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
Shopping Centers
Temporary profits can mean a permanent problem under the ADA
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.
The Economist covers serial ADA litigation – Hunt quoted.
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.
Abusive ADA Litigation – the answer is local, not legal
Tens of millions of dollars are wasted each year on litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The money is wasted because instead of going directly to improvements that make businesses more accessible, the money goes to lawyers. Diverting money from remediation to litigation is the real tragedy of so called “drive-by” lawsuits..
Every couple of years Congress tries to fix this problem with legislation that would require notice before the filing of an ADA lawsuit. There are three such bills pending in the current session. The most sophisticated, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 3765), includes provisions that would help educate businesses about their ADA obligations. This kind of legislative effort has always failed in the past, and there seems little reason to think that the current Congress will be able to do anything this time around.
.
When there are a string of local lawsuits state and local government also try get involved, usually with similar efforts to require pre-suit notice. Of course these efforts fail from the outset because the ADA is a federal law and states cannot interfere with its enforcement mechanism.
.
Can anything be done? Well, the real problem with the various legislative initiatives is that lawsuits feed on the existence of barriers to access. Plaintiffs’ lawyers I have dealt with tell me that even when they send demand letters more than half are simply ignored by businesses that don’t understand the law or their legal obligations. Given this level of ignorance, and the fact that a plaintiff can easily find 30 or 40 ADA violations just driving around for a weekend, merely requiring a pre-suit demand will do little to reduce the number of lawsuits.
.
The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015 starts to get at this problem with its provisions calling for the development by the DOJ of an education program, but the mandate is not funded, and past efforts by DOJ to educate small businesses have largely failed. Twenty-five years after the passage of the ADA the number of ADA lawsuits continues to climb, which is proof enough that top down education efforts without any funding will never improve ADA compliance or eliminate wasteful litigation.
.
What we need instead is work by local chambers of commerce and municipal governments that focuses not on general education but on finding specific common ADA violations so they can be fixed before lawsuits are filed. The best way to do this is to adopt the same tactics used by serial litigants. With minimal training (see our page on Education for Business) police and employees responsible for code enforcement can spot common accessible parking problems. An official notice, even if not accompanied by the threat of a fine, should be enough to get most businesses to look seriously at ADA compliance. Chambers of Commerce can enlist volunteers to do the same thing. Compliance will come from education, but the education will be local, responding to the real needs of local businesses.
.
This kind of program does not require any kind of extensive ADA training or survey. The reason lawsuits from serial litigants are sometimes referred to as “drive-by” lawsuits is that the plaintiffs literally just drive around looking for non-compliant handicapped parking. If the parking at a business looks good they probably won’t even stop to see whether the rest of the facility is accessible. A business with parking that meets ADA standards will have eliminated most of the risk of a lawsuit and bought itself time for a proper survey and remediation of the interior of the premises.
.
The solution to the waste caused by serial litigation is to eliminate ADA violations, and that can be done most effectively when local governments and local chambers of commerce act directly to find violations and educate business owners about those violations. There is no need to wait for Congress to pass a bill that may be doomed anyway. The answer is local, not legal.
ADA Maintenance – An ounce of prevention . . . .
One of the many ADA risks that businesses face is the risk of sliding into non-compliance through maintenance failures. This seems to come up most often in the context of parking, because the markings required for accessible parking are exposed to the weather and to wear from car tires. I recently settled a case of this type, and a reported opinion from California was a reminder of how important maintenance can be.
In Lozano v. C.A. Martinez Family Ltd. P’ship, 2015 WL 5227869, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015), the complaint concerned nothing more complicated than striping accessible parking. The paint had faded and on repeated occasions over months the access aisles were blocked. As soon as the lawsuit was filed the owner repainted, but that was too late for the Court, which found that a policy of re-striping that apparently had not been followed would not let the owner escape an injunction and, of course, paying fees to the plaintiff’s attorney. More