138
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
138 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4573 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
She is no better than a patent troll. Clogging up the legal system as a career. You shouldn't be able to bring an ADA suit unless you are actually inconvenienced by it. I see so many ADA issues in the world especially my neighborhood sidewalks. Can anyone bring random lawsuits or do I have to be in a wheelchair? The person in the article is not actually being inconvenienced why would I need to be.
And then no-one with a wheelchair will move into your neighborhood because it's so inaccessible and voila, you have successfully circumvented the ADA to keep those disabled people out of your neighborhood.
This is one way issues like systemic racism just stay entrenched.
She's not suing over physical stuff like accessibility tho...
She's suing random small independent hotels if their website isn't good enough.
Something they'd probably be willing to update if she just sent them an email instead of suing them.
I know this lady seems awful, but the concept of a "tester" extends to other issues where invalidating the concept basically allows the illegal behavior to exist unchecked.
Let's use the example of a bar that has a locally known, but unwritten, rule against allowing in black patrons. This isn't legal. But you can't really bring suit unless an unfamiliar black traveler tries to stumble into the bar, only to be told they're not allowed. Or someone who knows the unwritten rule exists can go to get denied, thereby providing actionable proof of discrimination for a lawsuit.
That's not what's happening here...
She doesn't go to these places, and she's not suing about actual accommodations.
She's suing every hotel who's website doesn't have a blurb about ADA. The big chains all have this, it's the small local hotels that haven't updated their websites since the 90s because most of their business is walk in.
Be careful with this reasoning. The Supreme Court decision will apply to all cases if testers, malicious or good faith. The specific case is relevant, obviously, but that's not all that should be considered.
Yeah, but I get the feeling that the current Supreme Court is going to rule against the tester due to legal standing. I can easily see that tester cases require actual injury.
Yeah, but jumping immediately to lawsuits isn't the best way to handle this.
The best way would be after a business is notified they have X amount of time to correct the issue. Then if they they don't, they're open to lawsuits.
The ADA gets enforced, and small business don't have to pay out an insane amount of lawyers fees because their website was missing a blurb
The only people "harmed" by that would be lawyers, especially the ones fraudulently billing hours in these cases. And any plaintiffs taking illegal kickbacks from their lawyers.
It seems pretty common sense to me, but what do I know? I'm just a disabled veteran who actually has to deal with this stuff.
I think this particular woman's actions are a waste of people's time and money, and are of dubious provenance to "solve" anything. That's not at all my point.
My point is that a ruling that eliminates "testers" for cases of discrimination, as she claims she is doing here, would have wide-ranging negative implications for civil rights laws throughout the country, not solely the ADA.
The best thing that could really happen here is that the SC moots the case because the websites have been updated - I tend to think that's the right outcome, since the "harm" was remedied.
But she's just going to keep suing others...
So why not madate that time to update their websites rather than clogging up the court system and changing them her lawyers fees?
Hell, even including a fine when they were notified would be better than the current situation. At least then the money would go to enforcing the ADA and not just her lawyers who she's either not vetting or ok with them breaking the law.
I don't think you're understanding how big the red flag is that her last lawyer got a six month suspension, and her current lawyer is fighting for their cases not to go to court.
It seems very likely she's getting kickbacks and found a new shady lawyer willing to keep it going.
The whole thing screams "abuse of the legal system".
Listen, I get that you don't like what this woman is doing. I really do. But the solution isn't to invalidate testers as a legal concept, that's what you're not getting. The solution is for Congress to amend the ADA to allow for some sort of curing mechanism on notice issues. Not for the Court to issue some overly broad ruling that invalidates the "tester" concept that's proven so crucial to proving racial and gender discrimination, which this plaintiff has built her case atop. Maybe there's a way for them to thread the needle to smack her down and keep that legal concept alive, but I'm not counting on it with this particular Court.
The nation, and you as a disabled vet who benefits from ADA protections, benefits more if she prevails or the case is mooted, than it and you would if the Court decides to undermine the legal concept of a tester. You have to think beyond your initial revulsion over her suing where you think an email would do, the ramifications are bigger than that.
In the meantime, sounds like you have an idea to needle your Senators and/or Congressman about updating the ADA. Seems like the rare bit of legislation where the business lobby might be onboard with helping the little guy instead of fighting it tooth and nail.
Maybe because I'm not saying that should happen?
I'm saying there needs to be a process (or at least a single step) between checking random websites and suing small businesses...
I don't know why people aren't getting that, but I get the feeling continuing to explain isn't going to help
I don't think anyone disagrees that there should be an intermediate step.
That's just a problem for Congress to solve, not the Court. The Court is not going to add that step in (nor does it appear the Defendants have asked for that). Congress could end this woman's trail of lawsuits ~~tomorrow~~ as soon as the House picks a new Speaker.
What the Defendants are arguing is that because she had no intention of staying at the hotel, there is no harm. If you buy into that, then by the same principle, someone who inquires about an apartment to prove that a landlord is racially discriminating can have no standing because they weren't actually looking to move at that time. I know you probably don't see those as the same, but that's the concept the Defendants are arguing against.