U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–167 PDF 2016

EXAMINING LEGISLATION TO PROMOTE THE 

EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ADA’S 

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION PROVISIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION 

AND CIVIL JUSTICE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 19, 2016 

Serial No. 114–76 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL JUSTICE

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

JAMES J. PARK, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 19, 2016 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil 

Justice ................................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution 

and Civil Justice ................................................................................................... 3 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 5 

WITNESSES 

Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

Honorable Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress from the State of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

Lee Ky, Manager, Doughnuts To Go 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 21 

Mili Shah, Hotel Owner and Attorney 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 25 

Kelly Buckland, Executive Director, National Council on Independent Living 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 30 

David Weiss, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, DDR Corp. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 37 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution and Civil Justice ............................................................................ 7 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Supplemental material submitted by the Honorable Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .................................................. 64 

Supplemental material submitted by David Weiss, Executive Vice President 

& General Counsel, DDR Corp. .......................................................................... 66 

Letter from Elizabeth H. Taylor, Vice President, Government Relations and 

General Counsel, International Franchise Association ..................................... 72 

Letter from Amina Donna Kruck, VP Advocacy, Ability360 ................................ 73 

Letter from Bridgette Moore, Mayor, City of Wildomar, Wildomar, CA ............. 75 
(IV) 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

UNPRINTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary. This material is available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104943 

Material submitted by the Honorable Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California. This material is available at the Subcommittee and 

can also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104943 

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Tennessee, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. This material is available at the Subcommittee and 

can also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104943 
(1) 

EXAMINING LEGISLATION TO PROMOTE THE 

EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ADA’S 

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION PROVISIONS 

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

AND CIVIL JUSTICE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in room 2141, 

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks, 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Franks, DeSantis, Goodlatte, King, Jordan, Cohen, Conyers, and Deutch. 

Staff Present: (Majority) John Coleman, Counsel; Tricia White, 

Clerk; (Minority) James Park, Chief Counsel; Matthew Morgan, 

Professional Staff Member; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff 

Member. 

Mr. FRANKS. The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil 

Justice will come to order, and without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess of the Committee at any time. And welcome to you gentlemen. Sorry for being a little late. 

We have called this hearing today to examine H.R. 3765, the 

ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015, and H.R. 241, the ACCESS Act of 2015, which are two commonsense proposals that require plaintiffs to provide defendants with written notice and an 

opportunity to correct an alleged ADA violation voluntarily before 

they may file a lawsuit and force a business owner to incur legal 

costs. 

These bills, which only apply to cases involving public accommodations, would both improve public access for disabled individuals, and eliminate thousands of predatory lawsuits that damage 

the reputation of the ADA and its overall purpose. When the ADA 

was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, the 

goal was to provide the disabled with equal access to public facilities. 

And in large part, the ADA has worked. It has been hailed as 

the most sweeping nondiscrimination legislation since the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964. Unfortunately, enterprising plaintiffs and their 

lawyers have abused the law by filing a flurry of ADA lawsuits 

aimed at churning out billable hours and extracting money from 
2 

small businesses rather than improving access for the disabled, as 

the ADA intended. These predatory lawsuits are possible for two 

chief reasons. 

First, 100 percent compliance with the ADA is very difficult to 

achieve. Even though good faith efforts such as bringing or hiring 

an ADA compliance expert, a business can still find themselves 

subject to a lawsuit for almost any minor or unintentional infraction. 

According to one ADA compliance specialist, ‘‘I rarely, if ever, see 

circumstances or instances where there is not an access violation 

somewhere. I can find something wrong anywhere.’’ This makes 

compliance a challenge, even for those with the very best of intentions. 

Second, unlike title II of the Civil Rights Act, the ADA does not 

currently require any notice before a lawsuit can be filed. This has 

led to thousands of lawsuits being filed for issues of relatively 

minor noncompliance, such as a sign being the wrong color, or having the wrong wording. Abuse of the ADA has been noted by Federal judges in numerous cases throughout the country, who have 

referred to the proliferation of ADA lawsuits as a ‘‘cottage industry.’’ 

These judges have recognized that the explosion of private ADA 

litigation is primarily driven by the ADA attorney’s fee provision. 

One Federal court explained that, ‘‘The ability to profit from ADA 

litigation has led some law firms to send disabled individuals to as 

many businesses as possible in order to have them aggressively 

seek out all violations of the ADA.’’ 

Then, rather than notifying the businesses of the violations and 

attempting to remedy them, lawsuits are filed. As settlement prior 

to filing a lawsuit does not entitle plaintiff’s counsel to attorneys’ 

fees under the ADA, there is an incentive. 

As one Federal judge observed, the result is that the means for 

enforcing the ADA attorneys’ fees have become more important and 

desirable than the end, which is accessibility for disabled individuals. But the ADA was enacted to protect disabled individuals, not 

to support a litigation mill for entrepreneurial plaintiffs’ attorneys 

hunting for ADA violations just to file lawsuits. 

These bills examined today would help eliminate predatory ADA 

lawsuits; increase compliance with the ADA by giving businesses 

the opportunity to fix ADA violations instead of dragging them into 

litigation; and improve the reputation of the ADA in the eyes of the 

public; and ultimately improve access for disabled individuals. 

Lawsuits would be reserved for those instances in which offenders 

are truly unwilling to make appropriate changes. This would also 

allow legitimate claims to move through the legal system faster. 

Moreover, requiring notification before filing an ADA lawsuit will 

benefit our economy. Many small businesses have been forced to 

close because of accessibility lawsuits, and others have unnecessarily spent thousands of dollars litigating claims. Small businesses 

are critical to America’s economic recovery, and should not be burdened by unnecessary litigation. 

It is an honor to have Congressman Ted Poe, who introduced 

3765, and Congressman Ken Calvert, who introduced H.R. 241, 
3 

both here to testify about their respective bills. And I look forward 

to your testimony and the testimony of our other witnesses. 

