“The National Association of the Deaf has filed a lawsuit against the Washington Redskins to get team officials to offer closed-captioning for the deaf and hearing-impaired at FedEx Field.” The lawsuit cites the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Hamil R. Harris, “Hearing-Impaired Fans Sue for Access to Closed-Captioning”, Washington Post, Sept. 20). Related: Feb. 19 and Aug. 1, 2000 (movie theaters); Mar. 9-11, 2001 (comedy club, sign interpreters)
Posts Tagged ‘disabled rights’
“If my client hadn’t been blind he wouldn’t have been arrested for dangerous driving”
That proved to be a losing argument for British attorney Timothy Gascoyne, who defended the sightless Omed Aziz from a charge of dangerous driving after Aziz was apprehended operating his Peugeot 405 in a wrong lane approaching oncoming traffic on the ring road in the West Midlands. The winning argument, which prosecuting attorney Peter Love got to make: “A blind man controlling a vehicle is inherently dangerous. A careful and competent driver would not dream of driving in this manner.” Aziz, of Wednesbury, drove for half a mile following the instructions of a friend in the passenger seat (who was also not a lawful driver) on braking and steering. (Nick Britten, “I’m perfectly safe on the roads, says blind driver”, Daily Telegraph, Sept. 5; “Blind man drove car for half-a-mile”, Western Mail, Sept. 5).
ADA filing mills: get those facts straight!
Taking advantage of the liberal (and lucrative) provisions of disabled-rights law in the Golden State, wheelchair user Jerry Doran has filed “more than 200 lawsuits in state and federal court against restaurants and other public establishments throughout California, alleging insufficient disability access. He has filed so many suits, in fact, that he has begun to lose track,” notes George Wallace at Declarations and Exclusions. Last month U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney returned judgment in favor of a Del Taco restaurant in Mission Viejo — 500 miles from where Doran lives — against Doran’s claim of having suffered improper lack of accommodation. Wallace (Jul. 18) takes up the tale:
Although there was no question that Mr. Doran is disabled, Judge Carney was ultimately unable to persuade himself that there was evidence sufficient to prove that Doran had actually sustained any harm at, or had ever actually been to, the Mission Viejo Del Taco.
After describing and praising the purposes of the ADA, Judge Carney’s Memorandum Decision [PDF] notes that it is a tool prone to misuse:
Despite the important mission of the ADA, there are those individuals who would abuse its private cause of action provision by filing lawsuits solely with the intent to profit financially. This potential for abuse of the ADA has been well documented in the Central District of California . . . . Courts have referred to this proliferation of ADA lawsuits as a ‘cottage industry’ and have labeled plaintiffs who file these lawsuits ‘professional plaintiffs,’ ‘serial plaintiffs,’ and ‘professional pawns.’
* * *
The consequences of this abuse of the ADA are severe: businesses and insurers are harmed, the integrity of the bar is called into question, and the public’s confidence in the courts is impaired. . . . Simply put, this litigation abuse of the ADA results in the exact harmful consequences that Congress sought to eradicate by passing the ADA. As more than one court has observed, the result of this abusive litigation is that ‘the means for enforcing the ADA (attorney’s fees) have become more important and more desirable than the end (accessibility for disabled individuals).’
Most of the remainder of the opinion focuses on the discrepancies in Doran’s responses to interrogatories, his responses to questions in deposition three weeks later, and his testimony at trial, in which key details — such as how often and when he had actually visited the Mission Viejo Del Taco — slipped and slid uncontrollably. Highlights:
* Doran first went to Del Taco #415 in Spring of 2002 or in Spring of 2003, unless his first visit was in 1988.
* Prior to filing suit, he went to the location twice, or perhaps three times, or possibly just once, although he may have gone there on as many as five or six occasions.
* “Mr. Doran’s complaint refers to objects — display racks and vending machines — which do not even exist at Del Taco restaurant #415.”
* “When Mr. Doran stated that he ordered an enchilada to eat during his alleged visit, he must have been testifying about a trip to a Taco Bell restaurant since Taco Bell — and not Del Taco — serves enchiladas.”
* “When describing the barriers he encountered at Del Taco restaurant #415, Mr. Doran stated that the hand dryers in the restroom were located too high. . . . Because Del Taco restaurant #415 does not have hand dryers in its restrooms, it is clear that Mr. Doran was testifying about a visit to another restaurant, or place of public accommodation, when asked to identify the barriers he encountered.”
* “When asked if there were any fast food chains that Mr. Doran frequented that he had not sued, he replied that he had not sued Kentucky Fried Chicken. In fact, Mr. Doran has sued Kentucky Fried Chicken. When asked to try again, Mr. Doran replied that he had not sued Jack in the Box. Although apparently unbeknownst to him, Mr. Doran has sued Jack in the Box also.”
(Doran v. Del Taco, opinion in PDF format courtesy Decs & Excs; post, Jul. 18). For more on the dubious practices of ADA filing mills, see our disabled rights page.
