U.S. Capitol Dome in Washington
WASHINGTON – The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has moved forward a bill that would help keep businesses out of court when their premises are in technical violation of federal disabilities law.
Media articles submitted by Arizona Republican Andy Biggs included the story of a Mesa company with more handicap-accessible parking spaces than required by federal law still facing a lawsuit over the height of two of the “reserved parking” signs. Lawyers have filed tens of thousands of cases under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including against companies whose websites don’t feature appropriate screen-reading options for blind visitors.
The ADA 30 Days to Comply Act, introduced by Mike Lawler of New York and Lou Correa of California, would give companies a month to correct violations before they can be sued over them.
Money isn’t awarded to plaintiffs in ADA Title III cases like these, but lawyers can apply for fees. They can also extract settlements from companies that would rather not pay thousands of dollars in legal costs.
That’s led to a cottage industry of law firms and advocates who find disabled individuals to serve as repeat plaintiffs. The all-time record for Title III cases came in 2021, when 11,452 were filed. Last year, there were nearly 9,000.
“The ADA was created to guarantee access and protect the rights of Americans with disabilities, not to fuel drive-by lawsuits that do nothing to actually fix the problem,” Lawler said.
“Our bill creates a simple, fair process for navigating an ADA violation so that businesses get notified and have 30 days to make it right. That means quicker compliance, better access, and fewer bad-faith lawsuits that punish well-intentioned small businesses.”
Ahead of a markup hearing Thursday, the National Federation of Independent Business urged lawmakers to pass the bill, saying plaintiff lawyers “have weaponized the law to extract quick settlements out of small businesses.” It noted one California small business recently paid a $12,000 settlement to get out of a case alleging one of its patio tables was not compliant with the ADA.
A picture of the table was taken by a lawyer’s investigator, who visits businesses with the intention of finding violations, the NFIB said.
“For our 300,000 members, with an average of 5-10 employees, being targeted with just one predatory lawsuit could end their business,” it added.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote a similar letter March 20 that says “illegitimate claims have only gotten worse” in the past decade. A “notice-and cure” bill like this one would ease the burden on businesses and require the plaintiff to declare whether he or she requested the violation be fixed for them.
The bill also prevents attorneys from requesting fees after receiving a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, which is rare since the vast majority of cases are settled before they progress that far.
“This ‘notice and cure’ approach is a long-sought remedy for these types of lawsuits and was enacted into law in the 117th Congress in a bill that added protections for mothers expressing breast milk that passed the House with unanimous support from Democrats,” the Chamber wrote.
In opposition, the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities called the new requirements “burdensome,” arguing the responsibility for ADA compliance is shifted to the public. It bemoans the “highly technical” notice process and says it would encourage businesses to ignore violations until served with a notice.
The CCD also takes issue with a provision that protects businesses that make “substantial progress” on correcting violations, even if the project isn’t completed in 30 days.
“Progress, rather than access, would become the new goal of Title III of the ADA,” its letter says.
Correa, the bill’s co-sponsor, was the only Democrat on the Judiciary Committee to vote for it. It passed in a 16-8 vote.