And with that, I would recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee, Mr. Cohen from Tennessee for his opening statement. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, it is good to have 

you all here. This is not the first time there has been a hearing 

on this type of issue. Since 2000, there have been I think three 

times that bills have been filed and hearings on pre-notification 

concerning ADA. I have met previously with the folks from the 

shopping center world, the hotel world, and the disability community, and tried to get a more better grasp on the issue and come 

up with some type of a reasonable solution. It is difficult to do it. 

Folks do not really want to change from their kind of positions 

they have got. Some of them are based in 1990, and they will tell 

me that this is what we did in 1990, and it is kind of like, well, 

that is fine, I was not there in 1990. My job is not to ratify whatever happened in 1990. 

But when we look at these cases, private parties are indispensable to having enforcement of any civil rights law. And this is a 

civil rights law. So we got to have private attorney generals. And 

private attorney generals have been so effective in many areas in 

seeing that our laws are effectively enforced. Civil rights in particular, and the ADA. And because of that, there was the agreement in 1990 said that there would not be damages in these cases 

under the ADA, but they would pay attorneys’ fees, and so that 

gave a bit of compromise that was done. 

I understand that there are some folks that think that their attorneys out there are throwing wide nets, and they do not really 

have a specific target, and I think that is wrong. I definitely think 

that is wrong. But I have suggested to them that in coming up with 

some type of solution, and part of that is in the bill I think, is that 

you have to have specificity in your complaint, and you can tighten 

that up to see that they have not just a boilerplate complaint, but 

a specified, specific complaint, although I do not know why Rule 11 

has not worked against those type of complaints in the past. 

But so be it, maybe that would help. If you get into this situation 

to where you—obviously the title of this hearing is the Examining 

Legislation to Promote the Effective—I know it is effective—Enforcement of the ADA’s Public Accommodations Provisions. So we 

have to presume in there that we want to enforce the ADA’s public 

accommodations provisions, although most of what we have got 

here is not such for enforcement as kind of limiting enforcement 

and limiting the way we—so that is kind of a juxtaposition in my 

mind, or a contradiction in the title and what I see as the focus 

of the legislation. 

I have never seen a criminal penalty that would be created to 

anybody who asserts a civil right, and this would be a case that 

you could have a civil penalty—a criminal penalty, excuse me, if 

you do not give your notice provision first. And that seems really 

harsh, and I think some of the folks have agreed that was a little 

harsh and maybe further than it should go. And that would be 

anathema. 
4 

But there can be abuses. I think there might be abuses. And if 

there are abuses, I want to clean them up. And I did that with this 

Committee, and looking at trolls that are—I know they are not 

your pals, Mr. Poe, but there are—they may be, but I do not think 

so—in Marshall County, Texas deal, and they are just kind of— 

that is not necessarily great, we are all there. 

So I have suggested, if you want to amend this and have pre-suit 

notifications, that you ought to have stuff that also rewards the 

good guys that clean up the mess after the 120 days, and everybody says, ‘‘Oh, the good guys will come forth and get notice,’’ and 

that is what you want to get if you want the mirror or the signs 

or the rails or whatever taken care of. And if the good guys do it, 

make substantial clients, great. 

But if they do not, you got bad actors, or if they just kind of 

lollygag, or they do not do substantial whatever, then I think you 

got to have a stick. And if you are going to change this, you got 

to have a stick to see that the bad guys get punished somehow, and 

I am not quite sure how you do it, but there has got to be something to those people not just to give them this notice provision and 

time to, you know, kind of maybe be dilatory, but punish them for 

not being good guys. 

And one of my thoughts was to give some kind of damages, some 

liquidated damages, maybe some amount that is equal to or some 

multiple of what it requires to fix the area, or maybe there would 

be some other kind of damages we could come up with to punish 

the owners that are not the good guys. You have got to have consequences for those people, and otherwise they are just getting a 

benefit, and they are not being the folks that I know Mr. Poe and 

Mr. Calvert are interested in helping through this action. 

And the folks with the ADA community, I mean they want like 

I want the ADA enforced. And this is not about attorneys. This is 

about ADA provisions. But the attorneys do bring the cases, and 

with the notice provision, they do not have—and they are not getting attorneys’ fees. They bring a problem to the attention of the 

business community and they clean it up, and the other side gets 

nothing for it, there is—unlikely there is going to be a continued 

interest in those people, the attorneys, to follow through and help 

in giving the notice provisions, advising the clients, and trying to 

cure problems with the ADA. 

That is just the way the system works. People have got to have 

some skin in the game. And you are taking the skin of the game 

out. And so that is going to hurt, I think, the enforcement here unless we come up with something on the back end that maybe kind 

of makes it a little bit sweeter. 

I am a lawyer, and I have a disability. I helped pass the ADA 

state statute in Tennessee, and I am interested in seeing it is enforced appropriately and properly, but I am not interested in seeing 

businesses get these wide nets thrown and be subject to folks looking out more for attorneys’ fees than the disabilities community. I 

think that is a disservice both to the bar association, members of 

the bar, and to people with disabilities. 

So I hope we have a fruitful discussion. I know we will. I hope 

we can come up with a solution. I think there is some good ideas 

here, but I do not think the solution is here, and I do think we 
5 

need to look at some kind of a stick to make sure the bad guys get 

slapped so that the good guys can just deal with a notice. With 

that, I yield back the balance of my time; and that is just the way 

it is. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman, and I would now yield do 

the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers from 

Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Franks; and the top of the 

morning to you and our distinguished witnesses and the guests 

that have joined us this morning. The three bills that are subject 

of today’s hearings would institute a notice and cure requirement 

under title III of the Americans and Disabilities Act of 1990. Specifically, these measures would prohibit a lawsuit from being commenced unless the plaintiff first gave the business owner specific 

notice of an alleged violation, an opportunity to fix or make substantial progress toward remedying such violation. 

Let me begin by stating what I said previously when similar proposals were considered by our Committee in the year 2000, and 

again in the year 2012—I am adamantly opposed to any effort to 

weaken the ability of individuals to enforce their rights under title 

III’s public accommodations provisions. And here is why. 

First, the notice and cure requirement will generate numerous 

litigation traps for the unwary and ultimately dissuade many individuals from pursuing their legitimate claims. For example, two of 

these bills would require a complainant provides specific notice of 

the alleged violation before he or she may file suit. But they fail 

to define what constitutes specific notice, nor do they define what 

is substantial progress toward compliance. 

