# Arizona attorney general intervenes in flood of lawsuits over ADA



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2016)

Arizona attorney general intervenes in flood of lawsuits over compliance with Americans With Disabilities Act
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...mpliance-americans-disabilities-act/89309208/

Arizona attorney general intervenes in flood of lawsuits over compliance with Americans With Disabilities Act. azcentral.com



The Arizona Attorney General's Office on Wednesday intervened in a months-long battle between Valley business owners and disability-rights advocates, filing a motion to have 1,000-plus Americans With Disabilities Act-compliance cases dismissed.

Phoenix-based Advocates for Individuals With Disabilities — the organization behind the scores of Scottsdale, Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler and Gilbert suits — had argued the seven-month blitz was the "only effective method to wake up business owners" who continued to ignore federal accessibility requirements, particularly in parking lots.

But the AG's Office sided with businesses, calling the lawsuits "a concerted effort to improperly use the judicial system for (AID's) own enrichment" and requesting an expedited ruling.

"Because plaintiff's chief aim appears to be using ... its serial litigation to produce out-of-court settlements, it is unlikely the court will have the opportunity to evaluate the validity of most of plaintiff's claims, much less whether plaintiff is entitled to bring them at all," reads the motion, filed in Maricopa County Superior Court.

"Moreover ... plaintiff's tactics result in no enforceable agreement or court order, meaning there is no accountability to ensure any legitimate public accommodation or services violation is cured."

The motion was assigned to Judge David M. Talamante. It came within hours of AID Executive Director Jennifer Rogers telling media outlets she would step down from her post.

Neither Rogers nor AID responded to The Arizona Republic's request for comment.

Rogers in July said AID was formed to make businesses aware of ongoing accessibility issues. The organization wanted "compliance, not lawsuits," she said, but had seen a "dismal response" to less aggressive methods.


She declined to disclose average settlement amounts but said payouts were helping cover medical and other equipment for people with disabilities.

At the time, disability-law experts said AID's approach was legitimate, and there was no excuse for offices and shops not to be aware of readily available ADA rules. Several small businesses, however, said they didn't have the expertise to understand and implement the ADA's detailed guidelines and the pricey lawsuit settlements were a "money grab."

"I think this (motion) is great news," Mesa Chamber of Commerce President Sally Harrison said Wednesday. The chamber worked to connect affected southeast Valley businesses with legal advice and other resources.

"We're trying not to get our hopes up, because you never know what will happen with the court," Harrison said. "But to know that the AG's Office is looking at the big picture and wanting to go to bat for these businesses and property owners — the fact that they're moving forward from their end is encouraging."


----------



## ICE (Aug 26, 2016)

The Arizona Attorney General should be sent to Washington.


----------



## steveray (Aug 26, 2016)

It's OK....federal laws are more like guidelines these days anyway.....


----------



## Keystone (Aug 26, 2016)

They created and or are part of the system and now they don't want to deal with the system.  Ironic!!!


----------



## tmurray (Aug 30, 2016)

mark handler said:


> "We're trying not to get our hopes up, because you never know what will happen with the court," Harrison said. "But to know that the AG's Office is looking at the big picture and wanting to go to bat for these businesses and property owners — the fact that they're moving forward from their end is encouraging."



That doesn't seem wholly true. The AG seems to want the courts to require compliance, not cash settlements with the outstanding violations allowed to remain. These businesses will still be required to comply, but now they can't just pay the settlement and have the lawsuit to go away.


----------



## ICE (Aug 30, 2016)

tmurray said:


> That doesn't seem wholly true. The AG seems to want the courts to require compliance, not cash settlements with the outstanding violations allowed to remain. These businesses will still be required to comply, but now they can't just pay the settlement and have the lawsuit to go away.


If the AG slays the cash cow the lawsuits will evaporate.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 30, 2016)

ICE said:


> If the AG slays the cash cow the lawsuits will evaporate.



Not necessarily. 99.9% of the absolutely will, but the people who were doing this for the "right reasons" will still be around to address the real problems. These organizations tend to leave alone  the things that are just technically a violation in favor of those that greatly restrict access. We have one here and, since we have nothing similar to the ADA, they have to work with us through our zoning bylaw and the business owners. If they want to pursue something in court as a violation to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms we are talking about serious cash for the lawsuit, so it doesn't typically happen in Canada.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 30, 2016)

ICE said:


> If the AG slays the cash cow the lawsuits will evaporate.


As will any code compliance
As will access

Do you think people will drive the speed limit if you eliminate the Traffic fines?


