Response to ADA Suit

[jcb]

It's the opposite, actually. He's in Florida.

There are two counsel. One is in Florida, the other in L.A.

 

[jcb]

I wonder, CAN Disney ban them from the parks/DTD/stores during the lawsuit?

If so, WOULD Disney ban them?

A park ban would almost certainly be found to be retaliation in violation of the ADA.

 

[jcb]

Cool. Thanks for explaining.

What's your opinion in regards to this case (if it's okay to say)?

You are welcome. I am happy to try to explain things. I've learned a great deal from "listening" to the discussion in this tread.

As to my opinion of the case, I've pretty much explained that in the two blogs the DIS has posted: http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/07/13/disney-responds-to-disability-access-service-lawsuit/ and http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/04/04/new-lawsuit-attacks-disneys-new-disability-access-service/

I also think Disney's lawyers believe they have a good shot at a venue transfer or else they wouldn't have filed the motion. These aren't fly-by-night lawyers. They know the judge's tendencies a lot better than I do. So my guess is that the judge will seriously consider transferring some or all of the claims in the lawsuit to Florida. But it is too early to say for sure.

 

[aaarcher86]

I wonder, CAN Disney ban them from the parks/DTD/stores during the lawsuit?

If so, WOULD Disney ban them?

I feel like the plaintiffs continuing to visit would only strengthen Disney's case.

How can you say, 'I'm treated terribly and this system is working for us' but then continue to thrust yourself into that situation?

 

[Coonhound]

I feel like the plaintiffs continuing to visit would only strengthen Disney's case.

How can you say, 'I'm treated terribly and this system is working for us' but then continue to thrust yourself into that situation?

That's what I thought, you can't say "I hate this, it isn't working at all, my child can't function this way" but then be like "somehow we are making it work enough to keep coming back again and again.." Lol

 

[SueM in MN]

Here's a link to a news post about the change in venue.

http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/General...ey_transferred_from_California_to_Florida.htm

 

[North of Mouse]

Here's a link to a news post about the change in venue.

http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/General...ey_transferred_from_California_to_Florida.htm

Love the first (only) comment on this article. It is 'indeed' the lawyers that encourage outrageous lawsuits because of the $$$'s in their eyes. Totally disgusting and not fair to the ones that need to file 'legitimate' lawsuits.

 

[aaarcher86]

I'm on my phone, but could someone post the petition and response to add plaintiffs to keep this thread updated?

 

[jcb]

I'm on my phone, but could someone post the petition and response to add plaintiffs to keep this thread updated?

I don't have them with me on my computer at work but I'll try to remember to post links to the motion and responses this evening or this weekend.

 

[aaarcher86]

I don't have them with me on my computer at work but I'll try to remember to post links to the motion and responses this evening or this weekend.

Cool thanks. I couldn't find the thread quickly to do it when it happened.

 

[OurBigTrip]

A park ban would almost certainly be found to be retaliation in violation of the ADA.

The only thing I've found in the ADA regarding retaliation applies to employment, which would not be relevant in this case.

edited to add: I'm pretty sure that a business on private property can ban anyone for any reason, so long it isn't based on bias against a federally protected class. And people who file lawsuits are not a federally protected class.

 

[jcb]

The only thing I've found in the ADA regarding retaliation applies to employment, which would not be relevant in this case.

edited to add: I'm pretty sure that a business on private property can ban anyone for any reason, so long it isn't based on bias against a federally protected class. And people who file lawsuits are not a federally protected class.

42 U.S.C. 12203 provides: "No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter."

"Chapter" refers to Chapter 126 in Title 42, i.e., all of the ADA (as amended), not just Title I (the employment provisions). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap126.htm

By filing a lawsuit, the plaintiffs have "participated" in a "proceeding" under the ADA. Now we can debate whether a ban amounts to illegal discrimination. I'm not aware of a decision directly addressing this but I'd not recommend my (hypothetical) client try it.

 

[wilkeliza]

42 U.S.C. 12203 provides: "No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter." "Chapter" refers to Chapter 126 in Title 42, i.e., all of the ADA (as amended), not just Title I (the employment provisions). By filing a lawsuit, the plaintiffs have "participated" in a "proceeding" under the ADA. Now we can debate whether a ban amounts to illegal discrimination. I'm not aware of a decision directly addressing this but I'd not recommend my (hypothetical) client try it.

Although they may not be formally banned I believe continuing to go to a nonessential place that you are suing for not meeting your needs won't look great for your lawsuit.

 

[jcb]

Although they may not be formally banned I believe continuing to go to a nonessential place that you are suing for not meeting your needs won't look great for your lawsuit.

[deleted snarky comment]

 

[jcb]

Here are links:

proposed amended complaint

Disney opposition

Plaintiff's response to Disney opposition

 

[Goddesstree]

42 U.S.C. 12203 provides: "No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter."

"Chapter" refers to Chapter 126 in Title 42, i.e., all of the ADA (as amended), not just Title I (the employment provisions). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap126.htm

By filing a lawsuit, the plaintiffs have "participated" in a "proceeding" under the ADA. Now we can debate whether a ban amounts to illegal discrimination. I'm not aware of a decision directly addressing this but I'd not recommend my (hypothetical) client try it.

Disney is not a person, it is a corporation, correct?

 

[jcb]

Disney is not a person, it is a corporation, correct?

Well, some of us think that Disney was a person.

But the company is also a person under U.S. law:

1 U.S.C. 1 states:
the words ‘‘person’’ and ‘‘whoever’’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

 

[Goddesstree]

Thanks for the info - don't know why they have to combine entities when they are completely different, as I think a single person is much different than a huge corporation, and should have different standards. A person should have the right to discriminate against someone who has filed a lawsuit against him, while a corporation should not.

If you are filing a lawsuit against a doctor, should that doctor still have to treat you? I don't think so, and I'm on the edge of such a situation myself. It's wrong to make a person have to provide a service for someone who has sued.

 

[OurBigTrip]

It's wrong to make a person have to provide a service for someone who has sued.

I agree 100%, although I also agree that the plaintiffs are hurting themselves by continuing to go, especially when they post pictures and stories on social media, talking about how their trip with DAS was harder, but still successful.

 

[jcb]

Thanks for the info - don't know why they have to combine entities when they are completely different, as I think a single person is much different than a huge corporation, and should have different standards. A person should have the right to discriminate against someone who has filed a lawsuit against him, while a corporation should not.

If you are filing a lawsuit against a doctor, should that doctor still have to treat you? I don't think so, and I'm on the edge of such a situation myself. It's wrong to make a person have to provide a service for someone who has sued.

Most discrimination laws are limited. An individual isn't typically a "public accommodation" under Title III of the ADA unless the individual runs a business that sells to the public. Most federal discrimination laws apply to "employers" and typically require the employer to have 15 or more employees.

Retaliation provisions are a mixed bag. Some only apply to employers but some apply to "persons." There isn't a general catch-all retaliation provision. Unless you are the government, you usually can refuse to do business with someone who has sued you. The biggest exception to this would be a civil rights suit but even here some statutes limit who can be sued for retaliation as well as discrimination. This is also tied up into what constitutes "discrimination."

If I were to choose not to have anything to do with the plaintiffs because they filed the DAS lawsuit against Disney, I am still a "person" but I would argue my personal choice is not "discrimination" under the statute I quoted earlier.