The Americans with Disabilities Act has been getting a lot of press lately. Actually that’s an incorrect statement as the ADA is one of those rare federal laws that seem to have a perpetual place in the news cycle. Don’t believe me? Once again, Google comes to the rescue and vindicates me.
One of the latest ADA stories to make it to the front pages of the blogosphere is a recent news piece involving the movie theater chain AMC. Apparently the corporation has just settled a ten year old lawsuit with the U.S. Justice Department over allegations that they failed to provide wheelchair-accessible seating in the middle of their theaters. The reason this story stuck out to me is because the theaters in question actually had wheelchair-accessible seating at the front of the auditorium. So why was the lawsuit filed? Because AMC didn’t have wheelchair-accessible seats in the middle of their theaters, they only had them in the front and sides.
Just to play devil’s advocate to the former folks, as regular movie-goer, does anyone want to sit at the front of theater? Those seats suck, which is why they are always the last to be filled. Imagine if every time you went to go buy popcorn at the concession stand and while everyone else in front of you got freshly popped popcorn, you were given stale popcorn that’s been sitting under a heat lamp all day. Sure, you still technically got popcorn, but it’s nowhere near the same quality as everyone else’s. Well friends, this is why the ADA was created and why the Justice Department got involved in this and many other cases like it – to ensure handicapped people get treated the same like everyone else.
Now, another reason this story caught my attention is because as of late, news reports like this AMC case have been used to epitomize the flaws in the ADA and, in essence, attempt to reform the law and chip away some of the protections it gives. The Act was a recently featured in a “This American Life” story about crybabies. The report centers on a lawyer and a group of his handicap clients who go around and look for ADA violations in public businesses so that they can sue. Lawsuits like this generally results in an almost instant judgment for the plaintiff along with some money in their pocket, too.
State laws vary on damage award for ADA violations, but typically it can be as much as a few thousand dollars. In California for instance, plaintiff’s can received up to $4,000 from ADA violators. ADA violators are also subject to criminal fines and certain violations can result in even jail time.
But as shocking as all this may sound, the fact remains that without such penalties in place, businesses and employers would have little incentive to comply with the ADA regulations.
Under the ADA, there are three circumstances in which violations can occur: discrimination against disabled employees, discrimination by government agencies, and discrimination by lack of handicap accessible facilities. These three situations make up Titles 1-3 of the ADA. If you’re a person with a disability recognized under the ADA, such as being confined to a wheelchair and you are discriminated against under any of these circumstances, such as if a public bathroom doesn’t have handicap rails, you can sue the business, person, or government agency under the ADA.
Naturally the problem is that when any sort of law is passed, corrupt people tend to find a way to abuse it in their favor. It’s a universal truth. Take a look at the Warren Court and its aftermath if you disbelieve.
However, in the case of those corrupt attorneys or citizens taking advantage of ADA loopholes for money, there’s an easy way around it. First, don’t allow attorneys to have contingent fees based on ADA awards. This way, attorneys will have no incentive to abuse the ADA laws for money because they’ll always be getting a normal set fee from their clients. And two, limit the damage awards to only victims who suffer actual physical harm. Under this second revision, now only disabled people who have actually been physically injured can collect damages and the damages themselves will only be limited to paying medical bills and the like. With these two revisions, any incentive to sue under the ADA just for money will be severely reduced.
What do you all think? As always, share your thoughts below.