Meet Iqbal and Twombly.* Pleading an ADA case sometimes seems trivially easy. Allege a disability, allege an encouter with an architectural barrier, claim intent to return or deterrence and any plaintiff should be able to at least avoid dismissal. It appears, however, that some courts are taking a harder look at the kind of vague allegations found in the pleadings of many serial plaintiffs. This gives defendants new opportunities for early dismissal.** More
Today’s Google news brought another batch of outraged articles about serial ADA plaintiffs and legislators looking for solutions to the ADA litigation epidemic. The serial filer was in the Wichita, Kansas area, and the legislators were in Colorado, but otherwise the stories were pretty much the same as the stories last week, and the week before, and the week before that. Business owners say they were surprised to find that they were not ADA compliant, and lawmakers say the law should require a pre-suit demand so businesses have a chance to fix their problems before they get sued. The plaintiff, or his lawyer, always points out that the ADA has been in effect for 25 years, so it shouldn’t really be news. More
This is just a quick note about a major development in the story concerning thousands of lawsuits filed in Arizona by a purported disability rights group. The attorney involved, Peter Strojnik was mentioned in two of my blogs earlier this year. The Economist covers serial ADA litigation – Hunt quoted and Cheap Standing under the ADA. After investigations by the press and local authorities the head of the plaintiff organization has resigned and the Arizona Attorney General has intervened in an effort to shut down the litigation mill. You can read the most recent in a series of stories by Steven Trotten HERE and read the Motion to Intervene HERE. More
Reading the daily update I get on disability law issues I was struck by this sentence from an article published on August 8 in the Daily Courier from Prescott Arizona:
“The Arizona Legislature altered laws this year that govern those service animals, specifically allowing businesses, especially restaurants, to tell an owner the animal must be removed if it is out of control or not housebroken.”
(Click here for complete article). This is interesting because the “altered law” does not appear to change anything. Under both the ADA and its Arizona equivalent businesses have always been entitled to exclude service animals that are out of control or not housebroken. Other details in the new law are also consistent with existing federal regulations concerning service animals. More
On July 7 H.R. 3765, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee. H.R. 3765 is one of several pending ADA reform bills targeting “drive-by” or serial litigants. They share a common approach, requiring that plaintiffs give notice before filing suit so the problem can be fixed. They also share a common reaction from the disabilities and business communities. Disability advocates vehement oppose the bills while business groups support them.
We’ve blogged about H.R. 3765 before (click HERE and HERE to read the earlier blogs). Our prediction that the bill would go nowhere is proving wrong, but our criticism of the bill’s likely effectiveness hasn’t changed. Serial litigation is driven by cheap standing and the economics of defending a lawsuit in federal court, neither of which will be changed by this bill. There is something in the bill that all sides should agree on – a requirement for more ADA education. Unfortunately, this requirement comes without any funding, so it is unlikely to be effectively implemented. The best way to reduce litigation and help the disabled involves seriously funded education for business and coordination of ADA compliance requirements with the building inspection process at the local level. This would improve ADA compliance before a suit was filed or demand letter sent, and that would have the effect of moving resources from attorneys fees to accessibility. Private enforcement of the ADA through litigation is the most wasteful way to achieve the goals of the ADA, and as long as litigation is the main tool for enforcement the lion’s share of money will go to lawyers instead of improvements in accessibility.
