Abusive ADA Litigation – the answer is local, not legal

March 21, 2016 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

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.

Gluten free for free? An ADA and P.F. Chang’s update

December 7, 2015 By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA regulations, Hospitality, Reasonable accommodation, Restaurants Tags: ADA, celiac disease, P.F. Chang's, restaurants

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

ADA serial litigation problems? – don’t get mad, get even.

October 5, 2015 By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA Attorney's Fees, ADA FHA Litigation General Tags: ada litigation, ADA pleading, ADA standing, private lawsuits, private litigants, restaurants, retail, serial plaintiffs

This post was inspired by an article forwarded from fellow ADA blogger William Goren, whose blog contains excellent analysis of current cases. The article describes a Florida hotel’s fight against a local serial ADA complainant who, it appears, may be afraid to go to trial on the lawsuit he filed. It isn’t clear how the case will end, but the defendant has William Norkunas on its side. Norkunas is himself a frequent ADA plaintiff and has served as an expert witness in more than a thousand cases. He is clearly an advocate for ADA enforcement, but is quoted as saying that the plaintiff in this particular case is operating a “continuing criminal enterprise that boils down to extortion.” More

ADA Maintenance – An ounce of prevention . . . .

September 20, 2015 By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA Attorney's Fees, ADA FHA Litigation General, ADA Policies, Policies and Procedures FHA ADA, Restaurants, Retail, Shopping Centers Tags: ada litigation, ADA Policies, private lawsuits, restaurants, retail

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

Allergies and the ADA: Restaurants do not have to be gluten-free

September 4, 2015 By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA Policies, Restaurants, Retail Tags: ada litigation, ada violation, allergies, Department of Justice, gluten free, P.F. Chang's, private lawsuits, restaurants

Many restaurants have responded to consumer demand by offering various alternative menu items to satisfy special dietary needs or desires. One of the most popular is gluten free alternatives for those who need or want a gluten free diet. A recent case from California makes it clear that these options are not required by the ADA, and that many dietary restrictions are not disabilities covered by the ADA.

Phillips v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 2015 WL 4694049, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015) concerned a claim by a plaintiff with celiac disease who was unhappy with the fact that P.F. Chang’s charges $1.00 more for various gluten free alternative menu items. She claimed, in a nutshell, that celiac disease is a disability and that the additional $1.00 charge was discriminatory under the ADA. The Court rejected both ideas.

Whether an allergy or food intolerance constitutes a disability under the ADA depends on the particular allergy and its effect, but in general even serious allergies do not constitute disabilities if the consequences can be avoided by observing a restricted diet. The Court did not find any cases dealing with celiac disease, but compared it to nut allergies, which require nothing more than avoidance of nuts. (Citing Slade v. Hershey Co., 2011 WL 3159164 (M.D.Pa. Jul. 26, 2011)).

The Court did recognize a DOJ settlement with Lesley University that is predicated on the idea that celiac disease and other food allergies are disabilities; however, it referred to it for a completely different part of the analysis. Courts addressing allergy issues generally find that even allergies causing severe reactions are not disabilities because they do not substantially limit a major life activity. For example, a latex allergy may make it difficult for an individual to study nursing, but it does not impair the ability of the person to learn generally (Webb-Eaton v. Wayne Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 2013 WL 3835208, at *4 (E.D. Mich. July 24, 2013). Restaurants can reasonably conclude that food allergies are not disabilities under the ADA in most circumstances, despite DOJ’s contrary belief.

The Court in Phillips v. P.F. Chang’s also rejected the idea that a $1.00 additional charge was discriminatory. The discrimination inquiry came in two parts. First, was the restaurant required to provide meals that those with allergies could enjoy and second, was the $1.00 charge an illegal surcharge imposed on the disabled.

With respect to the first question the Court did address the DOJ’s settlement with Lesley University, and in particular an Information Sheet concerning the settlement issued by DOJ. DOJ recognized that the students at Lesley University, unlike the patrons of a restaurant, had no alternative to the University’s mandatory meal plan. DOJ agrees that ordinary restaurants are not required to provide any special foods to meet particular dietary needs, which is consistent with the more general principle that a public accommodation does not have to add to the goods and services it offers in order to accommodate the disabled. (See, 28 CFR Part 36, Appendix B at p. 224).

As for the surcharge, a higher price for goods and services is improper only if the price applies only to the disabled. For example, selling plus-sized clothing at a higher price is not discrimination against the obese (who may in some cases be disabled) because the same price applies no matter who buys the clothes. (See,Anderson v. Macy’s, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 531, 537 (W.D. Pa. 2013)). P.F. Chang’s one dollar surcharge applied to all customers wanting a gluten free dish, and so it was not discriminatory.

One final note. Although the courts do not agree with DOJ concerning whether food allergies are disabilities, that legal issue may not be one worth fighting. DOJ suggests in its information sheet that restaurants are obligated to accommodate those with food allergies by (a) telling customers what ingredients are in a dish, if known, and (b) omitting ingredients on request if this is done for other customers. For restaurants offering dishes that are individually cooked extending this kind of courtesy to those with food allergies will help avoid litigation. In a society where food allergies and food related conditions seem to be on the rise it is probably also good business in general; in fact, restaurants have been ahead of the curve in offering gluten free items to their menus. It is good to know, however, that this is voluntary, and that the ADA does not require special menus or food accommodations to every person with a food allergy or condition.