As a result, courts will have to struggle to determine what these 

inherently vague terms mean, thereby creating an open invitation 

for well-financed business interests to engage in endless litigation 

possibly that would drain the typically limited resources of a plaintiff. 

In addition, these measures would undermine a key enforcement 

mechanism of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other civil 

rights laws. The credible threat of a lawsuit is a powerful inducement to businesses to proactively take care to comply with the Act’s 

requirements. Yet a pre-suit notification requirement would create 

a disincentive to engage in voluntary compliance, as many businesses would simply wait until receiving a demand letter before 

complying with the law. And this requirement also would discourage attorneys from representing individuals with claims under title 

III because attorney fees may only be recovered if litigation ensues. 

Thus, an individual with a title III claim would not be entitled 

to recover such fees if the extent of the attorney’s representation 

was limited to drafting the demand letter. Presuit notification 

would make it even more difficult for disabled persons with valid 

title III claims to obtain legal representation to enforce compliance 

with the Act. 

Finally, title III, by its terms, is already designed to make compliance relatively easy for businesses. And so I am pleased to join 

the hearing, and I yield back any time remaining. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 
6 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. And without objection, 

other Members’ opening statements will be made part of the 

record. 

Before I introduce the witnesses, I would like to submit two 

statements for the record. The first is a letter from the National 

Association of Theater Owners in support of H.R. 3765. The second 

is a coalition letter, also in support of H.R. 3765. Without objection, 

these statements will be entered into the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Mr. FRANKS. So let me now introduce our witnesses. We have 

two very distinguished panels today, and I will begin by introducing the first panel of witnesses. 

Our first witness is Representative Ted Poe. Mr. Poe represents 

Texas second district, and is a Member of the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committee. And we are glad to see you, sir. 

And our second witness is Representative Ken Calvert. Mr. Calvert represents California’s 42nd Congressional district and is a 

Member of the House Appropriations Committee. And I am glad 

you are here. 

So I would now recognize our first witness, Congressman Ted 

Poe. And if you will turn that microphone on, I know you would— 

yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TED POE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me 

to be here. I thank the Ranking Member. And also I would like to 

thank Congressman Calvert for his work on this issue for a good 

number of years. 

As the Chairman has pointed out, or has pointed out in the past, 

I am a former judge, prosecutor, and lawyer. I have been in the 

legal profession for almost 40 years. And this is a situation where 

this particular hearing that we are having deals with, I think, 

abuse of a good law. I believe strongly in the ADA. And it needs 

to be always enforced. 

And the goal of the legislation is to make sure that when there 

is a violation anywhere across the fruited plain, that the violation 

gets fixed, so that there is accommodation for the citizen to get into 

that business. 

But the legislation hopes to prevent what is occurring, that there 

are lawsuits being filed, not to get accommodation for the citizen, 

but to get money so that people settle and that alleged violation 

may or may not ever be addressed. And what happens is that lawyers are making a lot of money of these—what I think are frivolous 

lawsuits, to the detriment of the person who is actually being prohibited from going into some businesses, because the goal is not 

being reached to allow accommodation. 

What is happening is lawyers are filing lawsuits, businesses settle rather than go to court, and the lawyer gets we do not know 

how much of that money. So in the last 10 years, these frivolous 

lawsuits have been filed under the public accommodations section 

of the ADA. Some of these lawsuits are in my opinion shakedowns 

for businesses, and they are using the ADA as a basis to obtain 

quick settlements rather than go to court. 

For example, some of these law firms—and they are specific law 

firms in different parts of the country that do this—they will file 

notice, or give a letter stating that there is not a proper pool lift 

in a particular motel or hotel. And many of these—some of these 

hotels do not even have a pool, or these motels. But the businesses 

settle rather than go to court because of the cost of litigation. And 

that is the motivation of these lawsuits. 

And we are talking about settlements of around $5,000 apiece. 

Often, the same individuals or organizations who are making many 
11 

of these claims go from business to business, and it is a business 

model that is been working especially in the last 2 years, where 

10,000 of these lawsuits have been filed. 

In Florida, a plaintiff named Howard Cohen—no relationship to 

the Ranking Member—has filed 529 of these lawsuits; in California, Martin Vogel has filed 124; in Pennsylvania, Christopher 

Mielo has filed 21 of these lawsuits; and in some cases, like Howard Cohen: he sued the Marquesa Hotel in Key West for an alleged 

violation of their pool, despite the fact he was never a registered 

guest at the hotel. Sounds somewhat suspicious. 

The ADA expert who actually wrote part of the ADA bill, Bill 

Norkunas, helped the hotel fight in this particular case. And he 

stated that Cohen was essentially operating ‘‘a continuing criminal 

enterprise that boils down to extortion.’’ That does not get people 

into these motels. It does not accommodate these individuals. It allows for, as he said, shakedowns for money to be collected by 

these—as I think they are—ADA trolls. 

And some of the letters and notices are so nebulous that the person receiving the notice does not even know what the violation was. 

We have a realty company in Houston manages many shopping 

malls, and in one particular shopping mall there is 40 parking 

places that are painted blue and ADA compliant, but they are still 

sued because the violation does not allege—or the letter does not 

allege what the specific violation is. 

So this bill will require basically three things. That they be put 

on notice so that they can fix the problem before there is a lawsuit—if that is the goal, to fix the problem, put the business on notice. If the business does not respond to this notice within 60 days, 

lawsuit commence. If the business then does not fix the problem 

with 120 days—and I think that can be worked on, how many 

days—file the lawsuit. That does not prohibit the citizen from filing 

and getting their day in court. 

But if we want to fix the problem, let’s fix the problem. It also 

allows for arbitration if the sides want to arbitrate. It is not required under the law. It is voluntary. And it also requires that the 

Justice Department come up with some very working with the industry and the people in the ADA community, different models on 

how they can educate all businesses throughout the country on 

what the ADA says, and how they can comply with the law as it 

is written. 

