The Issue:
Passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, while important to ensuring fairness for individuals with disabilities, has not been without consequence. The provisions of the ADA governing accessibility of an employer's premises are highly technical and complex, and total compliance often cannot be achieved without the assistance of an attorney specializing in this area. Not only is information about the law's requirements hard to come by for the average business owner, but the high level of expertise required to decipher the law's many technical aspects has resulted in a situation where noncompliance is very common.

Unfortunately, trial lawyers have begun to take advantage of this lack of information and understanding by filing lawsuits against business owners for alleged violations of the many and varied highly technical requirements of Title III of the ADA. The trial lawyers' motivation is clear — since the ADA provides for recovery of attorney's fees in suits brought under Title III, the lawyers view the law as a cash cow. As a result, "drive-by" lawsuits are becoming increasingly common. Trial lawyers will literally "drive-by" a cluster of businesses, such as restaurants and other retailers, and will note whether the business is in compliance with, for example, the requirement for a certain number of handicapped parking spaces, labeled properly and with the proper color of paint. If violations are noted (and they often are), the lawyer will find a disabled plaintiff in the area on whose behalf to file a lawsuit. The business owner is then slapped with a lawsuit, with the accompanying demand for thousands of dollars to "settle." The business owner, although aware of the law's existence, is usually not aware of its many technical requirements, and he or she often assumes his or her building code certification will have covered such matters. Intimidated by the prospect of litigation and its attendant expense, the business owner will often simply accede to the lawyer's demands and fork over large sums to settle the matter. This situation is legalized extortion at its worst.

Action Needed:
In the 1st Session of the 107th Congress, Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) introduced H.R. 914, the "ADA Notification Act" that would require a business owner to be given ninety days notice of alleged violations of Title III of the ADA before he or she could be sued and forced to settle. Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) introduced identical legislation (S. 782) in the Senate. Ninety days notice will provide the business owner time to assess the alleged violations and, if warranted, commence corrective action. Lawsuits, settlement fees, and the expense of hiring an attorney through this process could all be avoided.

NCCR Says:
We support the "ADA Notification Act" as a reasonable solution to a problem that is currently plaguing business owners from Florida to Hawaii. Drive-by lawsuits are an abuse of our federal court system and a torment to business owners, and they should be stopped.