=?iso-8859-1?Q?system,=20so=20they=20want=20to=20make=20the=20ADA=20harder=20to=20enforce?= — Quartz

[Sami Osborne]

Hi Judy,

Yes, you are correct that political discussions in general are 
not allowed on this list.  However, I think this is really a 
serious matter for us as people with disabilities.  In the past 
there have been many political threads on here specfically geared 
towards people with disabilities, for example asking us to sign a 
petition for our Senators and Representatives to see that we are 
people as well.

As for your point about not all news sources being trusted.  I 
have no idea what your political views are, nor do I care.  
However, I would bear in mind that this post has been very 
eloquently written by the original poster.  If someone is writing 
something with a relatively strong case to support their 
argument, with many details, then they probably got their 
information from a reliable source.  If they have a rather weak 
argument, though, they you're right, we should probably question 
the sources of where they got their information.  So, I would 
look at how strong/weak the argument is before immediately 
concluding that the news source may not be trusted.

Thanks and have a nice day,

Sami

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Jones via NABS-L <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
To: "'National Association of Blind Students mailing list'" 
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org
Date sent: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:15:10 -0600
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Fwd: [acb-chat] Congressional Republicans 
think disabled Americans are gaming the system, so they want to 
make the ADA harder to enforce — Quartz

Wow, I don't know where thisis coming from, but keep inmind that 
not all news sources are to be trusted.  Also a question, are 
political posts allowed on this particular list?

Judy

-----Original Message-----
From: NABS-L [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of 
Kendra Schaber via NABS-L
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 1:58 PM
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
Cc: Kendra Schaber
Subject: [nabs-l] Fwd: [acb-chat] Congressional Republicans think 
disabled Americans are gaming the system, so they want to make 
the ADA harder to enforce — Quartz




Blessed be!!!
Kendra Schaber
National Federation of the Blind
"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear" Author 
Unknown

 Sent From My GMail EMail account On My IPhone SE.  Typed to you 
with my Keys To Go blue tooth Keyboard, the only keyboard I know 
to work with an IPhone SE.

Begin forwarded message:

 From: "Demaya, Diego via acb-chat" <acb-chat at acblists.org
 Date: June 7, 2017 at 12:05:25 PDT
 To: "General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a 
wide range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the 
day or whatever comes to mind are welcome.  This is a free form 
discussion list." <acb-chat at acblists.org>, "acbt at groups.io" 
<acbt at groups.io>, "hcb-l at yahoogroups.com" 
<hcb-l at yahoogroups.com>, Karen Spraggs <kayspray at sbcglobal.net>, 
"sciotoville at att.net" <sciotoville at att.net
 Cc: "Demaya, Diego" <Diego.Demaya at memorialhermann.org
 Subject: [acb-chat] Congressional Republicans think disabled 
Americans are gaming the system, so they want to make the ADA 
harder to enforce — Quartz
 Reply-To: "General discussion list for ACB members and friends 
where a wide range of topics from blindness to politics, issues 
of the day or whatever comes to mind are welcome.  This is a free 
form discussion list." <acb-chat at acblists.org

 Republicans think disabled Americans are gaming the system, so 
they want to make the ADA harder to enforce
 Jake Flanagin
 The Judiciary Committee of the United States House of 
Representatives is considering a major reform of theAmerican With 
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990—a federal law which prohibits 
discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the 
public sphere (at work, in schools, riding public transit, and in 
all spaces open to the general public, including privately-owned 
businesses).  For example, under the ADA, businesses open to the 
public, such as restaurants or pharmacies, need to be wheelchair 
accessible.

 The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (HR 620) seems like a 
rather innocuous bill at first glance—it compels the Department 
of Justice to formulate a program that educates state and local 
officials and business owners on “strategies for promoting 
access to public accommodations for persons with a disability.” 
A prime example of fatty, ostensibly meaningless Washington 
wonk-speak.  But it goes further—the bill, if passed, would 
prohibit civil suits arising out of a failure to provide adequate 
access to public accommodations for the disabled unless the 
plaintiff provides offending property owners with a written 
notice specifying the deficiency.  Owners would then have 60 days 
to respond with a written plan for improvement, and an additional 
120 days to correct the deficiency, or at least demonstrate 
sufficient progress towards a correction.

 As of now, if a disabled individual cannot access a business 
open to the public, they can immediately file a complaint with 
the Justice Department, which will investigate and determine 
whether a legitimate ADA violation has occurred.  If a violation 
is identified, most plaintiffs opt to mediate with the offending 
business under the Justice Department’s moderation.  If a 
business fails to cooperate, the Justice Department may sue on 
the disabled individual’s behalf.  These individuals may also 
file lawsuits against businesses in civil court without federal 
involvement, sidestepping the entire mediation process.

