Just last week the Supreme Court took a long hard look at something called “Auer deference” and decided that it would remain the law, but with some strings attached. Kisor v Wilke, No. 18-15 (June 26, 2019). I’ve never once had the occasion to mention Auer deference in this blog or in any brief I’ve filed in disability lawsuits, but the decision could have an impact on future disability rights litigation. In this blog I’ll consider the possible impact on litigation under the Fair Housing Act. In the next I’ll look at what turns out to be the more complex possible effects on litigation under Titles II and III of the ADA. Before I explain why, I should refer anyone interested in a detailed analysis of the decision to William Goren’s blog on the subject here.* More
FHA
FHA design/build claims – how safe is your harbor?
Miami Valley Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Preferred Living Real Est. Investments, LLC,2018 WL 4690790, at (S.D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2018) is not a brand new case, but it contains so much of interest it is worth a close second look by both defendants and plaintiffs in FHA design/build cases.The Court’s principal holding is the obvious but often overlooked rule the various safe harbors for the design and construction of multi-family dwellings are a shield, not a sword. In Miami Valley the plaintiffs produced a typical expert report in this kind of case. It listed several hundred supposed accessibility barriers based on deviations from the original FHA Guidelines promulgated by HUD in 1991 along with the assertion that because the Guidelines are the least restrictive of the HUD recognized safe harbors the apartments did not meet any safe harbor standard. Based on this evidence the plaintiffs sought summary judgment. More
Quick Hits – St. Patrick’s Day Edition
I’m a day late with the St. Patrick’s Day Edition of Quick Hits but that’s no reason not to raise a toast to the saint who, as my great-grandfather William Mullin said, drove all the snakes out of Ireland except the politicians.
Counter widths and the ADA
Johnson v. Starbucks Corp., 2019 WL 699136 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2019) confirms what DOJ recently announced* – the ADA standards do not require that a sales counter be of any particular width. This has been an area of disagreement for years and now seems to be resolved.
Quick Hits – Presidents Day 2019 Edition.
It’s been a year and 43 blogs since last President’s Day and like Yosemite falls, the broad picture of ADA and FHA litigation in America remains about the same despite the passage of time. A huge majority of the cases filed are from serial litigants operating as part of a lawyer sponsored litigation machine whose goals have nothing to do with accessibility and everything to do with making money. Congressional action aimed at serial litigation was misguided and is now doomed. Individual judges are taking important stances against abusive litigation, but the overall landscape remains about the same. More
ADA and FHA Quick Hits – Happy New Year edition
There is only one prediction that can be made with complete certainty about ADA and FHA litigation in 2019: Lawyers will continue to make money exploiting these laws for profit in the name of accessibility. The number of lawsuits continues to climb, and with Congress and regulators unwilling to do anything this exploitation will continue. However, before we face the new challenges of a new year it is time for a final look backward at the recent decisions concerning accessibility for the disabled.
Standing in website accessibility cases.
Price v. Orlando Health, Inc., 2018 WL 6434519, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2018) shows just how important theories about why the ADA covers websites can be to standing in such cases. Courts in the 11th Circuit have adopted the theory that a website is covered by the ADA only if it has a nexus to a physical public accommodation. Because this relationship is required, the ADA injury giving rise to standing must be some inability to use the physical accommodation. The plaintiff in this case had no plausible intent to use the defendant’s facilities so he could not establish an ADA injury and did not have standing to sue. This is one of many reasons there is a widening gap between the Circuits with respect to how website cases can be effectively defended. More