So that is why that this legislation is—it is to put them on notice, fix the problem, get it ADA compliant. It is not to really allow 

for these frivolous lawsuits to be—the money going to I think the 

attorneys rather than fixing the problem. And I will yield back my 

time, and that is the way it is. For the Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Poe follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. And I would now recognize our second witness, Representative Calvert. And, sir, if you 

would make sure that microphone is on. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members 

of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of Civil Justice. I thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 241, the ACCESS 

Act. As you know, the ADA has been mentioned as undoubtedly 

one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation that we 

passed in this country. We can all agree that providing all Americans with access to public accommodations is an invaluable legislative objective. The purpose of ADA is to ensure access to disabled— 

to the public accommodations, provide appropriate remedial action 

for those who have suffered harm as a result of noncompliance. 

Although there are times when litigation by harmed individuals 

is necessary, there is an increasing number of lawsuits brought 

under the ADA that are based upon a desire to achieve financial 

settlements rather than achieve the appropriate modifications for 

access. These lawsuits filed by serial litigants, often referred to as 

drive-by lawsuits, place exorbitant legal fees on small business. Oftentimes business owners are even unaware of the specific nature 

of the allegations brought against them. 

In early 2011, frivolous ADA lawsuits against small businesses 

reached an all-time high throughout California. As a result, my 

good friend and colleague, former Congressman Dan Lungren, 

championed the issue and introduced the original ACCESS Act in 

the 112th Congress. I was pleased to have been afforded the opportunity to take over the legislation for reintroduction beginning in 

the 113th Congress. 

In January 2015, I reintroduced the legislation H.R. 241, the ACCESS Act. H.R. 241 is a cost-free common-sense piece of legislation 

that would alleviate the financial burdens small businesses are facing while still fulfilling the purpose of ADA. Any person aggrieved 

by a violation of ADA would provide the owner or operator with a 

written notice of violation specific enough to allow such owner or 

operator to identify the barrier to their access. 

Within 60 days, the owner or operator would be required to provide the aggrieved person with a description outlining improvements that would be made to address the barrier. The owner or operator would have 120 days to make the improvement. The failure 

to meet any of these conditions would allow the lawsuit to go forward. 

Without question, we must ensure that individuals with disabilities are afforded the same access and opportunities as those without disabilities. As a former small business owner and restaurant 

owner, I personally have had to deal with these serial litigants. 

And I can say for certain that frivolous lawsuits do not accomplish 

any goal. Allowing small business owners to fix ADA violations 

within 120 days rather than waiting for lengthy legal battles to 

play out is a more thoughtful, timely, and reasonable approach. 
15 

While the ADA is a national law, as I mentioned earlier, California has become ground zero for ADA violation lawsuits. In fact, 

California is home to more Federal disability lawsuits than the 

next four States combined. A 2014 report determined that since 

2005, more than 10,000 Federal ADA lawsuits have been filed in 

five States with the highest disabled populations, 7,188 of which 

were filed in California. 

As of 2014, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 31 attorneys 

made up 56 percent of those Federal disability lawsuits in California. Those figures and the real-life toll it takes on small business owners are why I introduced the legislation to allow for a ‘‘fixit period.’’ 

However, it is clear that it is not just a major problem in California. The introduction of similar legislation by the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Poe, shows just that. His legislation authorizes a 

training education component for affected communies and Certified 

Access Specialists which I certainly would welcome and embrace as 

an amendment to my legislation. 

This is also a bipartisan issue supported by States. I was pleased 

to see the California SB 269, the text of which I would like to submit for the record as well as a related article, passed unanimously 

in the State Assembly and Senate, it was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on May 10, 2016, just a week ago. The legislation authored by my friend, a democrat, State Senator Richard 

Roth, is similar to the ACCESS Act in it allows businesses to take 

immediate steps to become accessible by providing them with 120 

days from receipt of a Certified Access Specialist report to resolve 

any identified violations without being subject to litigation costs or 

statutory penalties. 

I worry that with California acting to curb these lawsuits, some 

of these serial litigants will try their trade in other states. Maybe 

they will move next door to Arizona. Without question, the ACCESS Act would ensure that the ADA is used for its true purpose 

of guaranteed accessibility to public accommodations for all Americans while eliminating abusive, costly, and unnecessary lawsuits 

for small business owners. 

Once again, I appreciate your time today, and stand ready to assist in any way possible to ensure that this legislation moves forward. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:] 
16 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Ken Calvert, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California 
17 
18 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. In fact, I would like to 

thank both Representative Poe and Representative Calvert for 

their time and expertise. I am grateful for your testimony. And I 

would now like to invite the members of our second panel of witnesses to come forward. 

I want to welcome all of you. 

Our first witness on this panel is Lee Ky. Ms. Ky operates and 

manages a donut shop owned by her mother. Her family’s business 

has been the subject of abusive ADA lawsuits. 

Our second witness is Mili Shah. Ms. Shah is an attorney and 

a hotel owner in Atlanta, Georgia. 

Our third witness is Kelly Buckland. Mr. Buckland is the executive director of the National Council on Independent Living. And 

our fourth and final witness is David Weiss. Mr. Weiss is executive 

director, executive vice president, and general counsel of DDR 

Corp, a company that owns and manages retail properties. 

Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into 

the record in its entirety, and I would ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay 

within that time, there is a timing guide in front of you. The light 

switch from green to yellow indicates that you have 1 minute to 

conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it indicates that 

the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

Before I recognize the witness, it is a tradition of this Subcommittee that they be sworn, so if you would please stand to be 

sworn. For those of you that cannot stand, just—do you solemnly 

swear that the testimony that you are about to give will be the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. I would now recognize our first witness, Ms. Ky, and I would 

turn that microphone on if you—and pull it close to you. 

Ms. KY. Can you hear me? 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. KY. Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF LEE KY, MANAGER, DOUGHNUTS TO GO 

Ms. KY. Hi. My name is Lee Ky, and I live in Reedley, California. 

I am here to express my concern regarding the Americans with 

Disability Act, and how it is being used toward our businesses. I 

understand that our business must be accessible for all customers. 

I have been disabled all my life, and I am grateful for the President 

George Bush, who recognized the needs for accessibility for the disabled community when he signed ADA into the law in 1990. 

