32 ms·

Yes, predatory. From the article: > The disabled man’s attorney, Tanya E. Moore, for years has been the subject of much scrutiny for suing thousands of small b

Yes, predatory. From the article: > The disabled man’s attorney, Tanya E. Moore, for years has been the subject of much scrutiny for suing thousands of small businesses across the South Bay, filing more than 1,400 ADA cases in recent years. The suits have forced mom and pop shops like Cafe Crema to close, as many owners can’t afford to bring their businesses up to code or settle. A little less than three years ago, a beloved San Jose staple, Time Deli, had to shut its doors for the same reason. > About two years ago, Moore was faced with a federal racketeering civil lawsuit for filing lawsuits based on “false allegations” of disability and injury, first reported by the Fresno Bee. I wonder how many businesses will be left when Moore is done.

Pfhreak 7y ago
I don't see anything predatory there? 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the subject of suits?
- BoorishBears 7y ago
  If you don't see the problem, that's intentional. How many ADA complainants end up facing federal racketeering charges?
- wpietri 7y ago
  The theory of the ADA is that rather than just enforce everything via bureaucracy, we'd give individuals the right of private action to push for the accommodations they need. Then we get a hopefully-good level of accommodation without a lot of the kind of waste that goes with central planning. But if somebody is going to use the legal system to make a lot of money by generating spurious complaints for every business in an area, then that's not the right mechanism. If every business should be immediately compliant, we should just make it part of the building code and/or part of the business licensing process.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    Are there federally enforced building codes?
- kbenson 7y ago
  No, lawsuits require standing. If nobody is actually harmed, there is nothing to sue over. Where this might factor into this ethically is that these building may not have been compliant with the law, but they might not have had problems because they were close enough to legal requirements that people with disabilities did not have actual problems using the facilities, or other situations that in practice made it a non issue. For example, ramps must be 36 inches wide. If it was not possible or feasible for the business to change a ramp that was 34 inches wide, that's unlikely to cause actual problems for someone, so they would have no reason to sue, but if someone is faking a disability to qualify for legal standing, whether they actual had problems is of little consequence, they are already committing fraud to qualify, what's a bit more to fake a situation where they were caused harm?
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut.
    - kbenson 7y ago
      >>> 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the subject of suits? > I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut. In this case? Maybe. You made a statement about all the cases they brought. I responded to that general statement, not this specific case. It's possible every suit they brought against a business was for a situation where people with disabilities really were harmed. If that's the situation, I'm not sure why someone with a real disability didn't bring the cases then. There are reasons why people are required to have standing to bring a case. I think it's pretty obvious what some of those reasons are.
      - erichocean 7y ago
        Not to mention, there's literally the exact same business two blocks away that IS ADA-compliant. This has nothing to do with not being able to buy coffee, and everything to do with hurting the business in the hopes of getting a large settlement.
latortuga 7y ago
How is this predatory? The law has been on the books for some time. This subthread seems to be taking issue with this lawyer's specialty - helping disabled folks get access where they are denied it unjustly. The real anger should be toward folks who don't want to follow the law. It is useful to have an expert on your team to get justice. If you are going to sue for ADA violations, would you rather have a corporate finance expert or an ADA compliance expert?
- asynchronous13 7y ago
  If compliance were the goal, then I would be inclined to agree with you. However, this lawyer is suing first without any notification first that the shop is non-compliant. That's what makes it come across as predatory.
  - soganess 7y ago
    Frome the article: > These “shakedown” lawsuits, added Morin, are often based on small, “technical violations” that can be easily fixed if a letter is sent to the business owner. But under California law, a disabled person cannot claim money if they send the business owner a letter with their complaint first. It looks like if a claimant sends a letter they would not be able to sue for damages. That seems like it might really limit any perspective plaintiff's options.
    - brewdad 7y ago
      That depends. Is the plaintiff's goal to encourage a business to comply or is it to get paid? If compliance was the goal, sending a letter would always be the first step.
      - ViViDboarder 7y ago
        And compliance does not appear to be the goal, or the outcome, in cases like these where the business folds.

Pfhreak 7y ago

I don't see anything predatory there? 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the subject of suits?

BoorishBears 7y ago
If you don't see the problem, that's intentional. How many ADA complainants end up facing federal racketeering charges?
wpietri 7y ago
The theory of the ADA is that rather than just enforce everything via bureaucracy, we'd give individuals the right of private action to push for the accommodations they need. Then we get a hopefully-good level of accommodation without a lot of the kind of waste that goes with central planning. But if somebody is going to use the legal system to make a lot of money by generating spurious complaints for every business in an area, then that's not the right mechanism. If every business should be immediately compliant, we should just make it part of the building code and/or part of the business licensing process.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Are there federally enforced building codes?
kbenson 7y ago
No, lawsuits require standing. If nobody is actually harmed, there is nothing to sue over. Where this might factor into this ethically is that these building may not have been compliant with the law, but they might not have had problems because they were close enough to legal requirements that people with disabilities did not have actual problems using the facilities, or other situations that in practice made it a non issue. For example, ramps must be 36 inches wide. If it was not possible or feasible for the business to change a ramp that was 34 inches wide, that's unlikely to cause actual problems for someone, so they would have no reason to sue, but if someone is faking a disability to qualify for legal standing, whether they actual had problems is of little consequence, they are already committing fraud to qualify, what's a bit more to fake a situation where they were caused harm?
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut.
  - kbenson 7y ago
    >>> 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the subject of suits? > I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut. In this case? Maybe. You made a statement about all the cases they brought. I responded to that general statement, not this specific case. It's possible every suit they brought against a business was for a situation where people with disabilities really were harmed. If that's the situation, I'm not sure why someone with a real disability didn't bring the cases then. There are reasons why people are required to have standing to bring a case. I think it's pretty obvious what some of those reasons are.
    - erichocean 7y ago
      Not to mention, there's literally the exact same business two blocks away that IS ADA-compliant. This has nothing to do with not being able to buy coffee, and everything to do with hurting the business in the hopes of getting a large settlement.

latortuga 7y ago

How is this predatory? The law has been on the books for some time. This subthread seems to be taking issue with this lawyer's specialty - helping disabled folks get access where they are denied it unjustly. The real anger should be toward folks who don't want to follow the law. It is useful to have an expert on your team to get justice. If you are going to sue for ADA violations, would you rather have a corporate finance expert or an ADA compliance expert?

asynchronous13 7y ago
If compliance were the goal, then I would be inclined to agree with you. However, this lawyer is suing first without any notification first that the shop is non-compliant. That's what makes it come across as predatory.
- soganess 7y ago
  Frome the article: > These “shakedown” lawsuits, added Morin, are often based on small, “technical violations” that can be easily fixed if a letter is sent to the business owner. But under California law, a disabled person cannot claim money if they send the business owner a letter with their complaint first. It looks like if a claimant sends a letter they would not be able to sue for damages. That seems like it might really limit any perspective plaintiff's options.
  - brewdad 7y ago
    That depends. Is the plaintiff's goal to encourage a business to comply or is it to get paid? If compliance was the goal, sending a letter would always be the first step.
    - ViViDboarder 7y ago
      And compliance does not appear to be the goal, or the outcome, in cases like these where the business folds.