Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘disabled rights’

“Extra-special education at public expense”

The amazing industry that has sprung up to advance parents’ demands that schools accommodate their “learning-disabled” offspring is an old story around these parts (see here and here, for example). Even so, the San Francisco Chronicle’s recent investigative report can provoke a gasp:

* Even though federal, state and other sources already spend more than $4 billion a year to subsidize the provision of special education in the state of California, school districts in the state still shift more than a billion dollars out of their regular school budgets to pay for accommodation demands that include “private day schools, boarding schools, summer camps, aqua therapy, horseback therapy, travel costs, personal aides” and dolphin therapy.

* Administrators at Woodside High on the Peninsula offered a 15-year-old with learning disabilities and anxiety “daily help from a special education expert” as well as “a laptop computer, extra time for tests — and an advocate to smooth any ripples with teachers. If an anxiety attack came on, he could step out of class.” Not good enough for his parents, who decided to send him to a $30,000/year private school in Maine. Their lawyer demanded that the district pay not only the tuition but also for the whole family’s repeated cross-country travel costs to visit him there.

* Schools routinely buckle under to demands they regard as unreasonable, not only to avoid the expense of litigation but because the law tilts against them; a single procedural misstep in the hugely complicated process can leave them liable for damages and hefty legal fees. Since secret settlements are common, taxpayers may find it hard to grasp the extent of the monetary hemorrhaging.

* “It’s a blank check,” said [Paul] Goldfinger, vice president of School Services. “The system is stacked so that one segment of the population — disabled children — has first call on funding, and the others get whatever’s left.”

Infuriating reading (Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 19). (& see Mar. 31 post, where comments continue).

Filed under: , , ,

$6.5M for not promoting agoraphobic employee

Sonoma County, Calif., allowed health care caseworker George Alberigi, 52, to interview Medi-Cal clients by phone from his home, by way of accommodating his psychiatric conditions, namely panic disorder and agoraphobia (fear of public places). Then in 2001 he applied was considered for a promotion. The county turned him down on the grounds that the higher-level job The county discontinued his at-home accommodation and unilaterally transferred him to a position that required meeting clients in person. Disheartened, Alberigi went on permanent medical disability. Now a jury has awarded him $1.5 million in lost wages and $5 million in other damages including pain and suffering. The county will probably seek a new trial, according to its lawyer. “Alberigi also won attorney fees, which could add another six figures to the county’s cost, said his lawyer, Steve Murphy of San Francisco.” (“Jury awards $6.5M to panic disorder patient in job bias suit”, AP/Sacramento Bee, Mar. 16). Update May 21: judge cuts award to $2.5 million.

More: Jon Coppelman at Workers’ Comp Insider (May 24) says that contrary to our first account the promotion in question was not one that Alberigi sought, but was imposed by the county, which did not wish to continue with the at-home-interviewing accommodation. More broadly, Coppelman is far more impressed with the case’s merits than we are, finding it significant that 1) Alberigi’s psychiatric disabilities were undisputedly genuine; 2) kind things had been said about him in earlier performance evaluations. In revamping their prerequisites for caseworker jobs in a way disadvantageous to Alberigi, he writes, management “decided to shake up his narrow world and force him out of a nurturing situation” and “need to be held accountable for their actions”.

Filed under:

Target sued: website not accessible to blind

Per the WSJ Law Blog (Feb. 7): The National Federation of the Blind (NFB), represented by Berkeley’s Disability Rights Advocates as well as two law firms, has sued discounter Target, alleging that it violates California disabled-rights law because its website is not operable by blind computer users. “The suit charges that the site lacks, for instance, compliant alt-text, an invisible code embedded beneath graphics that allows blind users to decipher images. The suit also contends that because the Web site requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, blind customers are unable to make purchases on their own.” As longterm readers of this site know, demands for website accessibility under the ADA and similar laws have been simmering for years; in 2002 a federal court turned down such a claim with respect to Southwest Airlines’ website, and two years ago (Jan. 8, 2004) a NFB activist said disability advocates were biding their time, waiting for the right case to reopen the issue. It sounds as if the Target lawsuit may be that case. (& welcome readers of John Dvorak, who calls us “the always entertaining Overlawyered.com”).

