Point of sale merchandising has ADA implications that many retailers overlook. POS devices that are not accessible by the blind are claimed to violate the ADA and have attracted the attention of major disabilities rights groups.* A recent case from California, Johnson v. Lababedy, 2016 WL 4087061 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) serves as a reminder of how more mundane sales efforts also have ADA implications, and that just how the ADA applies may require some careful analysis for both plaintiffs and businesses. More
By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA Policies, Apartments, Condominiums, Public Facilities, Restaurants, Retail, Shopping Centers Tags: accessible parking, ada litigation, parking lots, Public accommodation
What’s wrong with this picture? You can be excused if you don’t immediately think, “no accessible parking,” but that might be the first thing that would come to mind for the defendant in Langer v. G.W. Properties, L.P., , 2016 WL 3419299, (S.D. Cal. June 21, 2016). Langer serves as a reminder that a business not usually covered by the ADA can become a “public accommodation” based on temporary use, and that this may lead to requirements for permanent changes. Commercial enterprises and apartment complexes should pay attention, as should any owner of raw land that allows it to be used for parking from time to time.
By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA - drive-by litigation, ADA - Hotels, ADA - serial litigation, ADA FHA Litigation General, Restaurants, Retail, Shopping Centers Tags: ADA drive-by litigation, ADA serial litigation, frequent filers, Strojnik, The Economist
This is a bit of tooting our own horn. In an article published in the May 28 edition of The Economist, and available on-line at the following link (“Frequent Filers”) Richard is quoted concerning the serial litigation epidemic. This followed several hours of interviews with reporter Benjamin Sutherland in which Richard provided background information on the ADA and so-called “drive-by” litigation. You don’t have to wait for The Economist to publish another article, or wonder how much information was left out because of format restrictions. Just subscribe to our blog for frequent updates on the ADA and FHA.
As an aside, the Arizona attorney quoted in the article, Peter J. Strojnik, should not be confused with his son P. Kristofer Strojnik, (also sometimes referred to as Peter K. Strojnik), who was the subject of a May 13, 2016 ruling from the Central District of California. In Brooke v. Clay Andro Peterson, 2016 WL 2851440 (C.D.Cal. May 13, 2016) the District Judge dismissed three lawsuits filed by P. Kristofer Strojnik that were based solely on telephone calls to various hotels by the plaintiff. The reasoning will apply to many of P. Kristofer Strojnik’s cases, and should be studied by any lawyer representing clients sued by the plaintiff, Ms. Brooke, or by P. Kristofer Strojnik’s firm. For more detail, see tomorrow’s blog – “Dialing for Dollars Revisited.” You will find more information on P. Kristofer Strojnik at the State Bar of Arizona website: Phoenix Attorney Peter K. Strojnik Suspended
for Threatening Opposing Party with Public Shaming.
By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA FHA General, ADA FHA Litigation General, Building Codes, DOJ, municipal government, Public Facilities, Restaurants, Retail, Shopping Centers Tags: ada litigation, drive-by lawsuits, drive-by litigation, private lawsuits, restaurants, serial litigation
I reported in September on the decision in Phillips v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro finding that a plaintiff with celiac disease had not stated a claim for discrimination under the ADA based on P.F. Chang’s policy of charging $1.00 extra for gluten free meals. On November 23, 2015 the same court found that the plaintiff had stated a claim based on an enhanced set of allegations in her Amended Complaint. Phillips v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 2015 WL 7429497, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015). This is a very common pattern in ADA litigation: Once the plaintiff knows what to say, he or she is almost always willing to say it in order to get past a Motion to Dismiss. For restaurants and their owners this latest decision requires some thought and possibly the adoption of new policies concerning menu items. More