass a similar bill in 2001. Ky probably won’t have any better luck
 
Ky probably won't have any better luck because the lobby for the trial lawyers is too strong and most members of Congress have never had a real job.
 
Argument against the legislation: If the notice requirement is added to the ADA, businesses won’t have any incentive to comply with the law until they receive a letter citing ADA violations
The logic here is asinine

A business has more incentive because they might get a letter demanding protection money from being sued.

What if the business has an active plan in place to make improvements based on the amount of tax credits the feds allow each year? Does that have any merit in the demand letters.

The ADA doesn’t allow plaintiffs to collect damages for violations, just attorneys’ fees.
And that is the way it should be
 
mtlogcabin said:
And that is the way it should be
NO, the attorneys ARE the problem.

The attorneys are the driving force in most cases.

The attorneys find the problems, THEN find a disabled plaintiff to file the case

NOT the way it should be......
 
GBrackins said:
I think he meant it should not be like Cali where the plaintiff can sue for damages in addition to attorney fees, but I could be wrong ....
The ADA does not demand payment from anybody. The DOJ has to prove there case first before a fine or penalty is warranted

In Ca a plantiff does not even need to sue just send a demand letter

Mark has posted plenty of DOJ court cases where the problems where corrected, the attorney was paid and the plantiff was even awarded a small settlement. The difference between Ca and the DOJ is you do not have to prove your case in Ca the business owner is presumed guilty with no one doing any investigation or have to prove their case before payment (fines) are demanded or made.

As we all know not everything is black and white in the code world and that is especially true when it comes to accessibility.

If the plumber roughs the lavatory in at 35 inches above the finished floor to the rim and then the tile setter does not grout the floor properly and the finish places the lavatory rim at 34.25 inches above the finished floor is that a $4,000 violation payment due to the first person that sends out a letter or is it a "construction tolerance" and not a violation?
 
Back
Top