Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘disabled rights’

ADA week at Overlawyered

Disabled-rights law, which includes the Americans with Disabilities Act along with closely related laws like the Rehabilitation Act (mandating access in government programs) and state disabled-rights statutes, has been back in the news lately. Last week, for example, a federal judge agreed with plaintiffs that the current design of U.S. paper money violates the rights of blind users under the Rehabilitation Act. A California court, as Ted noted last week, issued a ruling attempting to limit (to intentional violations) the broad sweep of that state’s Unruh Act, while the Sacramento Bee recently published the latest of many exposes of “drive-by” accessibility-complaint rackets, which function as a money-making device for the lawyers involved, the complainants, or both.

There’s a good chance that the fitfully pursued debate over whether the ADA and similar laws have gone too far — or perhaps not far enough — will be heating up in the new year. That’s because, as ADA-friendly law professor Sam Bagenstos noted shortly after last month’s election (Nov. 13, via Secunda), disabled-rights advocates may see the balance of forces in Congress shifting favorably toward efforts to resume expansion of the law:

Since the Supreme Court’s 1999 trilogy of definition-of-disability decisions (Sutton, Murphy, and Albertson’s), many in the disability community have felt that it made sense to go back to Congress to get legislation to restore what the main sponsors of the law intended. …For a long time, the fear of opening up the ADA to even more restrictive amendments (like the ADA Notification Act) kept the disability community from mounting a full-scale effort to seek amendments to the statute….

So the natural question is what effect the change in control of Congress will have on this state of affairs. I think it’s now quite a lot more likely that some sort of “ADA Restoration Act” will pass — which isn’t to say that it definitely, or even probably, will pass. It would be smart political strategy for the Democrats in Congress to push issues that hold their party together but that divide the Republicans. Played right, the ADA could be one of those issues.

Indeed, as Prof. Bagenstos notes in his highly informative post, a number of prominent Republicans in Washington are already on record endorsing “ADA restoration” proposals.

Most of the expansion of this field of law in the past has gone on with little real debate or opposition (the ADA itself in 1990 passed the House by a margin of 377-28 and the Senate by 91-6, and Presidents Bush père et fils have been vocal supporters of the law). So in the spirit of, well, diversifying the debate on these laws, we’ll plan on posting something each day this week suitable for our Disabled Rights category.

Filed under:

More drive-by disability suits

We’ve previously covered lawyers who file hundreds of lawsuits alleging discrimination against the disabled over alleged technical violations of the law, and then extort settlements at thousands of dollars a pop. (E.g., Nov. 4; Aug. 28; May 31, 2005). The Sacramento Bee recently ran an extensive series on the issue. (Marjie Lundstrom and Sam Stanton, “Visionary law’s litigious legacy”, Nov. 15 ; Id., “Frequent filers”, Nov. 16; Id., “Targeting entire towns”, Nov. 12; Bullet-point summary).

A California court has interpreted that state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act to only provide $4000 penalties in the case of intentional violations of the law; while this is a good public policy result in the abstract, I’m personally wary of the court using its judicial power to rewrite the poor legislation. It also doesn’t fix the problem with the federal law. (Gunther v. Lin; Wendy Thomas Russell, “Court ruling puts crimp in disability lawsuits”, Long Beach Press Telegram, Nov. 19). And in Florida, the press is just getting around to noticing the drive-by problem because of Robert Cohen’s 300 suits. (Kelli Kennedy, “‘Drive by’ suits rake in dough for attorneys”, AP/Miami Herald, Nov. 28 (h/t W.F.)). Even reflexive reform opponent Stephanie Mencimer takes notice and can’t defend the parasitic lawyering involved, but manages to spin the issue to implausibly blame the Republicans for the problem—though the ADA’s civil remedies were drafted by Democrats when they controlled Congress in 1991.

Filed under: , , ,

“Judge rules paper money unfair to blind”

New frontiers in disabled rights: “A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Treasury Department is violating the law by failing to design and issue currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired people. Judge James Robertson, in a ruling on a suit by the American Council of the Blind, ordered the Treasury to devise a method to tell bills apart.” The court acted on the basis of the Rehabilitation Act, which guarantees to the disabled “meaningful access” to federal programs. (CNN Money, Nov. 28; decision in American Council of the Blind v. Paulson courtesy FindLaw; decision in PDF form at court website).

