Follow up on Clint Eastwood.

Note sample letter.

S.



----- Original Message -----
To: "Recipients of ADA-LAW digests"
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 4:00 AM
 Date:    Thu, 11 May 2000 21:58:31 -0700
 From:    Larry Paradis < [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
 Subject: Re: HR 3590

 My understanding from the plaintiff's lawyer in that case is that the
 plaintiff actually sent two complaint letters to the facility (the
second
 one sent certified) before filing the suit.  So Eastwood has no reason
to
 support the bill other than his anger at being sued for failing to
remedy
 access barriers.  Eastwood has fought that suit for several years, I
 believe, rather than just fix the barriers, thus leading to the
substantial
 fee claim.
    Larry Paradis

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Americans with Disabilities Act Law
 [ mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Claudia Center
 Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 10:24 AM
 To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
 Subject: Re: HR 3590


 I agree with one of my fellow listmates (can't remember which one) that
a
 powerful argument is that this bill would eradicate voluntary
compliance.
 Many business people would simply wait to be sued -- what incentive
would
 there be otherwise?  Most federal courts will strike out fees if the
 plaintiff's lawyers avoided an obvious early settlement.  I wonder what
the
 real story is on the $500,000 that the plaintiff's lawyers spent in the
case
 against Eastwood.  Did they really get that amount?  If so, why was it
so
 high?  Did Eastwood's lawyers try to settle or did they file 10
different
 motions?  Claudia

 ------------------------------

 Date:    Fri, 12 May 2000 01:05:08 -0400
 From:    Howard Gorrell < [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
 Subject: Re: DEAR CONGRESSMAN - EXTREMELY IMPORTANT

 Readable version
 ====================

 Dear List members;

 It is important that everyone of us, and everyone that we know, write
to and
 call the members of the subcommittee that will be hearing the anti-ADA
bill,
 HR 3590, on May 18th. I have posted some fax numbers and e-mail
addresses
 previously along with the names of all of the members of the
subcommittee. I
 will post that information with additional fax numbers and e-mail
addresses
 again tomorrow (Friday). The following letter is a sample letter that
makes
 some of the points about what is wrong with this bill. I am posting
this
 letter so that everyone can use it or any parts of it in your letters
and
 phone calls to the members of the subcommittee. Please forward this
e-mail
 to everyone you know and to every discussion group in which you
participate.
 It is most important that you write to and call the Republican members
of
 the subcommittee.

 I will be posting two or three more sample letters in the next day.
Feel
 free to use them or any parts of them. If you write a letter based on
this
 sample letter and then like something in the next sample that I post
you can
 write to the subcommittee members again. You can write and phone as
often as
 you have something to say. There will be other members of this list who
will
 have their own ideas of what to say. Please post your ideas to the list
so
 that everyone has as much information as is possible and as many ideas
of
 what to say as we can put together.

 I must stress that letters to the subcommittee members should not be
hostile
 or insulting. We want them to understand our side of this issue and to
vote
 to protect our civil rights. Hostility and insults will not help us get
to
 where we need to go.

 Sincerely yours,

 Fred


 --
 Frederick A. Shotz
 ADA Consulting Associates

 Leading The Way To Equal Access
 For People With Disabilities
 -----------------------------------

 Dear Congressman _________:

 I am writing to you to express my strong opposition to HR 3590 which
will be
 heard by the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee
on
 May 18th. I am a person with a disability. This bill which attempts to
 protect business interests from predatory lawyers is totally
unnecessary and
 would be harmful to people with disabilities. There are a few lawyers
making
 too much money by suing for ADA violations. However, most lawyers
taking
 such cases are simply making a reasonable hourly fee for their work. In
many
 parts of the country there are no lawyers taking ADA plaintiff cases as
 there is not enough money to be earned representing clients with
 disabilities.

 As you know the ADA is a civil rights bill. It is, to my knowledge, the
 first civil rights bill ever passed by Congress that allowed violators
of
 people's civil rights a period of time to continue discrimination after
the
 bill was signed into law. President Bush signed the ADA on July 26,
1990.
 Businesses were given two years to comply with the nondiscrimination
 requirements of this law before they could be sued for discrimination
in the
 federal courts. Can you imagine the uproar if businesses discriminating
 against people of color were given two years to continue discriminating
 after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law?