The public buildings should have accessible entrance and doors 

for both wheelchairs and stroller users. Public facilities that have 

an eating area and restroom should be accessible with tables wide 

enough and high enough for a wheelchair to fit. 

The eating area should not be designated just for the disabled 

people. An eating area should not have a sign that say ‘‘for wheelchair only.’’ Accessible buildings allow people with disability to become more independent and self-sufficient. As for me, I appreciate 

business that have accessible facility. 
19 

But personally, it does not matter if the grab bar is at 37 inches 

or at 32 inches on either side as long as it is providing and is there 

and when I need it. All business owners have to recognize the 

needs for all customers. 

For example, many businesses provide carpet or rubber mat at 

the entrance outside or inside to prevent able-bodied customers 

from slipping. Many business owners are not aware of the changes 

or new regulation related to ADA. Not all businesses are up to 

date—up to code with the ADA guidelines of the ADA regulations, 

because due to lack of information from our city, State, also Federal, not informing the public regarding the changes. 

My mother has two donut shops, and has been sued at both location for alleged ADA violations. It is not fair for business owners 

to receive a lawsuit package from law firm that is out of our city 

and county limits. Prior to filing a lawsuit, notification be sent to 

a business if their facility inaccessible. That mean inside of the 

building has obstacle or steps, or the entrance into the facility is 

too narrow. 

Now that business facility is not up code with the ADA, therefore 

the particular places or business should be corrected immediately 

with penalty. However, my mom’s donut shops in the city of 

Reedley was built in 2000, and do not have architectural barriers. 

I would know. I am there. All businesses should have 30 days to 

correct minor violations and 120 days for correct constructional 

barriers. 

In my experience, the carpet or the mats have never become entangled in my wheelchairs. If the ADA regulation remain the same 

and require business to remove all carpets or mats for the inconvenience of the disabled people, then the ADA will be creating a 

hazard for the able-bodied person. 

We, the disabled community, should not be able to feel segregated from the rest of society. This will create bitterness between 

the customer and the business. I do not need a sign to inform me 

that I am disabled and where I should sit. The ADA should concentrate on accessible curbs and ramps that do not wrap around 

the building and the back-door access only. 

Generally, when I enter through the back door, I feel like business are embarrassed or ashamed to associate with me because of 

my physical limitations. This is understandable to a point, because 

there are a few disabled individuals, including lawyers, that make 

it their personal mission in life to collect money from businesses 

that they have never been to. It seems this handful of lawyers 

think that they are only helping the disabled community—that 

they are helping disabled community. 

Moreover, they are separating the disabled community and the 

able community. The lawyers are causing the able-body community 

to dislike the Americans with Disability Act. This makes the rest 

of small business owners, who are trying to earn an honest living, 

look bad. 

Throughout my life, people are generally are very helpful. When 

I am out and about in the community, people offer their kindness 

to assist me. Whether I accept or decline is up to me. I also have 

a voice. If I need assistance, I can ask for help. I do not want business owners to cringe when they see me enter their establishment. 
20 

Personal experience: I was at downtown state capitol and had to 

use a restroom. I spotted a bar and a restaurant and I asked if I 

could use the restroom. Then they asked me if I am going to buy 

a drink. My aid responded, ‘‘No, she does not drink. But she need 

to go to the restroom.’’ No, they did not give me permission to use 

the restroom. 

Since the ADA lawyers are going to sue small business, they are 

posting sign on their windows: ‘‘No Public Restroom.’’ I would like 

to see the ADA regulation of Federal law to be fair and not be 

taken advantage of or misused by people that know the laws, such 

as lawyers and certified access specialist person. 

I believe our elected official and city inspectors should inform the 

public of all new laws and changes. If this is unnecessary, moneyhungry ADA lawsuits continue, many business will be forced to 

shut down and there will be many empty buildings in our community because they do not have the money to pay off the lawsuit. 

To me, this is wrongdoing and misusing the ADA. I noticed that 

Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 269, which eliminate minimum 

statutory damages for certain minor or technical violations of the 

ADA. In my opinion, lawsuit is still a lawsuit. Does not matter if 

the amount is reduced. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ky follows:] 
21 

Prepared Statement of Lee Ky, Manager, Doughnuts To Go 
22 
23 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank Ms. Ky. And I now recognize our second witness, Ms. Shah. Ms. Shah, is that microphone on? 

Ms. SHAH. Chairman Franks—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Shah, would you turn that microphone on? 

Ms. SHAH. It is on. Chairman Franks, Ranking Member—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Ms. Shah, you may have to bring that closer to you. 

I am not sure what—— 

Ms. SHAH. Can you hear me? 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, ma’am. 

TESTIMONY OF MILI SHAH, HOTEL OWNER AND ATTORNEY 

Ms. SHAH. Here we go. Chairman Franks, Ranking Member 

Cohen, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. It is an honor to appear 

before you to share my story. 

My name is Mili Shah, and I am a second-generation hotelier 

and attorney from Georgia. My parents migrated from India in the 

1980’s, and bought their first hotel in Milledgeville, Georgia. I 

spent the first 8 years of my life on the third floor of Days Inn, a 

place I called home. Thirty years later, my family owns several hotels that employ nearly 400 people. 

I, personally, own two hotels in Atlanta, Georgia, that amount to 

nearly 150 guest rooms and employ over 20 dedicated employees. 

I am also here representing the Asian American Hotel Owners Association. AAHOA members own over 40 percent of all hotels in the 

United States and employ over 600,000 American workers, accounting to $10 billion in payroll annually. 

Recently, small businesses have come under attack by unscrupulous attorneys and professional plaintiffs seeking to make a quick 

buck. To advance their corrupt goals, these bad actors manipulate 

one of the most important civil rights laws in our country, the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. I was recently sued for allegations 

and violations of the ADA at my hotel in Atlanta. I was surprised 

to think that a guest at my hotel was denied service. 

I contacted the general manager to learn that the plaintiff had 

never actually stayed at our hotel, nor was there any evidence that 

he or his attorney had visited the property. The claims in the complaint were extremely vague and general. Among several broad 

issues, he stated a failure to provide accessible entry into our hotel’s pool. 