 “The cornerstone of current enforcement options is that the 
violation can often be resolved swiftly,” Robyn Powell, an 
attorney and disability law and policy consultant who disabled 
herself, writes for Rewire.  With the passage of HR 620, 
individuals with disabilities will be forced to wait 180 days, 
and likely longer, to seek vindication of their 
federally-protected civil rights.

 Sponsored by Texas representative Ted Poe, a Republican, along 
with two Republican and three Democratic colleagues all from 
Texas and California, HR 620 aims to “curb frivolous lawsuits 
filed by cash-hungry attorneys and plaintiffs that abuse the 
ADA,” according to a a Jan.  2017 press release.

 Poe contends that most small business owners in the US 
“believe that they are in compliance with the ADA and have even 
passed local and state inspections.” However, “certain 
attorneys and their pool of serial plaintiffs troll for minor, 
easily correctable ADA infractions so they can file a lawsuit and 
make some cash.” He points to an alleged “whole industry” 
comprised of “people who prey on small business owners and file 
unnecessary, abusive lawsuits.”

 And he’s not entirely wrong.  Indeed,  according to a report 
compiled by attorneys with the employment/labor law firm Seyfarth 
Shaw, ADA Title III lawsuits—the aforementioned suits filed in 
civil court sans Justice Department intervention—surged 37% in 
2016.  But only a fractional minority of these suits were filed 
by so-called serial plaintiffs, with only 12 having filed more 
than 100 ADA Title III suits respectively.  (A group including 
two broader disabled-rights advocacy organizations, among some 
notable ADA abusers.)

 While frivolous ADA Title III suits, also known as “drive-by 
lawsuits,” are certainly a problem worth addressing, 
disabled-rights advocates view HR 620 as a bill that addresses 
symptoms over root cause.

 “There is no active monitoring of ADA compliance,” writes 
Kim Sauder, a disability studies scholar, in a Dec.  2016 entry 
published to her blog, Crippled Scholar.  “Dealing with 
infractions of laws governing accessibility [in the US] is often 
primarily done through complaints.  So while the law may say what 
needs to be done, unless someone actually complains there is 
little incentive to actively comply.  There is no independent 
body doing regular inspections and meting out fines for 
non-compliance.”

 In effect, measures like HR 620, which stifle the complaints 
process, actively obstruct enforcement of the ADA as it is 
currently formulated.  “Enforcement depends on people with 
disabilities who know their rights to challenge violations,” 
Robyn Powell explains.  “Filing lawsuits is timely and 
expensive.  Finding an attorney that is knowledgeable about the 
ADA is very challenging.  I say this because I believe it is 
fairly safe to assume that there are far more ADA violations 
occurring than we will ever hear of.  As a disabled woman, I 
encounter violations daily.”

 Still, a few notable cases of ADA abuse (such as Florida’s 
prolific drive-by plaintiff, Howard Cohan), supplemented by 
high-profile exposés that only substantially consider one side 
of the issue, have instilled a widespread misconception: That ADA 
regulations are overwhelmingly weaponized against small-business 
owners to the enrichment of a few slick-haired lawyers and 
system-gaming plaintiffs.  It’s a bilateral shoving-match that 
excludes the individuals the ADA was specifically crafted to 
protect.

 Parking regulations are among the most frequently cited in 
arguments against the current system of ADA enforcement.  “What 
opponents don’t understand is that the width of parking spaces 
matter for people with disabilities who drive, such as myself,” 
Powell says.  “I drive a wheelchair-accesible van.  If someone 
parks too close, I am literally stuck because no one besides me 
can drive my van.  This has happened to me more times than I 
[can] count, leaving me stranded outside for hours, until the 
person returns to their car.”

 The solution disabled-rights advocates call for revamps ADA 
enforcement methods entirely, sidelining citizen complaints as 
the chief vehicle for compliance, and inspiring more 
evenly-spread regulation.  “It would be better if government 
took an active role in monitoring and enforcing accessibility 
legislation,” says Kim Sauder.  “It would likely create a 
more accessible environment.  It would also remove the need for 
mass lawsuits.  It would also remove the proprietor-as-victim 
narrative because the law would be enforced more uniformly.  
People would not be able to opine that they had been hit with an 
infraction when the guy down the street did not.”

 Of course, this is a long shot in the current political climate.  
The Trump administration, and our Republican-dominated 
legislature, have demonstrated an outsized affinity for the 
interests of small-business owners—at least on paper—and an 
active hostility towards federal regulation.  Neither is likely 
to recognize stricter federal regulation as a solution to any 
problem, not least enforcement of the ADA.

_______________________________________________
NABS-L mailing list
NABS-L at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
for NABS-L:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/sonshines59%4
0gmail.com


_______________________________________________
NABS-L mailing list
NABS-L at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
for NABS-L:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/sami.j.osborn
e97%40gmail.com