----------



## ICE (Aug 30, 2016)

mark handler said:


> As will any code compliance
> As will access


Getting back to normal.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 30, 2016)

Robert Lynch, FAIA (d) formerly of Scottsdale is rolling in his grave right now. Its almost good that he didn't see his adopted state descend to this level after all his years working for access with the governor's office (he a polio survivor).


----------



## steveray (Aug 30, 2016)

I was going to say the same thing Mark, except for the speeding, I am a big fan of eliminating those fines...


----------



## mark handler (Sep 4, 2016)

Arizona moves to block ADA suits

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_11934db4-6e08-11e6-baa4-872d88dcb716.html

Reacting to thousands of lawsuits filed against small businesses in the East Valley, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office took the unusual step of intervening on the behalf of a defendant accused of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
 The goal is to get all similar suits consolidated into one case and eventually dismissed by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge, according to the Attorney General Office’s website.
 “We’re trying to get a ruling from a judge to say these are frivolous lawsuits,’’ defense attorney Lindsey Leavitt said. “Unfortunately, it takes time.’’
 The ADA, passed in 1990, enjoys widespread support among small business owners, who agree with its purpose of ensuring that the disabled have access to public buildings through requirements for parking spaces and other accommodations.
 But East Valley businesses, particularly those in Mesa, have been hit by a blizzard of 1,850 lawsuits since June 2015. They’ve been filed by attorney Peter Strojnik, who says he’s a champion for the disabled, on behalf of Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities.
The blizzard turned into a hurricane starting in February 2016, with 1,500 lawsuits filed against mostly Mesa businesses about parking lots alone. An additional 200 suits have been filed against bars and restaurants since October 2015.
The Attorney General’s Office would normally be responsible for bringing actions against business owners who violate the Arizonans with Disabilities Act, which is similar to the federal civil rights law.
But the serial suits prompted the state’s top prosecutorial agency to take a different tack.
“Plaintiff Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities LLC is flooding this court with lawsuits, apparently as part of a concerted effort to improperly use the judicial system for its own enrichment,” the motion said.
The Attorney General's Office said it takes no position on whether Strojnik has cited evidence of actual violations in the suits he filed.
John Moore, president and CEO of Marc Community Resources, a social service agency that helps people with many types of disabilities, said that he strongly supports the ADA and that there is no excuse for someone who knows the law and violates it. But he opposes the heavy-handed tactics used in the serial lawsuits.
 “I think lawsuits should be the last resort. It does create a negative perception about a good law and individuals with disabilities,’’ Moore said.
 Moore said organizations such as Marc have been working for decades to break down negative public perceptions of people with disabilities.
 The “wrecking-ball approach’’ used in the serial lawsuits damages the interests of disabled people, he said, because “it adds fuel to the stigma fire.’’
But Strojnik said in an email that his client, the foundation, decided to enforce the ADA because of indifference by government agencies.

“It has been 26 years since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act but, unfortunately, neither the DOJ nor the Attorney General have shown sufficient—if any—interest to enforce the law,” he wrote. “Therefore, my client, a private charitable foundation, decided to enforce the law through private enforcement.''