My swimming pool at my hotel has been closed since the day I 

purchased it. It is empty and covered with a tarp. Was I being sued 

for failing to provide entry into a part of my hotel that has always 

been closed to the public? 

I researched the plaintiff and his attorney and found that they 

have sued nearly 100 businesses, and each suit is almost identical. 

In fact, the same plaintiff and the same attorney has sued my father with the same complaint at one of his hotels. It is clear that 

this plaintiff has no desire to stay at the properties, and that the 

attorneys are using him as a proxy. 

I now have two options. I can either fight the suit, subject my 

business, employees, families, to months of intrusion and litigation, 

and pay thousands of dollars in defense fees. Or, I can settle with 
24 

the plaintiff and pay his attorney thousands of dollars, in which 

the attorney will likely be the only one with the financial gain. 

We cannot afford to pay out settlement after settlement and defend against meritless suits aimed at preying on our fears. 

Hoteliers are targeted because so many of us are minorities. Settling would imply that I am guilty of violating a civil rights law. 

It would send a signal to my customers that my hotel is substandard and that I do not care for my guests. An adverse decision 

could impact my ability to attract new customers and to finance additional properties and grow my business. It is a no-win solution. 

We need to find a solution that discourages attorneys from abusing the ADA for dishonest purposes. H.R. 3765, the ADA Education 

and Reform Act, is a vehicle that balances the important protects 

conferred by the ADA with affording small business owners the opportunity to address any issues that may exist. The bill requires 

a detailed description of a potential problem, a requirement to provide notice, and a cure period in order for the owner to recognize 

and address the areas of concern. It will also provide a collaborative solution that promotes improved accessibility. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today. I appreciate your listening 

to how an unscrupulous attorney has targeted me and several others in an effort to extort money under the guise of promoting accessibility under the ADA. We are hoteliers. We are in the business 

of hospitality. The crux of our industry is to provide a welcoming, 

comfortable, and enjoyable environment for all of our guests. 

I ask you to consider my story when evaluating H.R. 3765. 

Please help protect small business owners like myself who simply 

want to run our business free from fear that the next envelope we 

open might be a lawsuit that closes the doors to our hotels. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shah follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Shah. And I would now recognize 

our third witness, Mr. Buckland. And Mr. Buckland, is that microphone close to you and on, sir? 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Can you move it a little? Can you hear me, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF KELLY BUCKLAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON INDEPENDENT LIVING 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Conyers 

and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Kelly Buckland. I 

am the Executive Director of the National Council on Independent 

Living. NCIL is the oldest cross-disability national grassroots organization run by and for people with disabilities. We go by ‘‘NCIL,’’ 

all right? 

NCIL membership includes people with disabilities, Center for 

Independent Living, statewide independent living councils, and 

other disability rights organizations. NCIL advances the independent living and the rights of people with disabilities, and we envision a world in which people with disabilities are valued equally 

and participate fully. Centers for Independent Living address discrimination and barriers that exist in society through direct advocacy. 

These barriers are sometimes architectural, but more often reflect attitudes and principles that have been reinforced for generations. They have deterred people with disabilities from working, 

leaving many in poverty and unjustly detained in institutions. 

As my own life experience has proven, with increased opportunities, individuals with disabilities can claim their civil rights and 

participate in their communities in the same way that people without disabilities do. I broke my neck in a diving accident on July 

26th, 1970. I have used a wheelchair ever since. 

Coincidentally, the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed 

into law on July 26th, 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, exactly 20 years to the day after I got my disability. Therefore, I had 

20 years of experience living with a disability prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act. And now I have 26 years of experience 

living with a disability post-ADA. Fortunately, the ADA has literally changed the face of the globe. 

Although I am honored to be here, I am here to testify in opposition to these so-called ADA notification bills. As Congressman Sensenbrenner, Conyers, and Nadler know, the original ADA and the 

2008 amendments which were passed and signed into law passed 

because people with disabilities, bipartisan lawmakers, and businesses worked together. 

The various efforts to make it harder to bring a title III lawsuit 

have never followed the same process and never enjoyed support 

from people with disabilities or the organizations that support 

them, or the organizations that represent them. 

People with disabilities do not want more lawsuits, we want 

more accessibility. Adding a notification requirement will not make 

the multiple lawsuit phenomenon go away. It simply sends the 

message to business owners that they do not have to worry about 

complying with the ADA until they get a letter. In most parts of 
29 

this country, it is very difficult to find a lawyer who is interested 

in bringing an ADA complaint against a place of public accommodation, because they cannot collect damages. 

When the ADA was enacted as a compromise between the disability and business community, the disability community gave up 

the ability to obtain damages under title III of the ADA by allowing 

injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. Unfortunately, there are still 

businesses, and companies who have yet to comply with this important civil rights law even after 26 years. 

The problem here that these bills are trying to address have little to do, if anything, with the ADA. Title III again does not provide for damages. Settlements or court orders only can involve attorneys’ fees. And in the States that some of the witnesses are 

from, those States’ statutes, like California which has been mentioned, allow the people to get damages. That is why California 

changed its law. Damages are not allowed in the ADA. 

There is no need to change the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

There is lots of information out there. There is lots of technical assistance people can get on how to comply with the law. There is 

even a phone line you can call and get information; and there is 

a website. There is lots of free technical assistance to businesses 

who actually want to comply with the law. 

The ADA does not require businesses to do anything that would 

be considered an undue burden, which means that it is not readily 

achievable and—or I mean that it is readily achievable and it can 

be accomplished without much difficulty or expense. And I just 

want to say some of the stuff that has been—I am going to not go 

through the rest of my written testimony. 

But some of the stuff that is been talked about around building 

stuff and people who need to come in compliance—the State that 

I hail from, Idaho, we changed the building code in the State so 

that when people do get a building permit, their building is going 

to be built according to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

And the Act really gives people ranges that they have to put stuff 

into. Like for instance, that Ms. Ky can fit under this table—I cannot. That is why the Act allows for ranges instead of exact numbers 

that have to be met. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I know my time is running out, but 

just in closing, I would like to recognize Yoshiko Dart, the wife of 

Mr. Justin Dart, who is known as the father of the ADA, in the 

building. With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Buckland follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 

Mr. FRANKS. And thank you, Mr. Buckland, and welcome. I 

would now recognize our fourth and final witness, Mr. Weiss. Sir, 

is that microphone on, and close? 

