“Vexatious Litigants” and the ADA
Just musing over a couple of articles about Jarek Molski. Jarek Molski is a paraplegic who has become rather famous, or infamous, as the case may be for filing law suits against businesses for violations of the ADA. To date, I think he has filed more than 400 lawsuits against businesses all over California charging noncompliance of Title III of the ADA as well as state laws preventing disability discrimination.
Today the U.S. District Court judge for the Central District of California dismissed his suit for lack of standing. Granted, this man has gone out of his way to…according to many, basically extort businesses, threatening them with civil suits and there are credibility problems with his allegations but as said stated in the Disability Law Blog: “…he wouldn’t be able to do what he does if so many businesses weren’t still violating the ADA 15 years after it came on the books.”
It is disturbing that people like Molski are using the ADA for such purposes but what is even more disturbing is that 15 years later businesses are not accessible. There is a change of focus from what is a very real access issue to the issue of the “badness” of people like Jared Molski. That is what I think is of the greatest concern to the disability community.
Courts start to view ADA public accommodations litigation not as a plea for access but as a means to extort a cash settlement. (Which seems to be what happened in this case according to some of the statements made by the judge.)
Lets get real – It takes money to hire a skilled lawyer and those money damages are the only way for anyone bringing an ADA case to really get the representation necessary. It is not those poor little businesses versus the big, bad disabled person who is purposefully gunning for them using the ADA as an excuse. Those “poor little businesses” have had 15 years to bring themselves up to code. In the real world the better lawyer usually wins and without the promise of monetary damages you can bet that it is going to be the corporate entity that has the better lawyer.
The case is Molski v. Kahn Winery, 2005 WL 3436792 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 15, 2005)
Boston Article on Molski
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/15/judges_ruling_stifles_prolific_plaintiff?mode=PF
Disability Law Blog on Molski
http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/
Molski has done more harm than good for disabled people, and his motives are selfish. He sues and settles out of court because the businesses would rather pay a small amount to an individual than a large amount in fines and repairs. Molski takes the money himself and doesn’t care that the business continues to violate ADA standards afterward. It’s extortion, not a civil rights crusade. Sure the businesses are partly to blame, but if Molski had a conscience he would not settle out of court but rather would force the business to comply with the ADA, creating a huge incentive for other businesses to do the same and making the law and penalties work as intended. Molski is a vampire in a wheelchair.