Strojnik said he volunteers his time in representing the association, which allowed it to recently donate $85,000 to the disabled community.
Leavitt, the attorney, has talked to hundreds of business owners and represents many of them. He said many of the suits cite relatively small violations, such handicapped parking signs that are two inches shy of the ADA’s requirement of 60 inches, or six feet tall.
 Suits also have been filed in error against the owner of a dirt lot that is not used as a parking lot, and against 11 business in a strip mall. Because the businesses were members of a condominium association, they were not responsible for the parking lot.
 “I’ve talked to hundreds of people and not one of them has said they don’t want to comply’’ with the ADA, Leavitt said. “It’s not about complying, it’s about money.’’
 The suits seek out-of-court settlements with businesses owners. Form letters require payments as high as $7,500, and follow up with a slightly smaller offer in exchange for dismissal. The ADA, a civil rights law, does not allow plaintiffs to seek damages in suits alleging violations but it does allow them to seek attorney’s fees.
 When asked if he thought the suits were a shakedown effort against businesses owners, Leavitt declined to answer.
 “The plaintiffs are taking advantage of their lack of knowledge’’ of the ADA’s technical requirements, Leavitt said. “I can’t tell you how many of my clients have been sued if their sign is two inches too low. You read it and makes you want to throw up.’’
Sharon Olsen, a Mesa business owner, also chose her words carefully and several other business owners were reluctant to give their names for fear they would be targeted if they appeared in a newspaper.
“I think he’s unethical,’’ Olsen said, referring to Strojnik.
 Olsen was one of more than 118 businesses owners and other interested people who attended a briefing on serial lawsuits presented by Leavitt and other speakers Tuesday at the Phoenix Marriott Mesa in downtown Mesa.
Sally Harrison, president and CEO of the Mesa Chamber of Commerce, which sponsored the event, said an additional 130 people attended a July 12 forum. She said the forums have attracted business owners from Mesa, Apache Junction, Gilbert, Tempe, Phoenix and Scottsdale.
 Leavitt presented an overview of the lawsuit problem and explained the law in detail. He said he represents a group of 17 businesses that are fighting a suit. One potential defense is that the alleged ADA violations had been corrected, making legal action moot.
Sharon Olsen, owner of Y-Knot Party Shop in Mesa, was sued over not having a large enough parking space to accommodate a van for the handicapped. Van spaces must be 11 feet wide, while a typical handicapped parking space must be eight feet wide.
Leavitt’s presentation said that there must be one handicapped parking space for every 25 parking spaces available for the public at large. One out of every six handicapped spots must be the wider space for the vans.
Olsen said she operates mainly a telephone business, with customers picking up supplies. She said her parking lot has only 15 spaces and is never full.
 “If someone had come to me and said, ‘Sharon, you are not ADA compliant,’ I would have done it immediately,’’ she said.
 Noting that she has two artificial knees and a handicapped parking pass herself, Olsen said she is a big supporter of the ADA and would never intentionally violate the law.
 “If it was the ADA, I would bend over backwards to help them,’’ Olsen said.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 14, 2016)

Judge allows state to intervene in ADA ca
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_758be41c-7938-11e6-abf1-abcc3e35ef91.html
By Jim Walsh, Tribune Staff Writer
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge approved a bid by the Attorney General’s Office to intervene in a case filed by a foundation in an attempt to enforce the Americans With Disabilities Act through civil litigation.
Judge David Talamante’s ruling makes it possible for the court to rule on whether 1,222 cases filed against mostly Mesa businesses by the Advocates for American Disabled Individuals eventually should be dismissed.
The Attorney’s General’s Office has argued in prior filings that the controversial cases are without merit on a variety of legal grounds, including that they fail to allege that any violations prevented a disabled person from gaining access to a building.
The law requires parking spaces marked and dedicated for use by the disabled, and other accommodations, such as wheelchair ramps, to make it possible for a disabled person to enter a business or a municipal building open to the public.
But an attorney for the foundation accuses the Attorney General’s Office of creating the problem through its failure to prosecute businesses for violating the landmark civil rights law. The lax enforcement resulted in a complacent attitude among businesses toward the ADA as the result of decades of indifference, he argues.
“In an exercise of discretion, the Court finds that the State has an interest in the issues and the subjects raised in the consolidated cases which may be impaired if the intervention is not allowed,” Talamante ruled in a minute entry on Thursday.
Talamante is yet to rule, however, on a second motion by the Attorney General’s Office to consolidate the more than 1,200 cases.
The Attorney General’s Office took the unusual step of taking action in support of businesses accused of violating the ADA after the foundation filed a blizzard of suits against Valley businesses. The suits initially targeted Scottsdale businesses but later primarily targeted Mesa businesses.
The businesses owners and the Mesa Chamber of Commerce have accused the foundation of using predatory tactics by filing the suits to make money through out-of-court settlements, rather than protecting the disabled.
They said the business owners have no objection to the ADA and would have gladly complied with the requirements if they have received an opportunity to so.
Attorney John D. Wilenchik, who is representing the foundation, wrote in motions that the lack of state enforcement of the ADA motivated the foundation to enforce the law through civil suits.
“The Attorney General’s Office has shown little or no regard for enforcing ADA compliance for decades. Further, businesses have taken a ‘wait and see if anybody sues’ approach to ADA compliance, which wrongfully places the burden on the disable community to ensure compliance with the law, and to bring grievances to the court.”
“Because of these attitudes toward ADA enforcement—and the Attorney General’s failure to enforce it—nearly every single business in the entire State of Arizona is currently non-compliant with ADA regulations in some respect, and have been for between six and 26 years,” Wilenchik wrote.
Peter Strojnik, the attorney who filed the suits against business owners, has said previously that he worked without payment to help his clients enforce the ADA. Strojnik said his organization mailed out 42,000 letters to businesses informing them that they were in violation of the ADA.


----------

