Deaf in California? Don't Be a Serial ADA Litigant
What does this mean for deaf people? The quoted language implies that the penalties apply only in the case of physical barriers. Without seeing the actual legislation or regulations mandating the penalities, I do not know if that applies in the case of a deaf person suing for say, lack of interpreters or captions, or if it is limited for example to cases where someone in a wheelchair can not access a restaurant. In addition, there is no mention of deaf people anywhere in this article.
If it does entitle deaf people in California to sue and get damages, should they? After reading this article and seeing how people object to the "serial litigation" going on by disabled people in California, I say no. Why do I say no? I say no because of the need to consider the image of the entire deaf and hard of hearing community.
Instead, I suggest deaf Californians who want to sue small businesses for ADA non-compliance, go ahead and sue, but instead of demanding damages like the serial litigants mentioned in this article, simply sue for compliance. Don't demand damages unless the businesses sued refuse to comply. Give them a fair chance to comply first.
Comments
Well-written posting. If suing for equal treatment, don’t ask for monetary damages. Instead, ask that the small businesses be given an education in diversity, so that the minorities would not face discrimination in the future.
Well, if the plaintiff experienced physical and/or emotional injuries from receiving inadequate or no care at a hospital, then the plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages. Same if a plaintiff experiences severe loss.
One needs to use some common sense. If the plaintiff hasn’t been harmed, then a filing of complaint in BBB should be sufficient.
But there is a big BUT. Some business refuses to comply with the ADA and Section 504 at all, even with education and discussions. Then it’s time to get tough with them.
Good ideas on when to sue and when not too. Each situation will differ. I would like to comment on a statement on,”Deaf in CA.”, end of article it says, “Give them a fair chance to comply first.” The ADA law was established in 1990. I believe they have been given a fair chance, its time to do something about organizations feeling they dont have to be fair. Many times I hear excuses that there are not enough interpreters either and I want to tell you that is not the case anymore. The case is there are many certified interpreters but no one wants to pay for the specialized skill. Thats just an excuse that use to be true. I know many interpreters who cant survive being an interpreter because of the lack of work.