The obesity epidemic that attracts so much attention in terms of public health serves as an additional reason for businesses and property owners to pay attention to ADA and FHA accessibility issues. The statistics are well known and striking. In the last 40 years obesity (Body Mass Index >30) has increased from around 12% to more than 30% of the population. Extreme obesity (Body Mass Index > 40) has increased from around 1% to more than 6% of the population. (http://win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/index.htm) If current trends continue, extreme obesity will become as common as mobility disabilities, which affect around 7.5% of the population (http://www.pascenter.org) . More
Accessibility Litigation Trends
The yin and yang of ADA defense. Perilous settlements and temporary victories
By richardhunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA FHA Litigation General, Hospitality, Hotels, Retail, Shopping Centers Tags: ada litigation, ADA pleading, ADA standing, ada violation, mental health disabilities, private lawsuits, private litigants, real-estate, restaurants, retail
A couple of district court decisions from late February should both comfort and warn ADA defendants. Gutierrez v. Chung, 2013 WL 655141 (E.D. Cal. 2013) reminds us that settlement alone doesn’t resolve an ADA violation. The only permanent solution is remediation. National Alliance for Accessibility, Inc. v. Millbank Hotel Partners, 2013 WL 653955 (D. Md. 2013), on the other hand, shows how to attack the boilerplate pleadings found in almost all ADA lawsuits. More
Standing for serial plaintiffs – it’s a legal issue, not a moral problem
By richardhunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA FHA General, ADA FHA Litigation General, ATM Litigation, Financial Institutions Tags: ada litigation, ADA pleading, ADA standing, FHA Litigation, FHA standing, private lawsuits
Accessibility litigation under the ADA and FHA always seems to have a moral component. This is partly because plaintiffs almost always preface their complaints with a lengthy and unnecessary recitation of Congressional intent about the ADA and FHA, frequently accompanied by statistics about the number of disabled Americans and the discrimination they suffer. Defendants for their part are almost always outraged at being sued without notice over what they regard as purely technical violations that have often been present for decades without complaint. More
Booths, tables and discrimination beyond the ADA Standards.
By richardhunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA FHA General, ADA FHA Litigation General, Hospitality, Hotels, Restaurants, Retail, Shopping Centers Tags: ada litigation, ada violation, private lawsuits, private litigants, restaurants, retail
A few careless words in an opinion can spawn dozens of lawsuits and may create precedents that cost property owners and operators tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees if not in remediation costs. The question of whether compliance with ADA Standards and Guidelines is sufficient to avoid an ADA claim illustrates just how this can happen. More
It’s time to apply Iqbal and Twombly to ADA pleadings
By richardhunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA FHA General, ADA FHA Litigation General, Retail, Shopping Centers Tags: ada litigation, ADA pleading, ada violation, FHA ADA litigation "statute of limitations" strategy DOJ "attorney general" enforcement, private lawsuits, private litigants
Defendants are frequently and justifiably annoyed by the usual style of pleading in ADA accessibility cases. It appears that a few courts, although a minority, have begun to apply ordinary federal pleading standards to these claims, which will make it much easier to obtain dismissal of those without real merit.
Many ADA plaintiffs are cagey, to say the least, about exactly what barriers they encountered, when they encountered them, and what effect the encounter had. A typical shopping center lawsuit, for example, may allege that there are cross slopes, improperly marked handicapped parking, and ramps that are too steep, but will not identify the location of the cross slopes, parking or ramps. The date or dates on which the plaintiff encountered these barriers will not be stated, and there will be only the most general allegation that the plaintiff was, as a result of these conditions, unable to have access to the center. More