Hacker News Reader

Comment by c0restraint | Hacker News Reader

Yes, predatory. From the article:

> The disabled man’s attorney, Tanya E. Moore, for years has been the subject of much scrutiny for suing thousands of small businesses across the South Bay, filing more than 1,400 ADA cases in recent years. The suits have forced mom and pop shops like Cafe Crema to close, as many owners can’t afford to bring their businesses up to code or settle. A little less than three years ago, a beloved San Jose staple, Time Deli, had to shut its doors for the same reason.

> About two years ago, Moore was faced with a federal racketeering civil lawsuit for filing lawsuits based on “false allegations” of disability and injury, first reported by the Fresno Bee.

I wonder how many businesses will be left when Moore is done.

View on HN

How is this predatory? The law has been on the books for some time. This subthread seems to be taking issue with this lawyer's specialty - helping disabled folks get access where they are denied it unjustly. The real anger should be toward folks who don't want to follow the law. It is useful to have an expert on your team to get justice. If you are going to sue for ADA violations, would you rather have a corporate finance expert or an ADA compliance expert?

If compliance were the goal, then I would be inclined to agree with you. However, this lawyer is suing first without any notification first that the shop is non-compliant. That's what makes it come across as predatory.

Frome the article:

> These “shakedown” lawsuits, added Morin, are often based on small, “technical violations” that can be easily fixed if a letter is sent to the business owner. But under California law, a disabled person cannot claim money if they send the business owner a letter with their complaint first.

It looks like if a claimant sends a letter they would not be able to sue for damages. That seems like it might really limit any perspective plaintiff's options.

That depends. Is the plaintiff's goal to encourage a business to comply or is it to get paid? If compliance was the goal, sending a letter would always be the first step.

And compliance does not appear to be the goal, or the outcome, in cases like these where the business folds.

But if a claimant does send a letter and that letter gets ignored, what's their recourse if they can't sue? Send another, more angrily worded letter? That will show the defiant business owner what for! They'd likely have to find someone else to do file suit.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure that article is simplifying things, but using the information given, I would also sue first.

Doesn't look like a "small technical violation" to me. There's clearly a bunch of stairs in the photo.

I don't see anything predatory there? 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the subject of suits?

If you don't see the problem, that's intentional.

How many ADA complainants end up facing federal racketeering charges?

The theory of the ADA is that rather than just enforce everything via bureaucracy, we'd give individuals the right of private action to push for the accommodations they need. Then we get a hopefully-good level of accommodation without a lot of the kind of waste that goes with central planning.

But if somebody is going to use the legal system to make a lot of money by generating spurious complaints for every business in an area, then that's not the right mechanism. If every business should be immediately compliant, we should just make it part of the building code and/or part of the business licensing process.

Are there federally enforced building codes?

No, lawsuits require standing. If nobody is actually harmed, there is nothing to sue over. Where this might factor into this ethically is that these building may not have been compliant with the law, but they might not have had problems because they were close enough to legal requirements that people with disabilities did not have actual problems using the facilities, or other situations that in practice made it a non issue.

For example, ramps must be 36 inches wide. If it was not possible or feasible for the business to change a ramp that was 34 inches wide, that's unlikely to cause actual problems for someone, so they would have no reason to sue, but if someone is faking a disability to qualify for legal standing, whether they actual had problems is of little consequence, they are already committing fraud to qualify, what's a bit more to fake a situation where they were caused harm?

I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut.

>>> 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the subject of suits?

> I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut.

In this case? Maybe. You made a statement about all the cases they brought. I responded to that general statement, not this specific case.

It's possible every suit they brought against a business was for a situation where people with disabilities really were harmed. If that's the situation, I'm not sure why someone with a real disability didn't bring the cases then.

There are reasons why people are required to have standing to bring a case. I think it's pretty obvious what some of those reasons are.

Not to mention, there's literally the exact same business two blocks away that IS ADA-compliant.

This has nothing to do with not being able to buy coffee, and everything to do with hurting the business in the hopes of getting a large settlement.

ADA has affordances for "nearly compliant" facilities.

§ 36.304 Removal of barriers.

(d) Relationship to alterations requirements of subpart D of this part.

(3) If, as a result of compliance with the alterations requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section, the measures required to remove a barrier would not be readily achievable, a public accommodation may take other readily achievable measures to remove the barrier that do not fully comply with the specified requirements. Such measures include, for example, providing a ramp with a steeper slope or widening a doorway to a narrower width than that mandated by the alterations requirements. No measure shall be taken, however, that poses a significant risk to the health or safety of individuals with disabilities or others.

Thanks for the additional information. Do you know what "readily achievable" means legally? I suspect it means "can not feasibly be accomplish on the property in question", such as if there's no way to widen a door given load bearing walls, or if a ramp of the appropriate specifications would go past the edge of the property. I imagine "it's too costly to do and keep this business functioning" is not a valid reason, given the examples we are seeing of businesses closing.

What I think it comes down to is whether a real person with disabilities thinks it's worth bringing and/or continuing the suit. Someone bringing a suit to make their life better (and the lives of people in similar circumstances as well), might take things into consideration like whether another business is likely to use that location any time soon if a large outlay is required to fix the problem, and whether removing a local business for everyone is a good solution. Someone bringing suit just for monetary gain (which can be done by someone with a real claim, I understand) may be less likely to do so, resulting in a net loss for the community.

> Do you know what "readily achievable" means legally?

It's quite clearly defined in statute (and includes cost):

> The term "readily achievable" means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include—

> (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter;

> (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility;

> (C)the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and

> (D) the type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181

Thanks for the clarification. I'm left confused about why this is happening then. It seems well designed to not allow for the situation we see described here, yet this situation is happening and similar situations are referenced.

That leads me to believe one or more of:

a) the case cited here has more extenuating circumstances that are not being reported, which I see as likely as articles have a point of view to express and I'm willing to believe the author may leave out information they deem not contributing to that point (whether through malice or incompetence)

b) there are additional laws at the state or local level which are less lenient

c) there are other parts of this law or other Federal laws which interact in a way limiting or making ambiguous portions of this law

d) there is specific case law that severely limits how these escape valves are used in practice

I have no idea how any of these apply, if any do, but it's odd that there are specific allowances for businesses to no be forced to shut down, yet, we have examples of exactly that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com