More: Here’s an interesting development: the National Federation of the Blind, the best known organization for blind Americans, has issued a press release sharply critical of the lawsuit and the ruling (“dangerously misguided”) (Yahoo/PRNewswire, Nov. 29). According to Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, “The blind need jobs and real opportunities to earn money, not feel-good gimmicks that misinform the public about our capabilities. Blind people transact business with paper money every day. … [The ruling] argues that the blind cannot handle currency or documents in the workplace and that virtually everything must be modified for the use of the blind. An employer who believes that every piece of printed material in the workplace must be specially designed so that the blind can read it will have a strong incentive not to hire a blind person.” More from the NFB press release:

Blind people traditionally identify paper currency by folding bills of different denominations in different ways. “In reality, blind people do not routinely find that we have been short-changed,” Maurer commented. Machines are readily available to identify paper money for blind people who run businesses or handle large amounts of cash. “Essentially, the United States Treasury has been ordered by the courts to come up with a solution for a nonexistent problem,” Maurer said.

Per the AP, “Government attorneys argued that forcing the Treasury Department to change the size or texture of the bills would make it harder to prevent counterfeiting,” but Judge Robertson was not swayed (“Judge Says Currency Shortchanges the Blind”, AP/Washington Post, Nov. 29). See also Dvorak Uncensored and Orin Kerr.

Filed under: ,

Update: Calif. ADA lawyer suspended

Setbacks for key figures in a prominent disabled-access filing mill:

Two of the attorneys behind an onslaught of ADA lawsuits in California — including at least 20 involving Monterey County restaurants and wineries — have run into serious legal troubles of their own.

Thomas Frankovich, who represented plaintiff Jarek Molski in hundreds of handicapped-access lawsuits over the last five years, was suspended June 19 from practicing in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The six-month suspension came after one judge on the court, Edward Rafeedie, declared Frankovich a “vexatious litigant” and said he would recommend Frankovich for disciplinary action because of his “abusive and predatory litigation practices.”

(Paul Miller, “Indictment, suspension for two ADA lawyers”, Carmel Pine Cone, Jul. 21). outline_ca.gifAlso in June, as was mentioned here in a post at the time (Jul. 5; see also Patterico, Jul. 1), Los Angeles attorney Stephen Yagman, who had represented Frankovich in defense of his ADA practice, was himself indicted on federal charges of tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud. In February 2005, after Judge Rafeedie had threatened Frankovich with sanctions, Yagman had said that “Judge Rafeedie’s mean-spiritedness, his cruelty, and his contempt for civil rights make Hitler look like a humanitarian.” (Paul Miller, “ADA lawyer’s new strategy: Insult the judge”, Feb. 11, 2005). More on Yagman: Jessica Seigel, “Cop griller”, George, Mar. 1998; Patterico, Jun. 3, 2004.

More Carmel Pine Cone coverage of Frankovich and Molski here, here, here and here. Our coverage: Sept. 21 and Dec. 12, 2004, Jan. 8 and Mar. 18, 2005. And for a very different point of view, once again, here’s Mary Johnson, “Jarek Molski’s problem — and I don’t mean access”, Ragged Edge, Oct. 24, 2005, arguing that Frankovich and Molski just aren’t good enough at getting their story out.

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Web accessibility suits: AP weighs in

For aficionados of one-sided litigation coverage, here’s a lulu from the Associated Press. It’s an article on the lawsuit (National Federation of the Blind v. Target) seeking to establish that companies violate the Americans with Disabilities Act when they do not design their websites so as to make them “accessible” to users who are blind, deaf, lacking in motor skills needed for mouse use, etc. The article fails to mention the courts’ rejection of the disabled rights groups’ position in the Southwest Airlines case, though it’s the major existing precedent on the point. And aside from a ritual and uninformative denial by the retailer defendant Target that it is liable, the article presents as uncontroversial the demand that non-accessible websites be declared unlawful, with not a hint of why anyone might consider it a thoroughly disastrous idea. Oh, wait: the article does incorporate a bit of controversy, by recording worries that a victory for the plaintiffs in the Target case might not go far enough and come out being “read too narrowly. Not every business or Web site is subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act, said [Washington, D.C. lawyer] John D. Kemp”. (Seth Sutel, “Blind Web surfers sue for accessibility”, AP/San Jose Mercury-News, Oct. 24).