Mr. WEISS. Yes. Can you hear me? 

Mr. FRANKS. All right, yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID WEISS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

& GENERAL COUNSEL, DDR CORP. 

Mr. WEISS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Cohen, Mr. Conyers, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name 

is David Weiss. I am executive vice president and general counsel 

of DDR Corp. I have been in practice for almost 30 years, and general counsel since 2003. DDR is a New York Stock Exchange-traded 

real estate investment trust. We own over 350 properties around 

the country and Puerto Rico, and have over 113 million square feet. 

Our tenants are some of the most recognizable national, regional, 

and local retailers. I am here to testify today on behalf of the International Council of Shopping Centers, or ICSC, the global trade association for the shopping center industry. With over 70,000 members in over 100 countries, they represent a wide variety of owners, 

managers, and other professionals related to real estate. 

First and foremost, let me say that the ICSC vigorously supports 

both the letter and the intent of the ADA. We recognize and applaud the positive impact that the ADA has had on our society. We 

also support H.R. 3765, introduced by Congressman Poe and cosponsored by Congressman Peterson, as ways to strengthen accessibility, the primary goal of the ADA. 

Frankly, I think the legislation that we are talking about today 

is misunderstood. There is actually quite a bit of agreement related 

to the legislation. As Mr. Buckland noted, people with disabilities 

do not want more lawsuits. They want more accessibility. Frankly, 

we could not agree more. We all share the goal of more accessibility. We want full compliance. We want it faster, with less cost, 

and we want more resources, not less, devoted to improving accessibility. 

As an industry, our interests are aligned with the goals of the 

ADA. First of all, and foremost, it is the right thing to do. Many 

of us have experienced the challenges faced by family and friends 

who are disabled. 

Second, it is in our economic best interest to do so. There is a 

fundamental misunderstanding and misconception that businesses 

do not support or want to comply with the ADA. Let me be very 

clear: more people visiting our shopping centers and properties is 

a good thing. We work with our tenants inexhaustibly to find ways 

to encourage more, not less, people to come to our properties, and 

we spend millions of dollars each year to accomplish this. 

Let me be clear again on an area where I think there is also 

agreement, and that relates to the bad apples. For those persons 

who flaunt the ADA, they deserve the full weight of enforcement. 

If they choose to ignore compliance, and a lawsuit and the threat 

of attorneys’ fees as the only way to force compliance, then so be 

it. 

But on the other hand, if a simple notice is the fastest and 

cheapest way to solve many unintended and often minor areas of 
38 

noncompliance, why would we not encourage that? Unfortunately, 

not everyone agrees with Mr. Buckland. Lawsuits by a small group 

of lawyers have skyrocketed. Sixty-three percent increase from 

2013 to 2014, over 4,700 lawsuits filed in 2015. 

Unfortunately, there are some whose interests are not aligned 

with the ADA. These attorneys take a different approach. They file 

first, ask questions later. They sue, settle, and move on. Their interest is not in actually improving accessibility but rather only in— 

in only earning attorneys’ fees. Many never visit the property, cannot tell you what violations may be there, and never bother to confirm whether any alleged violations have been resolved. 

So why do we support this legislation? Because it gives the good 

apples a 60-day window to respond to claims without an immediate 

lawsuit. It gives 120 days for the opportunity to cure any potential 

violations. I think we can all agree that this is the fastest, most 

efficient, and most cost-effective way to achieve compliance. 

And secondly, let’s not forget it also enhances education and 

training and encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution to 

actually speed up enforcement. 

And then let’s also be clear about what this legislation does not 

do. It does not stop the right to sue for noncompliance. It does not 

limit the ability to recover attorneys’ fees. It does not change the 

Department of Justice enforcement rights. It does not change State 

laws. What it will do is encourage compliance and stop the unfortunate abuse of tactics of a few. 

With that, I thank you for this opportunity to testify today, and 

I look forward to answering any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weiss follows:] 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Weiss. And thank you all for your 

testimony. We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions. And I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. And 

Ms. Ky, if it is all right, I will begin with you. 

Ms. Ky, this proposed bill requires a plaintiff to give a business 

owner notice of an alleged ADA violation and the opportunity to fix 

that violation before a lawsuit may be filed. As a business owner, 

as someone disabled, do you believe it is fair to the disabled to require notice and an opportunity to fix a violation before a lawsuit 

can be filed? 

Ms. KY. It is fair to insert issue and ensure it is itemized. The 

reason—I believe it is fair because there is so many new update, 

law, regulation that all you had written to—for example, for my 

mom’s shop, there were seven items unnecessary. It was a sticker 

note that [unintelligible] for the exit sign. The incorrect symbol of 

the restroom, the doorknobs, the mats—that is simple. 

I was not aware of the new regulation. So if you all that making 

changes, let us know, and this will not happen. If the community— 

if the citizen knows, if this would not happen. I would like to say 

something. I do not think your building here is accessible. I went 

to the woman’s restroom. It is not accessible. 

And you guys create and make the laws, and your building is not 

accessible. So how do you expect a normal citizen to follow your 

rules if you are not doing it yourself? 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Ky. Ms. Shah, critics of legislative 

efforts to allow for a cure period prior to commencing a lawsuit 

under title III of the ADA have argued that the property owners 

have a legal obligation to ensure their property is accessible to the 

disabled. These critics argue that a notice-and-cure legislation 

would create a further incentive for property owners not to comply 

with ADA until they are sued. And how would you respond to that 

criticism? 

Ms. SHAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I would respond to the critics by saying that the fact that they are having an 

issue with the grace period to begin with shows and implies that 

they are not here to promote accessibility. All of us here in this 

room support the ADA, support Americans with Disabilities. We 

promote it. We think it is great for America. 

