mark handler
SAWHORSE
Shine some sunlight on ADA lawsuits, outcomes
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/editorial_shed_some_light_on_a.html
The Americans with Disabilities Act is an important tool. It can, among other things, motivate irresponsible or remiss business owners to do the right thing and make their establishments handicapped accessible.
A Washington, N.J., paraplegic, Tanya Whiteside, and a nonprofit Union County, N.J., group, The Independence Project, are apparently on crusades to make businesses in this area follow the federal law.
In roughly a year, Whiteside has filed 19 lawsuits in U.S. District Court against restaurants, shopping centers and other businesses, claiming ADA violations. Among those she’s sued are the Phillipsburg Mall, Burger King on Memorial Parkway in Phillipsburg, the Hunterdon Shopping Center in Flemington and Wal-Mart Plaza in Clinton.
The Independence Project has filed more than 50 ADA lawsuits in New Jersey and Pennsylvania since 2012, including actions against Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem, Pocono Raceway, and joining Whiteside in her suits against the Phillipsburg Mall and the Hunterdon Shopping Center.
Some argue these lawsuits are the best way to grab businesses’ attention and force important changes. Others argue the greatest accomplishment of these types of suits is to make lawyers richer. (Under the law, plaintiffs cannot collect money damages but can be awarded legal fees.)
The problem with evaluating cases filed by Whiteside is — with 14 settlements reached in 19 of the cases, including a settlement with the Phillipsburg Mall — no one is sharing the details. The settlement terms have not been disclosed; the lawyers aren’t talking; and neither is Whiteside.
Champions of the disabled fighting for handicapped accessible businesses are doing a great public disservice by not disclosing terms. Was a handicapped ramp installed? Were water fountains and bathrooms made accessible to people using wheelchairs and others with handicaps? Were legal fees awarded and nothing else accomplished? No one knows.
The information vacuum allows critics — rightly or wrongly — to continue making the argument that these suits are simply revenue generators for the lawyers involved.
Whiteside and the lawyers also aren’t saying whether businesses were approached with specific concerns prior to lawsuits being filed, giving those who are not in compliance with ADA regulations the opportunity to make changes without costly court battles. Lawsuits are expensive, messy and don’t always end with the best possible outcome. Handicapped accessibility is an important issue that deserves the best possible public outcome. Better outcomes might be possible if those involved simply communicate before suits are filed and tempers flare.
Suing should always be the last resort, not standard practice.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/editorial_shed_some_light_on_a.html
The Americans with Disabilities Act is an important tool. It can, among other things, motivate irresponsible or remiss business owners to do the right thing and make their establishments handicapped accessible.
A Washington, N.J., paraplegic, Tanya Whiteside, and a nonprofit Union County, N.J., group, The Independence Project, are apparently on crusades to make businesses in this area follow the federal law.
In roughly a year, Whiteside has filed 19 lawsuits in U.S. District Court against restaurants, shopping centers and other businesses, claiming ADA violations. Among those she’s sued are the Phillipsburg Mall, Burger King on Memorial Parkway in Phillipsburg, the Hunterdon Shopping Center in Flemington and Wal-Mart Plaza in Clinton.
The Independence Project has filed more than 50 ADA lawsuits in New Jersey and Pennsylvania since 2012, including actions against Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem, Pocono Raceway, and joining Whiteside in her suits against the Phillipsburg Mall and the Hunterdon Shopping Center.
Some argue these lawsuits are the best way to grab businesses’ attention and force important changes. Others argue the greatest accomplishment of these types of suits is to make lawyers richer. (Under the law, plaintiffs cannot collect money damages but can be awarded legal fees.)
The problem with evaluating cases filed by Whiteside is — with 14 settlements reached in 19 of the cases, including a settlement with the Phillipsburg Mall — no one is sharing the details. The settlement terms have not been disclosed; the lawyers aren’t talking; and neither is Whiteside.
Champions of the disabled fighting for handicapped accessible businesses are doing a great public disservice by not disclosing terms. Was a handicapped ramp installed? Were water fountains and bathrooms made accessible to people using wheelchairs and others with handicaps? Were legal fees awarded and nothing else accomplished? No one knows.
The information vacuum allows critics — rightly or wrongly — to continue making the argument that these suits are simply revenue generators for the lawyers involved.
Whiteside and the lawyers also aren’t saying whether businesses were approached with specific concerns prior to lawsuits being filed, giving those who are not in compliance with ADA regulations the opportunity to make changes without costly court battles. Lawsuits are expensive, messy and don’t always end with the best possible outcome. Handicapped accessibility is an important issue that deserves the best possible public outcome. Better outcomes might be possible if those involved simply communicate before suits are filed and tempers flare.
Suing should always be the last resort, not standard practice.
opcorn
