[Vabs] Discussion: ADA Notification Act of 2009 Introduced

[Corbb O'Connor]

Hiya Virginia Students!

I'm in my new apartment, and finally have Internet again! At the May  
board meeting, those of us who were there talked about starting a  
monthly discussion topic on the VABS list so that we can have some  
more regular traffic. So, here's our first topic...with many more to  
come and maybe even more than one per month if there is interest.

A good friend in the disability advocacy community forwarded this to  
me today. You may remember buzz about the ADA Amendments Act last  
summer, which primarily impacted language that the Supreme Court had  
struck down about the definition of disability. Now, Representative  
Hunter has introduced another amendment to the ADA. What are your  
thoughts? Do you think, and if so how, this will impact blind folks? I  
see this complicating suing somebody over Braille, guide dogs, or job  
discrimination to name a few. Why might this legislation be a good  
thing? Do you think the NFB should involve itself?

Happy to hear your thoughts, though!
Corbb


ADA Notification Act of 2009 (H.R. 2397)

Core Provisions: The bill would amend the enforcement section of Title  
III
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, by adding a procedure  
that
allows covered entities the opportunity to correct an alleged violation
prior to the initiation of a plaintiff's lawsuit under the ADA or a  
related
state  statute. Title III covers places of public accommodation;  
commercial
facilities;  and private entities that offer certain examinations and
courses related educational and occupational certification.

Under the proposed legislation, before filing a complaint in federal or
state court alleging a violation of the ADA or a state law that  
conditions
a violation of its provisions based on a violation of the ADA, a  
plaintiff
would be required to provide the covered entity with written notice of  
the
alleged violation and an opportunity to remedy the alleged violation.  
The
written notice  would need to (1) identify the facts that constitute the
alleged violation, including the location of the alleged violation and  
the
date on which the alleged  violation occurred; and (2) contain a  
statement
indicating that the plaintiff is barred from filing a complaint until  
the
end of a 90-day remedial period.


Covered entities would have 90 days to correct an alleged violation
following receipt of the written notice. If a plaintiff ultimately  
files a
complaint under the ADA or a related state statute, the complaint  
would be
required to state that as of the date of the filing, the defendant had  
not
corrected the alleged violation. The bill would permit a court to extend
the 90-day remedial period one time by a period not to exceed 30 days if
the defendant applies for an extension.

Status: On May 13, 2009, Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA),
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhunter.house.gov 
  ,
  introduced H.R. 2397. The bill was referred to the House Committee  
on the
Judiciary following its introduction.