More: at WebStandards.org, one enthusiast for the lawsuit says that it also calls into question the practices of Amazon.com, whose shopping engine, according to this commentator, powers the Target site. As I discovered when I started writing on this subject six years ago, many advocates of “web accessibility” seem quite surprised to learn that anyone actually disagrees with them on the merits of the matter, as opposed to just not being well enough informed about it. And: coverage in Law.com’s Recorder (Matthew Hirsch, “Suit Alleges Target Denies Blind Access to Online Shopping”, Feb. 14).

Filed under: , , ,

Miller v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Michael Miller tore his meniscus while on the job as a security guard. He was restricted from climbing, running, walking on uneven ground, twisting, turning and prolonged standing, and thus was laid off because he couldn’t arrest people or respond to emergencies. A jury awarded him $1.03 million for the indignity, accepting Miller’s argument that Lockheed should have accommodated his injury rather than leave him to workers’ comp. (Miller v. Lockheed Martin Corp., Los Angeles County, Oct. 12, 2005 (via Verdict Search)).

Filed under:

$3.36M for blind woman replaced by blind woman

Christine L. Boone was fired as director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Blindness and Visual Services (allegedly for “insubordination” when she refused to carry out a superior’s directive regarding making a college aid program more available to students who weren’t receiving merit scholarships) and was replaced by another blind woman, Pamela Shaw. Nevertheless, Boone sued through her lawyer Arch Stokes, alleging that she was discriminated against because of her blindness, though the AP’s quote of Stokes’ opening statement of the federal trial before U.S. District Judge Sylvia H. Rambo makes it sound like a civil-service dispute. Boone only received $180,000 of the $1 million in the “future lost wages” she sought, but the $1.5 million for emotional distress should provide solace. Boone will ask the judge to reinstate her to her job; the AP did not get comment from Shaw, who currently holds the position. (Mark Scolforo, AP, Nov. 28; Mark Scolforo, AP/Boston Herald, Nov. 8). The National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania opposed Boone’s firing; that may or may not make it a bad decision, but a bad decision isn’t federally actionable, only a discriminatory one is.

Filed under: , ,

Student: dorm’s ferret ban violates ADA

At Our Lady of the Lake University in San Antonio, 19-year-old freshman Sarah Sevick has filed a complaint with the U.S. Justice Department saying her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act were violated by the dorm’s ban on her pet ferret, which she says she needs at hand to calm her during panic attacks related to a physical disability. (“Disabilities complaint filed after ferret banned from dorm”, AP/Houston Chronicle, Oct. 14). For more on claims to accommodation of companion animals under disabled-rights law, see May 5, etc.

Filed under: , , ,

Also at Point of Law

Along with a great deal of other discussion of the John Roberts nomination (for which see the site’s special Supreme Court nominations page), Point of Law has kicked off a featured discussion of the confirmation saga by two distinguished contributors, U. of Chicago lawprof Richard Epstein and Northwestern lawprof Stephen Presser (more).

Some other recent highlights at the site: Jim Copland and Jonathan Wilson on the Texas Merck trial, Wilson on Georgia’s new rule regarding “offers of judgment”, and posts from me on an expansion of ADA coverage, school finance suits, the retention by Oklahoma’s attorney general of private tort lawyers to sue chicken farmers in nearby Arkansas, an appeals court approves RICO suits against employers of illegal aliens, health care qui tam actions, the “cab-rank” principle in legal ethics (observed more in Britain than here), and Astroturf in the liability wars.

Filed under: , , , , ,

Behind a pageant, busy lawyers

Representatives of the Hollywood, Fla.-based law firm of Schwartz Zweben & Associates have played a substantial role behind the scenes in helping organize, promote and support the Ms. Wheelchair America pageant and some of its state affiliates. And lawyers with the firm have filed more than 200 lawsuits in at least seven states and the District of Columbia on behalf of at least 13 pageant participants, “including state and national titleholders, state coordinators and pageant judges”. Among them: more than two dozen filed in Wisconsin’s Fox Valley since December on behalf of local coordinator Gina Hackel. In March, Janeal Lee of Appleton was stripped by pageant authorities of her title as Ms. Wheelchair Wisconsin; she believes it is because she was critical of the pageant’s role in lawsuit-promotion, although pageant coordinators deny that and say she broke a rule against being photographed out of her wheelchair.

