Ada Education and Reform Act of 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, since the start of the debate on this legislation, I have been laser-focused on getting the problems with ADA compliance actually fixed. The problems of drive-by lawsuits have hit my district, and abusive demand letters are a problem nationwide. One of the tragedies of the status quo is that, even after settlement of demand letters, the problems are often not even fixed.

Many of my colleagues have expressed concern, however, that the underlying text of this legislation would not provide sufficient incentive for legitimate civil rights attorneys to take to court businesses that offer no good faith effort to solve the problem with ADA compliance after they have been pointed out.

My amendment simply would allow courts to award punitive damages in the cases that a business has made no good faith effort to remove a barrier to access. If they cure the problem, the matter is resolved; if not, they should be subject to the full force of the law, including punitive damages.

Since its enactment, the Americans with Disabilities Act has allowed millions of Americans to gain access to public accommodations that many of us take for granted. The passage of the ADA was a major civil rights victory. Many more schools, hospitals, grocery stores, and movie theaters are now accessible. Thanks to the ADA, many of our fellow citizens are fully integrated into the fabric of society.

Despite these gains, however, more still remains to be done. As people with disabilities have continued to work to make our public accommodations more accessible, unfortunately, some individuals have found ways to use the current system for their own financial benefit.

The underlying bill aims to prevent unscrupulous individuals from taking advantage of the law and to establish a process leading to increased compliance. However, during many meetings with disability groups in my district over their concerns, some voiced fears that the underlying bill would discourage attorneys from taking ADA cases.

My amendment would work to create an incentive for lawyers to take ADA cases, knowing that, if a business does not comply, punitive damages may be sought. The goal is that individuals with disabilities have access to competent legal representation in order to bring meritorious cases against businesses that seek to purposely avoid compliance with the ADA.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to answer by saying that my goal in this amendment has nothing to do with the plaintiff's bar. It has to do with getting the problems fixed without going to court.

Unfortunately, I think without at least the threat of punitive damages, I think it is a legitimate question as to whether some fraction of the violations of the ADA will, in fact, not be fixed as part of the calculation of cost benefit. I think that is not the way we should solve this in this country.

It is a time in this country when a lot of our justice system--our courts--are coming under attack, and I actually have faith in the judges and courts in our country to make a reasonable judgment as to whether or not there was a good faith effort made to fix this fundamental law in our country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source