Filed under: , ,

9th Circuit: UPS must hire deaf drivers

The package delivery company believes that the safer policy is to hire only hearing drivers to operate its trucks, but the 9th Circuit finds that a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act:

The ruling puts employers in a “damned if they do and damned if they don’t” situation, said Joe Beachboard, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents employers.

If UPS doesn’t employ deaf workers as drivers, it can be sued under the disability act, he said. But if a deaf UPS driver has a serious accident, the company also could be sued.

(Lisa Girion, “UPS Ban on Deaf Drivers Is Rejected”, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 11). More: WSJ editorial, subscriber-only (“Common Sense-Impaired”, Oct. 19).

Filed under: ,

Web-accessibility suits, revived

In San Francisco, federal judge Marilyn Hall Patel has allowed a lawsuit by the National Federation of the Blind to go forward against the Target Corp., charging that the retailer’s website, Target.com, is insufficiently “accessible” to blind users. Websites are considered accessible to blind users when they (e.g.) include summaries or transcripts for audio/video elements and alt-text for images, while avoiding designs that require users to rely on graphic elements for navigation. Disabled-rights groups had suffered a serious setback a few years ago in their legal campaign to enforce web accessibility, when a court ruled that Southwest Airlines was not liable for the inaccessibility of its online ticket reservation system to some handicapped users. However, Judge Patel (regarded as relatively liberal by the standards of the federal bench) distinguished that case on the grounds that the Target website had more of a “nexus” to physical Target stores than did the airline’s ticketing site. (“Target can be sued if Web site inaccessible to blind, judge says”, AP/Houston Chronicle, Sept. 7; Bob Egelko, “Ruling on Web site access for blind”, San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 8; Sheri Qualters, “Discrimination Case Opens Door to Internet ADA Claims”, National Law Journal/Law.com, Sept. 28; Slashdot thread). The ruling, in PDF format, is here (courtesy Howard Bashman, who also rounds up other links).

Longtime readers will recall that I’ve been much involved in the web-accessibility controversy over the years. Some links: my May 2000 column for Reason on the subject; various posts on this site, 1999-2002; my House testimony of Feb. 2000; Jan. 8, 2004. And this site’s earlier coverage of the Target case provoked one of the biggest comments discussions ever (Feb. 28, 2006).

Filed under: , , , ,

Obesity, disabled rights and the EEOC

In case you imagined that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission these days was all sweetness and reason with employers in enforcing anti-discrimination law, check out Baseball Crank’s analysis (Sept. 12) of a new Sixth Circuit case, EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines (PDF). Watkins Motor Lines hired Stephen Grindle, who then weighed 340 pounds, as a driver/dock worker:

Approximately 65% of his time was spent performing dock work including loading, unloading, and arranging freight. The job description for this position notes that the job involves climbing, kneeling, bending, stooping, balancing, reaching, and repeated heavy lifting.

Grindle continued to gain weight, hitting a high of 450 pounds.

In November 1995, Grindle sustained an on-the-job injury. He was climbing a ladder at the loading dock and a rung broke. He started to fall and caught himself but, in doing so, he injured his knee. …

[In 1996 an industrial clinic doctor, Dr. Walter Lawrence,] found that Grindle had a limited range of motion and that he could duck and squat but he was short of breath after a few steps. Dr. Lawrence also noted that “[o]n physical examination, the most notable item is that the patient weighs 405 lbs.” Dr. Lawrence concluded that, even though Grindle met Department of Transportation standards for truck drivers, he could not safely perform the requirements of his job.

So the company let him go, he sued, and the Sixth Circuit has now upheld the dismissal of his suit on summary judgment, not on the grounds you might think (that the grounds for his dismissal were obviously rational) but rather on the grounds that morbid obesity, when not caused by a physiological disorder at least, is not an “impairment” under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Michael Fox at Jottings of an Employer’s Lawyer also comments (Sept. 12) as does lawprof Sam Bagenstos (Sept. 12).

Filed under: ,

Paul Harris show, KMOX

I was a guest this afternoon on Paul Harris’s radio show on KMOX, St. Louis. We discussed Judge Weinstein’s ruling certifying a national class action over “light” tobacco claims (see PoL Sept. 25), the court decision last week keeping alive the Pelman obesity case against McDonald’s (Sept. 22), and a deaf group’s lawsuit demanding captioning at Washington Redskins football games (Sept. 21). You can listen here — it’s practically a podcast.

Filed under: , , , ,