Schwartz Zweben “also conducts seminars instructing contestants on pursuing their legal rights under the disabilities act. Lee remembered a lawyer flying in to give the Wisconsin contestants such a talk at the January pageant in Green Bay.” “The people that are the lawyers, I really like them. We got along,” said Lisa Wartchow, Lee’s 2003 predecessor as Ms. Wheelchair Wisconsin. “But I got the feeling they were there specifically to see if any of us … could bring them to our town and find cases for them.”

To verify Hackel’s claims of ADA violations in the Fox Valley, the law firm retained Ms. Wheelchair Florida 2002 Colleen Macort as a consultant, and she visited the businesses last fall, Zweben said.

Macort, who was named as a plaintiff in 63 ADA accessibility lawsuits filed in Florida by the firm over the past three years, also helped prepare the Wisconsin pageant won by Lee.

The Appleton paper (which is kind enough to quote me as part of its coverage) promises a four-part investigation, of which this is Part 1. (Ed Lowe and J.E. Espino, “Pageant, law firm closely linked”, Appleton Post-Crescent, Jul. 17). For more on mass filings of suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act and parallel state and local statutes, see Mar. 18, May 31 and many other entries on our disabled-rights page.

Filed under: , , , ,

“Users of Assistance Dogs Leave a Trail of Lawsuits”

Erma Miller has filed 21 discrimination claims in southern California over alleged failure to serve her because of her assistance dog. Some defendants suspect a scam: Miller regularly alleges that the failure to permit entrance to the dog meant she couldn’t use the restroom and soiled herself. They’re also suspicious of Miller’s “practice of providing Rottweilers to other people, who took the dogs to businesses, got bounced and filed lawsuits,” and hints that her disbarred-attorney ex-con husband has a hand in the litigation. Lynn Stites had served eight years for a multi-million-dollar litigation-related insurance fraud scheme out of a Grisham novel:

During the 1980s, Stites organized a clandestine network of attorneys who infiltrated complex civil cases in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties by getting insured defendants to hire them in place of their insurance company lawyers.

Posing as independent and, at times, snarling adversaries, they worked in concert to manufacture new legal controversies so that lawsuits would grow in complexity and cost.

In some cases, the lawyers paid kickbacks to clients for the right to defend them on the insurers’ dime. Stites essentially franchised the litigation, directing strategy and assigning lawyers to various defendants. His minions, in turn, kicked back a cut of their take—paying in cash, precious metals, and improvements to his house.

Three cases are scheduled for trial in the next few months. Miller has already collected six digits worth of settlements, but a suit against Marriott did not go as well:

As part of her deposition, Marriott lawyers videotaped Miller with Giggy, the Rottweiler mix involved in the Marriott suit and several others. Giggy could not obey commands to sit, to pick up Miller’s cane or to help her through the door.

(Myron Levin, LA Times, Jul. 10). More on service dog suits: May 5 and links therein.

Disclosure: At my former firm, I represented Marriott in unrelated litigation. As with all my posts, I speak for myself, and not for my current employer, my former employers, nor my former clients.

Filed under: , , , ,

Wal-Mart job pays millions

Who says you’ll never get rich working at Wal-Mart? A federal magistrate judge has just approved a $2.8 million award for disability-based discrimination on behalf of plaintiff Patrick Brady, who suffers from cerebral palsy. The company’s offense? It “violated federal and state laws by making a prohibited inquiry [relating to his disabilities] before giving Brady an employment offer. The company also subjected Brady to adverse employment conditions by transferring him from the pharmacy to a more physically taxing position pushing carts in the parking lot, according to the verdict.” The magistrate judge complained bitterly about having to reduce the award from the $7.5 million in damages, including $5 million in punitive damages, originally voted by the jury. On the tendency of stringent liability exposure to discourage employers’ hiring of disabled persons (workplace participation of whom actually went down, not up, after the ADA was passed), see, among other sources, Jul. 11, 2000, and this NBER paper. (Michael Bobelian, “Court Reluctantly Trims Wal-Mart Penalty”, New York Law Journal, Jun. 23).

Filed under: ,