-----Original Message-----
From: I. S. MARGOLIS [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 2:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fwd: ADA-LAW Digest - 16 Feb 2000 - Special issue (#2000-144)
-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick A. Shotz <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, February 14, 2000 8:18 PM
Subject: VERY IMPORTANT - HOUSE BILL HR3590
>To all list members and readers;
>
>As many of you know it is not often that I ask you to do something
specific
>in support of our rights. A few months ago I asked all of you to
contact
>20/20 about an anti ADA story that was being prepared. You may have
noticed
>that the story never ran. It was scheduled a few times but all of the
>objections to the story kept it from being aired. It may still make it
on
>the air one day but it will be a more balanced story than the original
plans
>called for.
>
>A week or two ago I asked you to consider joining Access Now to help
them
>with the class certification in some of their lawsuits against
national
>department store chains. My thanks to those of you who responded.
>
>Now I am asking for some very important help.
>
>There have been several posts to disability related lists about the
bill
>filed in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Foley. This bill,
>cosponsored by Rep. Shaw, would amend the ADA to require written
notice to
>any public accommodation before an ADA lawsuit could be filed. It
would
also
>give the public accommodation 90 days to respond to the notice before
a
>lawsuit could be filed. This bill would clearly harm people with
>disabilities while making it easier for public accommodations to
continue
>discriminating against people with disabilities. With so many people
with
>disabilities not even able to find lawyers to represent them in ADA
>litigation this bill would just create one more hoop for people with
>disabilities to jump through while giving lawyers one more reason to
not
>take ADA plaintiff cases.
>
>I spent most of this afternoon on the telephone with staff from Rep.
Shaw's
>office and Rep. Foley's office. Michael Harrington from Rep. Shaw's
office
>at first was not at all open to my comments about the problems with
this
>bill. It seemed that he was listening to me with his mind already made
up.
>After about a half hour of conversation he began to become more open
to
the
>idea that this may not be a good bill. We finally got to the point of
him
>stating that, at the very least, the bill has caused some attention to
the
>abuse of the ADA by some lawyers. He does now seem open to some other
ideas
>as to how to address the problem of abuse of the ADA by a small number
of
>lawyers.
>
>Elizabeth Nicolson, legislative director for Rep. Foley, was much more
>receptive and interested in my concerns. Our more than one hour
conversation
>was a real exploration of the issues and possible solutions to the
abuse
of
>the ADA by a small number of plaintiff lawyers. I will be meeting with
Rep.
>Foley and working with his office on amending this bill or replacing
it
with
>another bill. I have suggested that notice is not necessarily a bad
idea
but
>written notice could be difficult for many people with disabilities.
Many
>people with disabilities do not have the ability to write or to write
a
>proper legal notice. I suggested the possibility of a affidavit being
>included with the initial complaint stating that the plaintiff
notified
the
>defendant verbally or in writing prior to the lawsuit being filed. I
also
>suggested a waiting period of no more than 10 business days for the
>defendant to respond to the verbal or written notice before a lawsuit
could
>be filed.
>
>Another alternative I suggested, instead of a requirement for advance
>notice, was that legal fees be limited for any Title III lawsuits
where
the
>defense provides a written offer to settle the case within 30 days of
being
>served and where the case is settled within 60 days of initial
service.
>Mediation could be required if the defendant claims that the plaintiff
is
>being uncooperative in addressing settlement offer.
>
>My suggestions are based on the fact that some lawyers are abusing the
ADA.
>One lawyer in Rep. Foley's district filed 40 ADA lawsuits in one day.
An
>offer to settle on the day of service resulted in a demand for $4,000
for
>plaintiff legal fees. The 40 lawsuits were identical except for the
name
of
>the defendant. The suits only addressed parking for people with
>disabilities. A lawyer in Miami just presented a stipulation for
settlement
>to a municipal government. The stipulation is 174 pages long. It
treats
>every building of the city as though it was a Title III facility. The
lawyer
>has no understanding of the requirements of Title II. He is asking for
>$130,000 in legal fees for using the same complaint he has used
against
>other cities and for drafting a settlement that is unrelated to the
>requirements of the ADA. This lawyer is known for his high fees and
his
lack
>of interest in whether his lawsuits result in improved access. Some of
you
>are familiar with the high fees charged by Mr. Potter in California
for
the
>"drive by" ADA lawsuits he files for his client - over 100 per year at
no
>less than $3,000 in legal fees for each case.
>
>I am giving these examples to demonstrate that there is a real problem
that
>Reps. Foley and Shaw are trying to address. They just do not really
>understand the problem and they are a bit misguided in how they are
trying
>to solve the problem. I believe that if they hear from enough of us
they
>will be more than willing to address this issue in a way that is not
>offensive to the community of people with disabilities. So that our
voice
is
>as strong as the voices of the businesses complaining about being sued
we
>all need to contact the staff at Rep. Shaw's and Rep. Foley's offices.
>
>You need to write and clearly state that you are opposed to House Bill
HR
>3590, opposed to a requirement of a written notice as a condition of
filing
>a lawsuit under the ADA, opposed to a 90 day waiting period before
>litigation can be filed. You also need to state that you are concerned
that
>other members of the House will try to amend this bill to weaken other
>provisions of the ADA. I am asking each of you to send an e-mail to
Rep.
>Shaw's aid, Michael Harrington at [log in to unmask]
and to
>Rep. Foley's Legislative Director, Elizabeth Nicolson at
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Both legislative aids seem to understand the concern of such a bill
opening
>the ADA to various hostile amendments. I agree with them that if a
bill
can
>be produced that addresses the problem of abuse without harming the
rights
>of people with disabilities that no amendments should be allowed. The
bill
>should only address this one issue. Even though many of us would like
to
see
>some changes in the ADA opening our law at this time would leave us
open
to
>loosing far more than we would gain.
>
>In my conversations with them I proposed a bill that would require the
>D.O.J. to maintain a data base of all ADA litigation so that the
advocacy
>community could track cases and lawyers to identify patterns that
appear
to
>be legal profiteering on the ADA. I would rather see us police our own
ranks
>than to see Congress limit our rights to enforce our civil rights.
That
idea
>received positive responses.
>
>Because of my history of working with Congress on the original passage
of
>the ADA both Representatives are willing to listen to my ideas and to
work
>with me. Those of you who are comfortable with the positions I am
taking
can
>include in your letters a statement that you would like them to
continue
>working with me to resolve this matter. Ms. Nicolson suggested this so
that
>they don't end up trying to amend a bill with a hundred or more people
>trying to communicate their ideas and wanting their language in the
bill.
>Those of you who are not comfortable with me working for all of us
should
>say so in your letters and you should establish your own communication
with
>these Representatives so that your ideas are heard.
>
>What is most important is that both Representatives hear from every
one of
>us. Business owners are making a lot of noise and they all have money
to
>give to campaigns. People can speak louder than campaign donations as
long
>as we all speak and make sure that our voices are heard. Please also
write
>to me if you have ideas as to how to solve this problem caused by a
small
>number of lawyers.
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>Fred
>
>
>--
>Frederick A. Shotz
>ADA Consulting Associates
>
>Leading The Way To Equal Access
>For People With Disabilities
------------------------------
|