ADA Defense Abuse: A Case Study

ADA Defense Lawyers Prolong Litigation and Postpone Access:  A Case Study of Litigation Abuse  Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits disability discrimination by private businesses.  Lawyers who defend noncompliant businesses argue that their opposing counsel — lawyers who represent people with disabilities seeking to enforce their rights — engage in litigation abuse.  They are lobbying for passage of H.R. 620, a bill that would add the requirement of a specifically-worded demand letter and four-month waiting period before a disabled person could enforce their rights. This case study of ADA defense litigation abuse suggests that ADA defense counsel are already guilty of prolonging litigation, postponing access, and ultimately enriching themselves at the expense of both the businesses they represent and the people with disabilities who continue to be denied access 28 years after the ADA was passed. H.R. 620’s requirement of a demand letter will remove any incentive for voluntary compliance and will add a new round of motions for ADA defense attorneys to file — challenging the wording, content, and specificity of the demand letter — on top of the already unconscionable litigation delay that is their standard practice. To demonstrate the opportunities for delay in which ADA defense counsel typically engage, we looked at a case that a group of retail trade associations held up as a typical Title III case.  In a recent amicus brief to the Third Circuit, lawyers for the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Grocers Association, and the Food Marketing Institute singled out the case of Heinzl v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., No. 14-cv-1455 (W.D. Pa....

CREEC Files Lawsuit Demanding DHS and ICE Documentation of Conditions at Immigration Detention Centers

Lawsuit Filed Demanding Homeland Security and ICE Documentation of Conditions at Two Immigration Detention Centers FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DENVER (February 7, 2018) – The Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC) has filed a lawsuit seeking the disclosure of documentation of detainee deaths, alleged abuse and other substandard conditions of confinement at the Adelanto and Etowah immigration detention facilities.  CREEC is represented pro bono by Thomas B. Kelley and Amber R. Gonzales of Ballard Spahr LLP. The suit claims that U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have illegally ignored requests for information on conditions at the two immigration detention centers.  CREEC filed a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in August and September 2017 seeking information on deaths of people in detention, medical and mental health care conditions, solitary confinement use, and sexual assault allegations at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, a private facility operated by the GEO Group in Adelanto, California, and the Etowah County Detention Center, a county jail in Gadsden, Alabama. “Adelanto and Etowah are widely regarded as among the most concerning immigration detention centers in the country,” said Tim Fox, co-executive director of CREEC.  “The government cannot ignore its obligation to provide public access to documentation shedding light on the conditions at these facilities.” The lawsuit alleges that, despite a requirement by law that a response must be provided within 30 days, ICE has failed to respond to any of CREEC’s requests.  The lawsuit seeks an order from the court requiring ICE to release the requested documents. “We’re excited at the opportunity to move the ball toward accountability...

H.R. 620 = Amnesty for Access

Congress is considering a bill  — H.R. 620 — that would absolve all businesses currently in violation of the access requirements of Title III of the ADA — in place since 1990 — and permit them to wait to receive notice from a disabled person who encounters its discrimination, and then wait another six months to perhaps get some sort of solution underway.  DREDF has some excellent resources and talking points.  I thought this infographic might help explain how this bill rewards scofflaws and stops the progress of accessibility of the built environment.  [There’s a separate image description of the infographic...
Support CREEC