Ada Education and Reform Act of 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for yielding.

One thing I want to agree with Mr. Nadler on is his comments about the tragedy yesterday in Florida. I completely endorse those comments with respect to that tragic event.

I do rise today in support of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act. Today, as Members have heard, the ADA is being abused by a few bad actors who are serving their own personal interest, financial interest, not fighting for the disabled. They file lawsuits and immediately settle them for a few thousand dollars without actually requiring that anything be fixed. Nobody says this abuse is not happening. Nobody says this advances the cause of access.

A small restaurant owner in downtown San Diego tells a typical story. It was sued by an attorney who had filed 50 ADA suits against restaurants in San Diego County in 1 year. The barriers claimed in that suit didn't exist. The tables were at ADA compliant height, the bathroom was accessible, there was access between tables, but the property owner's attorney told him it could cost him upwards of $50,000 to prove it in court, so they settled with the plaintiff for $2,500.

The serial litigant got the quick payoff he wanted although there were no violations that had to be fixed, and if there were violations, it wouldn't have required that they be fixed. We hear stories all the time of lawsuits settled without any barriers being fixed.

Now, some State governments have acted to curb this abuse. And do you know who has led the fight against the abuse of disability laws? California Democrats.

In 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed S. 269, authored by a Democratic State senator and passed by a majority Democratic legislature. It gives businesses 120 days to correct violations claimed by a plaintiff. It is a bipartisan solution that educates businessowners on compliance, redirects payouts to settle claims away from lawyers and toward actually improving access, and it protects against these cookie-cutter lawsuits filed by serial plaintiffs.

Now, let me address some of the issues that have been raised today. We are trying to provide the same kind of correction at the Federal level.

First, this bill doesn't turn anyone into a second-class citizen by requiring notice and an opportunity to cure. The concept of notice and cure is not new to private rights of action. In fact, it is very common.

Under the Clean Water Act in which I practice, if a complainant has to notify violators of a violation, the violator has 60 days to fix the problem before he can file a private right of action.

And in civil rights laws, too, as has been said, notice and opportunity to cure is common. Before you can file a lawsuit for a hostile workplace environment, for instance, you have to file a claim and give the employer the chance to fix it.

And the same is true, quite ironically, for disability. If you want to file a notice on reasonable accommodation, you have to give the opportunity to fix it. Today, we are asking that businessowners be given the same chance to fix problems that we currently give employers.

Second, the bill does not hold harmless public accommodations. Under H.R. 620, public accommodations are still responsible for ensuring access under threat of litigation. If a property owner fails timely and adequately to respond to a notice, she is subject to the same remedies that exist today.

Third, a notice and cure period does not shift the burden of compliance from businesses to victims. Today, if a public accommodation is out of compliance with the ADA, a plaintiff--a real plaintiff who had a problem with it--would have to file a lawsuit to force compliance. Under H.R. 620, a plaintiff would be able to file a notice that starts the timeline to fix the problems that exist. That doesn't shift the burden.

And finally, H.R. 620 does not weaken the rights of the disabled. On the contrary, it facilitates the removal of barriers to ensure better access for the disabled within a short period of time, discouraging the quick payoffs that do nothing for access.

No one solution proposed by Congress is ever perfect. I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find amendments and changes to the law to make the timeline for fixes tighter and to tighten the definitions of compliance. In fact, many of the defects that are noticed by Mr. Nadler, I believe, will be addressed by amendments today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Specifically, we will have a provision for plain language notice, which I think is an improvement: 120-day clarification instead of 180 days, and a better definition of what substantial progress means.

I think we can continue to improve the bill, and I hope to work with my colleagues and the Senate to do that. But in the face of undisputed abuse of one of our Nation's civil rights laws for personal gain, I am certain that doing nothing is the worst response.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source