Slashdot Mirror
Prenda's Old Copyright Trolls Are Suing People Again
New submitter Hokan writes: Paul Hansmeier and John Steele, formerly of Prenda, are suing again. Each have started nonprofits, in Minnesota and Illinois, claiming to defend disabled people, and they are suing small businesses for ADA violations. You may recall that a District Court judge issued sanctions against Prenda for their attempts to file copyright suits against a broad swath of internet users. Their new practices take a similar tack: sue a small business and generously offer to collect a settlement somewhat lower than the amount it would cost to to make changes to their establishment. A new group is fighting back by creating "an access audit for local businesses, allowing them to develop a plan to fix ADA issues and potentially to ward off litigation."
Unfortunately, what they're doing is (well, at least technically) legal, so disbarment is not much of an option. :(
Now a hit man or two on the other hand...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"Technically legal" is too low a standard. An attorney can lose his license for any number of violations of ethics, not just of the law.
In most cases making the changes costs MUCH less than a lawyer. Last I heard that average cost for bringing places up to compliance was less than a thousand bucks.
In some cases where they did modifications that contractors told them were in compliance (but weren't) the business can make THEM pay/do the necessary upgrades.
A local hospital had that issue, they were told their new parking lot was in compliance, but it wasn't. The company that did the lot had to fix it for them.
I bet some of these business owners think it costs more than it actually does to fix compliance issues because they don't have good information. Advocacy groups for disabled folks have been doing accessibility Audits...for FREE, for years.
The problem is often the requirements are difficult or near impossible to Implement, hunse why these guys use this to make money. It is a law designed to force people to fail, because it is too overreaching. There is a wide area of disabilities that the ADA covers. So chances are you may be missing some, or implemented incorrectly. That Ramp may be too much of a slope... However if you go any further it could disrupt traffic, or be a tripping hazard. Paying the fine, is sometimes cheaper and less handle then trying to change it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I would imagine that most lawyers that file legitimate ADA lawsuits aren't disabled. They file them on behalf of someone who is. From the article:
Hansmeier registered the Disability Support Alliance in Minnesota in July 2014 and listed himself as the nonprofit's agent. Its members, all of whom live with a disability, include Wong, of Minneapolis, and three Marshall residents.
He's finding disabled people who get paid to complain, creating the "legitimacy" of the ADA complaint. According to the article, Minnesota in their infinite wisdom made it possible for a plaintiff to file criminal misdemeanor charges against someone for ADA violations with penalties up to 90 days in jail and up to a $1000 fine.
The goal should always be about accessibility to all, not making money through settlements because of inconvenience. Only the most egregious cases of non-compliance should result in any criminal charges, and even then it shouldn't be done on the behalf of the filing plaintiff.
Last I heard that average cost for bringing places up to compliance was less than a thousand bucks.
I work in the construction industry renovating large commercial and public buildings. The cost of required ADA work can easily double the cost of a $10 million project. Elevators and reconfiguring entire buildings so that bathroom stalls are 5 feet wide isn't cheap. Let alone grading land so that there's nowhere with excessive cross slope. Luckily most of our projects are able to cap ADA costs at 20% of the project cost per law, so it's not more than $2 million in most cases. However, that means all future projects at that same place will also have to increase their budget by 20% for ADA work until the site is fully compliant.
It would have been cheaper for us as a country to buy a van and 24x7 attendant for every single disabled person in the country than it is to comply with ADA in construction.
The technical word for this is Barratry and is a debarring offense.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.