[Nfbwv-talk] Fwd: [NFB-Legislative-Directors] Question about HR620

Fri Mar 3 15:14:56 UTC 2017

Enough is enough… Call your representatives and tell them to vote  against the ADA education and reform act.  Time is up for covered entities to be in compliance with the ADA!!  

See message from Parnell Diggs  below.  

 Sheri 

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Diggs, Parnell via NFB-Legislative-Directors" <nfb-legislative-directors at nfbnet.org>
> Date: March 2, 2017 at 9:30:01 PM EST
> To: NFB Legislative Directors List <nfb-legislative-directors at nfbnet.org>
> Cc: "Diggs, Parnell" <PDiggs at nfb.org>
> Subject: Re: [NFB-Legislative-Directors] Question about HR620
> Reply-To: NFB Legislative Directors List <nfb-legislative-directors at nfbnet.org>
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> The so-called "ADA Education and Reform Act" is a terrible bill that gives covered entities and indefinite amount of time to comply with a law that is nearly 30 years old. How much longer are we going to have to wait for access? I do not think it is fair to expect us to suffer the indignity of not being able to access programs or services online, for example, and then give the cupboard entity even more time to comply with existing law when the effective dates came and went approximately a quarter of a century ago. In other words, when the ADA was enacted, covered entities were given several years to come into compliance with the law, and there is no need to extend that time now. And don't even get me started on signage not being in the right spot. Have you ever tried to find a braille restroom sign of the airport or in some other public building? We are opposed to this legislation, and I would urge fellow Federationists to tell your representatives in Congress as much. 
> 
> Parnell Diggs, Esq.
> Director
> Government Affairs
> National Federation of the Blind
> 
> Live the life you want!
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Mar 2, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Stewart, Christopher K via NFB-Legislative-Directors <nfb-legislative-directors at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > I am not the policy guy for the NFB, just a lawyer and federationist
> > who quickly read this bill and thought I'd offer my analysis. I make
> > no recommendations, but will leave those decisions to the folks who
> > make them.
> > 
> > First, this bill only applies to Title III of the ADA, dealing with
> > public accommodations and commercial facilities. I think that's
> > important because 60-day notice and cure periods would have much
> > different implications in, say, the public education context.
> > 
> > Section 2 of this bill looks like an attempt to deal with what have
> > been termed by some as "drive-by" ADA lawsuits. The worst example of
> > these would be where a law firm specializes in finding businesses with
> > minor ADA violations, an example might be a parking sign that is
> > placed a few inches too high, and uses one or two plaintiffs who are
> > disabled but may have never even lived in the city where the business
> > is located to force the business to remedy the violation. I'm using
> > this example only to demonstrate what this bill's supporters will view
> > as the problem it will remedy.
> > 
> > So, the next step is the business owner obliges and corrects the
> > violation. But when they do, the law firm then collects attorneys'
> > fees from the business.
> > 
> > This bill would require anyone attempting to remedy one of these
> > violations to give written notice via a letter to the offending
> > business outlining the specific violation. The letter would also have
> > to explain under what conditions the disabled plaintiff had discovered
> > the violations. That is intended to prevent law firms from using
> > plaintiffs with no connection to the business simply because the
> > plaintiffs are disabled and might, theoretically, someday attempt to
> > access the facility.
> > 
> > But wait there's more! Section 2 of the bill would promote education
> > about compliance with the ADA by introducing a program designed to
> > teach business owners as well as state and local governments about
> > their responsibilities under the Act. It's pretty vague about the
> > specifications of such a program, except for saying that it should
> > include both property owners and "members of the disability rights
> > community," whatever that means. Moreover, it is an unfunded mandate,
> > where the bill specifies that these programs will be developed using
> > "existing funding."
> > 
> > Finally, and what may be most concerning to disability advocates is
> > the mandate at the bottom that the Judicial Conference implement
> > alternative dispute resolution procedures for public accommodations
> > lawsuits. The goal of this is purportedly to "decrease costly
> > litigation." But disability advocates will likely argue that a threat
> > of costly litigation is frequently one of the best motivators to get
> > defendants to act quickly. Not to get too legalistic, but the bill
> > also mentions putting a stop to the discovery process during
> > mediation. This presents an obvious concern that the plaintiffs might
> > be entering into negotiations lacking crucial information relating to
> > the claim.
> > 
> > I hope this explanation was at all useful.
> > 
> > Best,
> > Chris
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 3/2/17, Andrew Harmon via NFB-Legislative-Directors
> > <nfb-legislative-directors at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> >> Hello all
> >> I came across this while futiley trying to research a state bill in
> >> NH; I wanted to know if this is a bill worthy of action either in
> >> support of or against:
> >> 
> >> HR 620
> >> The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017
> >> 
> >> https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/620?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR620%22%5D%7D&r=1
> >> 
> >> I am having some trouble understanding precisely what they're
> >> attempting to answer in this piece of legislation, but it seems to be
> >> amending the period of time in which someone has to leverage a civil
> >> suit in regards to discrimination. Any thoughts would be very welcome.
> >> 
> >> Sincerely
> >> 
> >> Andrew Harmon
> >> 
> >> --
> >> --
> >> Andrew Harmon
> >> First Vice President
> >> National Federation of the Blind (NFB) of NH
> >> 5 Central Square, Apt. 609 Keene, NH 03431
> >> Home phone: 603-903-1204
> >> Cell phone: 603-992-4053
> >> EMail: andrewjharmon at gmail.com
> >> "The National Federation of the Blind knows that blindness is not the
> >> characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise the
> >> expectations of blind people, because low expectations create
> >> obstacles between blind people and our dreams. You can have the life
> >> you want; blindness is not what holds you back."
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NFB-Legislative-Directors mailing list
> >> NFB-Legislative-Directors at nfbnet.org
> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org
> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >> NFB-Legislative-Directors:
> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org/chris.stewart%40uky.edu
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Chris K. Stewart, J.D.
> > Ph:
> > (502)457-1757
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > NFB-Legislative-Directors mailing list
> > NFB-Legislative-Directors at nfbnet.org
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NFB-Legislative-Directors:
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org/pdiggs%40nfb.org
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> NFB-Legislative-Directors mailing list
> NFB-Legislative-Directors at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NFB-Legislative-Directors:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org/slk8332015%40gmail.com