5 ms·

They're apparently asking for something on the order of $60,000 for not being able to go into a cafe and get a cup of coffee. That seems quite far beyond the da

They're apparently asking for something on the order of $60,000 for not being able to go into a cafe and get a cup of coffee. That seems quite far beyond the damages incurred. sounds predatory to me.

astura 7y ago
That is statutory damages, not compensatory damages. Statutory damages are written into the statue, not a payment for damages actually incurred. The ADA is mostly enforced by private plaintiffs, that's the way the law was written. Nationally the ADA doesn't allow for private plaintiffs to profit from ADA lawsuits, however, a few states (like California) have statutes that do. Of course, a big problem is the businesses don't have a mandatory warning with a grace period to become compliant, it's just now you have a lawsuit. This can create "professional plaintiffs." Then again, the ADA is a civil rights law, and other civil rights laws aren't like that, you don't get "one free racial discrimination," and I don't think that many people would want that.
- wang_li 7y ago
  I think the California statutory damages are $4,000. The article gives the impression it's a $60,000 settlement being offered: >The other option to opt for a settlement was not in the cards either, added Tran, who said she could not afford paying a massive $60,000 payout.
  - astura 7y ago
    Looks like $4,000 is the minimum and it's per offense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act >Combined with the California Disabled Persons Acts, disability access plaintiffs are allowed to tack on state claims for money damages onto requests for injunctive relief in ADA lawsuits. The act allows plaintiffs to claim treble damages with a minimum of $4000 per access violation plus attorneys fees.
- lokedhs 7y ago
  Why does the plaintiff receive the statutory damages? This is similar to a fine in that they are support to force the violator into complying, not to give a payout much larger than the financial loss of the victim. The obvious solution here is that the government takes a portion of this money to remove the gambling-like incentives.

They're apparently asking for something on the order of $60,000 for not being able to go into a cafe and get a cup of coffee. That seems quite far beyond the damages incurred. sounds predatory to me.

astura 7y ago

That is statutory damages, not compensatory damages. Statutory damages are written into the statue, not a payment for damages actually incurred. The ADA is mostly enforced by private plaintiffs, that's the way the law was written. Nationally the ADA doesn't allow for private plaintiffs to profit from ADA lawsuits, however, a few states (like California) have statutes that do. Of course, a big problem is the businesses don't have a mandatory warning with a grace period to become compliant, it's just now you have a lawsuit. This can create "professional plaintiffs." Then again, the ADA is a civil rights law, and other civil rights laws aren't like that, you don't get "one free racial discrimination," and I don't think that many people would want that.

wang_li 7y ago
I think the California statutory damages are $4,000. The article gives the impression it's a $60,000 settlement being offered: >The other option to opt for a settlement was not in the cards either, added Tran, who said she could not afford paying a massive $60,000 payout.
- astura 7y ago
  Looks like $4,000 is the minimum and it's per offense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act >Combined with the California Disabled Persons Acts, disability access plaintiffs are allowed to tack on state claims for money damages onto requests for injunctive relief in ADA lawsuits. The act allows plaintiffs to claim treble damages with a minimum of $4000 per access violation plus attorneys fees.
lokedhs 7y ago
Why does the plaintiff receive the statutory damages? This is similar to a fine in that they are support to force the violator into complying, not to give a payout much larger than the financial loss of the victim. The obvious solution here is that the government takes a portion of this money to remove the gambling-like incentives.