Update: Emotional-service dog on nude beach
Mark DelCore, who met with a cool reception from a federal judge at a hearing, says he’s thinking of dropping his lawsuit (see Jul. 14) demanding that his emotional-support dog be admitted to accompany him at a nude beach. The stress occasioned by the proceedings, he says, may be too much for him to press on (Christina Boyle and John Marzulli, “Judge isn’t naked guy’s best friend”, New York Daily News, Jul. 15). (via Ann Althouse, who asks, “Do people who bring frivolous lawsuits ever think about whether their consumption of public resources is worthwhile?”, Jul. 15).
DVD bonus material captioning
Lawyers filed a class action on behalf of deaf consumers against Hollywood studios that labeled DVDs as closed captioned but failed to note that “bonus material” on the disks lacked captioning. According to the terms of the proposed settlement:
The Settling Companies have denied liability, but have agreed to settle this action to avoid litigation by, in the future, providing captioning or closed captioning of bonus material on major categories of DVDs they distribute over the next five (5) years, paying $275,000 to certain non-profit organizations dedicated to advocacy for deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, and paying attorneys’ fees and costs (including any incentive award to named plaintiff) up to $1,300,000…
More here. Toronto accessibility advocate Joe Clark thinks the settlement doesn’t go far enough, while enriching the lawyers who pursued it.
Demand: let my service dog onto your nude beach
Mark DelCore, 39, says in his federal lawsuit that he has a medical need to sunbathe at the Fire Island nude beach because of a skin condition. The beach rules allow for seeing-eye dogs, but DelCore’s is an “emotional support” dog (see May 14, etc.) who assists with post-traumatic stress he says he’s suffered since the 9/11 attacks. One big problem: it’s feared a greater dog presence at water’s edge would interfere with the doings of the piping plover, an endangered shorebird whose protection has already been cited as reason to suppress many human activities on Long Island beaches. (The Smoking Gun, Jul. 13). More: Ann Althouse, who has covered service-dog accommodation controversies in the past, is on this one too. Update: Jul. 22 (DelCore thinking of dropping suit).
No benefits for alcoholic who drank ethanol
“An Iowa judge has denied unemployment benefits to a man who claimed discrimination after being fired from an ethanol plant for drinking ‘automobile fuel’ produced by the company.” Cory Neddermeyer, 42, was fired after being hospitalized with an almost fatal 0.72 blood-alcohol level after dipping into the 190-proof fuel at his employer, Amaizing Energy in Denison, Iowa. “Neddermeyer argued that his employer shared in the responsibility for the incident because the spill at the plant provided an ‘opportunity’ for him to drink. He also argued that Amaizing Energy was discriminating against him due to his ‘disease of alcoholism.'” (Clark Kauffman, “Man fired for getting gassed on spilled ethanol at work”, Des Moines Register, Jul. 9 (via Romenesko)).
“Casual pot use a disability, Alberta judge finds”
“An Alberta judge has ruled that a construction company discriminated against a man when it fired him from an oilsands project after his pre-employment drug screening tested positive for marijuana. Instead, Justice Sheilah Martin said the man — a recreational user — should have been treated the same way as someone with a drug addiction, which is considered a disability in a growing body of human rights case law across Canada.” (CanWest/reprinted at CharlesAdler.com, Jun. 29; “Drug testing can be discriminatory, judge rules”, CBC, Jun. 30).
Employers win two in court
Each year Gerald Skoning, a prominent employment lawyer at Chicago’s Seyfarth Shaw, assembles his pick of the ten most bizarre employment cases of the previous year, and each year the National Law Journal publishes the roundup but omits to put it online. So I’ll just quote my two personal favorites from the latest list (“Last year’s bizarre cases”, Mar. 20):
…A federal district court in Oklahoma has dismissed a 70-year-old office worker’s claim that her employer discriminated against her because she was not fired. Mary Wyatt, who had worked for Occidental Petroleum for more than 24 years, argued that she should have been fired and awarded a severance package. The court disagreed, reasoning that, “Plaintiff has not suffered an adverse employment action by the continuation of her employment.” I commend the court for its eminently sensible recognition that the continued opportunity to earn a living isn’t discrimination.
…A federal court in Pennsylvania has ruled that a weight loss center did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to hire a salesman who weighed 350 pounds because it was concerned his appearance was inconsistent with the sale of its products. The court dismissed Bob Goodman’s claim, stating: “The mere fact that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s weight and rejected [him] for fear that his appearance did not accord with the company image was not improper.” I salute this weighty contribution to commonsense jurisprudence.
For another you-should-have-fired-me case, see May 11, 2004. For coverage of previous Skoning roundups, see May 12, 2005 and links from there.
“Intermittent explosive disorder”
When workers exhibit this malady — roughly definable as losing their temper or blowing their stack to a pathological degree — are employers obliged to accommodate them under the Americans with Disabilities Act? (Jon Coppelman, Workers Comp Insider, Jun. 14).