Should the Process For Filing Lawsuits Under the Americans with Disabilities Act be Reformed? (H.R. 620)

What is H.R. 620?

(Updated April 14, 2019)

This bill would require the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) to establish a program to educate state and local governments on strategies for promoting access to public accommodations for persons with disabilities. It would also specify the circumstances under which civil lawsuits can be filed related to architectural barriers that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and require the development of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that can be used to resolve such claims.

Civil actions based on the failure to remove an architectural barrier to access into an existing public accommodation would be prohibited unless:

• The aggrieved person has provided the owners or operators with a written notice specific enough to identify the barrier. The notice must specify: 1) the property address; 2) the specific ADA sections violated; 3) whether a request for assistance in removing the barrier was made; and 4) whether the barrier was permanent or temporary.

• The owners or operators fail to provide the person with a written description outlining improvements that will be made to improve the barrier or they fail to remove the barrier or make substantial progress after providing the description.

The Judicial Conference of the U.S. would be required to develop a model program to promote alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve such claims. The model program would be directed to include an expedited method for determining relevant facts related to such barriers and steps to resolve accessibility issues before litigation.

Argument in favor

This bill would improve the process for filing lawsuits under the ADA by deterring frivolous claims and giving businesses a timeframe in which to fix the alleged infraction.

Argument opposed

These reforms would serve as a pretense for businesses to delay or avoid making accommodations for persons with disabilities, undermining the spirit of the ADA.

Impact

Disabled persons; businesses; state and local governments; courts and attorneys; and the Judicial Conference of the U.S.

Cost of H.R. 620

The CBO estimates that enacting this bill would cost $18 million over the 2018-2022 period.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced this bill to curb frivolous lawsuits alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act:

“The ADA is a critical law that is designed to make American businesses and facilities more accessible to the disabled. However, the integrity of this important law is being threatened by those who wish to make a quick buck off the backs of others. The vast majority of small businesses in America strive to serve their customers to the best of their ability — relying on the ADA as another tool to help ensure that customers with disabilities can enjoy the services that they provide. Unfortunately, unscrupulous attorneys prey on small business owners and file unnecessary lawsuits that abuse the spirit and purpose of the ADA. H.R. 620 offers a common sense fix to the problem of drive-by lawsuits by giving businesses a timeframe in which to fix the alleged infraction. If the business doesn’t fix the issue, a plaintiff can move forward with their lawsuit. This legislation restores the purpose of the ADA: to provide access and accommodation to disabled Americans, not to fatten the wallets of attorneys.”

House Democrats expressed opposition to this bill in its committee report:

“H.R. 620 will have the effect of undermining the civil rights of people with disabilities because justice delayed is justice denied. The ADA was intended to integrate people with disabilities into the mainstream of American society, and to ensure that the law lives up to its purpose, people with disabilities must be able to obtain timely legal redress to erase barriers to access where voluntary compliance incentives have failed. Yet H.R. 620 erects unnecessary and arbitrary legal hurdles that will only benefit ADA violators and further isolate people with disabilities from the rest of society… These provisions, individually and taken together, will prevent meritorious claims from moving forward because they would be prerequisites to filing suit and would also serve as potential defenses to be litigated should such a suit ultimately be filed.”

This legislation passed the House Judiciary Committee on a 15-9 party-line vote and has the support of 108 bipartisan cosponsors, including 97 Republicans and 11 Democrats.

Media:

• Sponsoring Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) Press Release
  
• House Judiciary Committee Press Release
  
• American Civil Liberties Union (Opposed)
  
• National Disability Leadership Alliance (Opposed)