 When Congress passed the ADA no large increase in the budget of the
 Department of Justice (DoJ) was provided so that the DoJ could enforce
this
 civil rights law. The authors of this law, understanding that there
would
 not be funds provided to DoJ for enforcement, included a citizen's
 enforcement provision in the bill. That simple section of the law
allows the
 legal fees of people with disabilities to be paid by the defendant in
an ADA
 lawsuit if factual discrimination is established in the course of the
 litigation. As is the case with most laws that provide for prevailing
legal
 fees to be paid by the loosing party the court is given the final say
on
 what constitutes appropriate legal fees in a given case. Any case where
a
 plaintiff lawyer has been paid excessive fees was a case where the
defendant
 agreed to pay those fees without asking the judge to determine what
 constituted a reasonable fee.

 HR 3590 would stop almost all litigation against businesses under the
ADA.
 This bill, if it was to become law, would also stop almost all
voluntary
 compliance with the ADA in facilities constructed prior to the
effective
 date of the ADA. The ultimate effect of this bill would be to give
every
 business in the United States the absolute right to continue
discriminating
 against people with disabilities until someone complained in writing
about
 specific issues of discrimination. Only when such a complaint was
received
 would a business owner have reason to resolve the barriers to people
with
 disabilities that were the basis of the complaint. I would not matter
if the
 business had one barrier that was required to be removed or one hundred
 barriers. The only responsibility of the business owner would be to
remove
 the barrier that was the subject of the complaint. Discrimination based
on
 other barriers could continue until a person with a disability
complained
 about those barriers in a letter.

 Picture an arena that was built before the ADA became law. The arena
does
 not have wheelchair accessible seats, does not have wheelchair
accessible
 restrooms, does not have wheelchair accessible food service counters,
does
 not have wheelchair accessible entrances, does not have wheelchair
 accessible parking, and does not sell tickets to people who use
wheelchairs
 due to the lack of accessible elements. If HR 3590 was the law then a
person
 with a disability would have no way of enforcing their civil rights
granted
 by the ADA. The person who would not be able to go to this arena would
not
 have knowledge of all of the barriers in the arena.

 This person could send a letter stating that not selling tickets to
people
 with disabilities who use wheelchairs is a violation of the ADA. Ninety
days
 later the arena could start selling tickets to people with disabilities
who
 use wheelchairs. This person, now with a ticket, could then go to the
arena
 but would find no accessible parking. With the unused ticket this
person
 could again write to the arena stating that the lack of accessible
parking
 was an ADA violation. Ninety days later the arena could have painted
some
 parking spaces with access aisles so that wheelchair users could exit
their
 vehicles. This person could again buy a ticket, go to the arena, and
find
 the doors not wide enough for wheelchair access. Another letter could
be
 written and the arena could, in a 90 day period, put in a new door (or
 doors) wide enough for people with disabilities who use wheelchair to
use.
 This person could then again buy a ticket, go to the arena, park, and
get in
 the door. This time the person would discover that the wheelchair seat
was
 in the aisle behind the last row of seats in a location where nothing
could
 be seen. This could result in the next letter and the next correction
on the
 part of the arena. At this point one year would have passed since this
 person first tried to go to this arena. The food service counters would
not
 have been altered and the restrooms would not have been altered.
Complaints
 about those issues could take another six months to correct if the
problems
 were not identified during the same visit to the arena.

 After one and one half years of continuing discrimination this
facility,
 with no penalty for their failure to comply with a federal civil rights
law,
 would finally be wheelchair accessible. But, people with disabilities
with
 mobility impairments who do not use wheelchairs would still not have
had
 their access rights address. People who are blind or visually impaired
would
 still not have had their access rights addressed. People who are hard
of
 hearing or deaf would not have had their access rights addressed. This
kind
 of piece meal approach would be the only way to enforce the ADA since
with
 no lawsuits allowed unless the facility failed to respond to a
complaint
 within 90 days, no full inspection of the property would be possible.
 Businesses would never voluntary allow an inspection once they
understood
 that they were only at risk of litigation for their failure to remove
 barriers that were individually identified and were the subject of a
written
 complaint.

 Congressman Foley represents this bill as a bill that will protect
 businesses from unnecessary litigation. In reality this bill is an
attempt
 to allow increased discrimination against people with disabilities and
to
 deny to people with disabilities the right to enforce their own civil
 rights. This bill would only be reasonable if it was paired with enough
 funding of the Department of Justice to allow them to fully enforce the
ADA
 in every community throughout the United States.

 It is my request that you follow the lead of President Bush and protect
the
 civil rights of people with disabilities by voting against HR 3590.

 Sincerely yours,

 ------------------------------