California Supreme Court: fee shift in disabled-rights claim can go to winning defendant, not just plaintiff [Jankey v. Song Koo Lee, Bagenstos/Disability Law]
That’s Olsen with an “e”: “Lawmaker wants to protect cities from frivolous lawsuits over A.D.A.” [California Assemblywoman Kristen Olsen; L.A. Times] “Gas stations confront disabled-access lawsuits” [Orange County Register] Serial ADA filer hits New Orleans [Louisiana Record] ADA drive-by suits in Colorado and elsewhere [Kevin Funnell]
And this lawyer follows a see-no-evil policy regarding ADA filing mills: “I refuse to pass judgment on other attorneys here.” [Julia Campins]
Child care center could not turn away applicant with nut allergy because Iowa disabled-rights law said to have expanded its coverage of categories when the U.S. Congress expanded ADA, though Iowa lawmakers enacted no such expansion [Disability Law]
Feds join in LSAT accommodation suit [Recorder]
Official in San Francisco’s mayoral Office on Disability files disability-bias claim [KGO]
“Testing employees for legally prescribed medications must be done carefully” [Jon Hyman]

One Comment

@California Supreme Court

The award of attorney’s fees seems to be against the plaintiff himself and not the attorney who brought the questionable suit. Often these “lawsuit lottery” cases are brought by judgment-proof plaintiffs. Good luck in collecting!
- March 08, 2013 10:33 AM
- By VMS