Seven years ago the American Bar Association’s disability-rights commission released a study advancing the notion that the federal courts are unreasonably hostile to claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act; the study, as I described it back then, “purportedly found employers winning 92% of ADA lawsuits and almost as high a share of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proceedings”. The study was roundly criticized, by me and others, for grossly understating the actual success rate of ADA plaintiffs, who most commonly obtain settlements rather than final court disposition of their claims.
Just to bounce the rubble on this particular point, one may note a study published in the Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter in the May/June issue of last year, by academics who appear (in contrast to my own views) to be enthusiasts for litigation under the ADA. In “Prevalence and Outcomes of ADA Employment Discrimination Claims in the Federal Courts“, Kathryn Moss (University of North Carolina) and co-authors Michael Darren Ullman, Jeffrey W. Swanson, Leah M. Ranney and Scott Burris conclude that “published case decisions create a misleading impression of ADA outcomes”; in particular, “plaintiffs received a beneficial outcome (mostly through settlement) in 62% of cases.” High defendant win rates are, in fact, a very poor guide to whether money is frequently changing hands or other concessions being made by targets of the suits.
2 Comments
I think its about impressions. I have a situation where my ADA rights were aggregiously violated but seeing the percentage of cases that are won, do I risk the emotional and financial support involved if i dont have a good chance of winning? I’m sure there are many others in my boat thinking the same thing… What are the ratio in other lawsuits to wins for each “side’ vs. settlements?
As usual, MAJOR fallacy being committed by the pro-litigation crowd:
92% of lawsuits (not settled) are won by the defendant
This does not tell us WHY this is bad. That is, it makes absolutely no argument that there are good cases being lost. Indeed, it is possible that the majority of those that WIN also bad and should be thrown out; that bad cases win often enough that MANY bad suits are brought (just like other areas of law).
In short, the have no argument, only one piece of an argument.
I’m SO surprised. [/sarcasm]