5 ms·

Do you believe this person suffered $60k in damages by not being able to buy a coffee?

• erichocean 7y ago
  *By not being able to buy coffee from the vendor at this particular location, instead of the ADA-compliant location two blocks away…
• wlesieutre 7y ago
  It’s not necessarily about how much damages they suffered. Statutory damages also serve as a deterrent and a way of motivating plaintiffs to pursue ADA compliance suits. In CA’s cast it looks like statutory damages are up to 3x the damages, with a minimum of $4000. That minimum can apply multiple times, as in Hubbard v. Twin Oaks Health and Rehabilitation. >Plaintiff asserts that, because the minimum statutory amount is $4,000.00 per violation, and she encountered the architectural barriers a minimum of 15 times, she is entitled to damages in the amount of $60,000. Given that defendant does not present any viable evidence to the contrary, plaintiff will be awarded the statutory minimum of $4,000.00 per violation, totaling $60,000. https://www.leagle.com/decision/20041331408fsupp2d92311235 https://www.leagle.com/decision/20041331408fsupp2d92311235
  • Dylan16807 7y ago
    The question is whether they were being predatory. Visiting 15 times to put a multiplier on statutory damages, which were already 500x the actual damage, is predatory. $4000 is a nice kick in the pants but there should be a large delay before the same person can get a second instance of statutory payout, if ever.
• kube-system 7y ago
  If businesses only had to pay the actual provable amount of damages caused by non-compliance, few businesses would find it remotely worthwhile to comply. That's why the ADA allows for more.