this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
7 points (88.9% liked)

Blind Main

487 readers
11 users here now

The main community at rblind.com, for discussion of all things blindness.

You can find the rules for this community, and all other communities we run, here: https://ourblind.com/comunity-guidelines/ Lemmy specifics: By participating on the rblind.com Lemmy server, you are able to participate on other communities not run, controlled, or hosted by us. When doing so, you are expected to abide by all of the rules of those communities, in edition to also following the rules linked above. Should the rules of another community conflict with our rules, so long as you are participating from the rblind.com website, our rules take priority. Should we receive complaints from other instances or communities that you are repeatedly, knowingly, and maliciously breaking there rules, we may take moderator action against you, even if your posts comply with all of the rblind.com rules linked above.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“ In October, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on a core recourse for protecting disabled people’s civil rights: The ability to sue private businesses for inaccessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act.” https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2023/07/disability-testers-keep-businesses-accessible-will-scotus-ban-them/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Superfreq@rblind.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Gross, mother jones. But the bias wasn't actually as bad as I thought it would be in this article.

Obviously the individual's right to sue a business for ADA violations should totally be upheld, it's already pathetic how little businesses are actually held to account for violations as it is, not to mention the incredible slowness of the whole process. but we do need some way to curb the large amount of false ADA violation suits that a few lawyers have decided to make their bread and butter. They send out shit tons of generically worded ADA letters as a fishing expedition, then berry the other party in legalese until they cave, hopefully settling out of court. That's not the only method, but it is the most common.

Sometimes the companies in question have genuine access issues, but much of the time it's pretty much random, and targeted at smaller businesses that can't easily afford to fix access without assistance anyway. It's basically just a more complex version of that fucked up IRS phone call scam.

It makes us look really bad, and makes a mockery out of the already highly underenforced legislation we do have. What this argument proposes to do is cut everyone off, even genuine complainants, so obviously fuck everyone involved with it. But it is an actual issue, even if the people bringing it up are clearly doing so in bad faith. And I really don't know enough about the lawyer mentioned to know if they are one of the drive-by ADA suit types, or if Deborah Laufer is just genuinely really dedicated and kicking some serious ass. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt for now though...