In fact, we want to fix any issues, because ultimately that attracts customers to our business, and we want to grow our business. So we are automatically incentivized. So a notice-and-cure 

provision would help us fix any areas of concern, and promote the 

accessibility versus just the attorneys filing lawsuits immediately 

to get attorneys’ fees. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Shah. Mr. Weiss, has there been an 

increase in ADA litigation under title III, and if so, could you provide the Committee with some background on that increase? 

Mr. WEISS. Yes. I would be happy to. Yes, the number of cases 

has grown dramatically over the last few years. And frankly, that 

is really the driving need for this legislation. This is both a growing 

and expanding problem, and actually just continues to grow. 

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there has been a 65 percent increase from 2013 to 2014, and the numbers just continue to 

grow and grow. In particular, there are certain States where these 
52 

cases are growing the fastest—California, Florida, New York, 

Texas, Arizona. Those combined had the largest number of suits 

filed, over 80 percent of them filed nationwide. California has approximately 40 percent of the lawsuits, but only frankly about 12 

percent of the disabled population there. So this is an ongoing and 

continuing problem. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, sir. And I will now recognize the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Cohen, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Weiss, is the fact that California 

has got their State law, and I think I heard that it includes damages—could that not be the reason why there is so many of those 

cases in California? 

Mr. WEISS. No, I do not think so. Obviously, the ADA has been 

in effect for 25 years. I think we all would agree it is had a dramatic impact across the country, so much so that it is just a part 

of the way of doing business. In our industry, it becomes second nature. We are constantly updating our properties and ensuring compliance with them. The issues that we are having here are very 

specific, and this legislation—— 

Mr. COHEN. Well, let me ask you this. I know we have limited 

time. Why do you think California is particularly litigious? That is 

the question. 

Mr. WEISS. I cannot tell you exactly why some States over others, 

but I can just tell you that it is growing nationwide—— 

Mr. COHEN. But you specifically mentioned Texas, Arizona, California, and Florida. There has got to be some—are those not the 

States you mentioned? 

Mr. WEISS. That is where there are the most cases, but there are 

cases across the country. 

Mr. COHEN. I am hip to that. 

Mr. WEISS. Many States are without—— 

Mr. COHEN. But the fact is there has got to be a reason why 

those four are more than the other 46. You do not have a thought. 

Mr. Buckland, do you have a thought? 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Mr. Cohen, I do. Those are the States that allow 

damages. 

Mr. COHEN. All four of those States allow damages? 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Yeah. 

Mr. COHEN. How many other States allow damages? Do you 

know? 

Mr. BUCKLAND. There is about 10 in total. 

Mr. COHEN. If there is 10 total, and these are four of them, that 

seems like what they have got in common, and that is not a national problem. It seems like that makes—it is not—Ms. Shah, you 

grasp that, do you not? 

Ms. SHAH. I am sorry. 

Mr. COHEN. You grasp the fact that those four States, 4 of 10, 

and that that might be the unifying or unique factor that causes 

the burgeoning lawsuits there and not something with the ADA in 

general? 

Ms. SHAH. Sure, but it is a problem across the United States. 

You know, there are properties—my property is in Georgia and the 

same attorney and the same plaintiff have filed the same lawsuit 

100 times. 
53 

Mr. COHEN. In Georgia. Is it a Georgia lawyer? 

Ms. SHAH. Correct, yes. 

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you this. You heard what I was saying 

in my opening remarks about the possibility of having some type 

of damages for the folks that do not comply if there was a notice 

provision. Would you agree that there needs to be some type of a 

stick to punish more harshly with some sanctions the folks that do 

not comply within the 120 day period? 

Ms. SHAH. Yes, and the whole idea is that you would be able to 

file the lawsuit. The first—— 

Mr. COHEN. But that is already available. Should there not be 

something extra? 

Ms. SHAH. Such as what? 

Mr. COHEN. Such as sanctions, damages, liquidated damages, 

some amount of—— 

Ms. SHAH. Yeah, I mean, exactly. You cannot pull that and impose sanctions. But remember, at the same time, we are also trying 

to run our business, and so we are doing the best we can—— 

Mr. COHEN. But you are a good guy. I am talking about the bad 

guys. 

Ms. SHAH. Of course, the bad guys do need sanctions. 

Mr. COHEN. Right, so you would agree that—Mr. Weiss, do you 

agree that that would be something that would make your proposal 

better? 

Mr. WEISS. Well, frankly, let me start on this damages issue, 

which you have raised before. First of all, we are not talking about 

making changes, under—fundamental underlying changes, to the 

ADA. We are talking about legislation which is narrow and focused 

to a particular abuse for an existing enforcement mechanism. Secondly, I am not sure that damages actually will reduce the problem. In fact, it may well encourage them. More damages means 

more lawsuits. More lawsuits means more attorneys’ fees. It means 

more time and resources. 

Mr. COHEN. But if the damages are only for the—damages are 

only for the people that did not comply with this program. You 

know, your program does have a lot of beneficial purposes; yours 

or Ted’s or whoever’s it is, but I can see the benefits in getting compliance. But for the folks that do not comply, why not—the damages are not going to be a problem for the good guys. It is only 

going to be for the bad guys, and bad guys always have to be punished. 

Mr. WEISS. I think your underlying assumption is that this is 

only a damages issue. Take Florida for instance. 

Mr. COHEN. No, I am not saying it is only a damages issue. It 

is probably a damages issue because where the litigation has exploded, but what I am talking about damages is a way to have another lever out there to make people comply. All you have got is 

the notice. 

What you make is harder to bring a lawsuit, and disincentivizes 

lawyers from being involved in the process, which will probably result in less notice of actual problems. If you are going to do that, 

do something that does not—you know, you do not want to have 

overkill and help the good guys at DVR, but not the bad guys at 

EEQ. 
54 

Mr. WEISS. With all due respect, Mr. Cohen, I do not think this 

inhibits the enforcement of the ADA. I think it actually—it helps 

enforcement and here is why. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Buckland, Mr. Buckland—— 

Mr. WEISS. We could have—— 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Buckland, why do you—do you think it inhibits 

from—— 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Absolutely, there is no other civil rights statute 

that requires notice to be able to fix the problem before you can 

bring suit; no other civil rights. But they are wanting to put it in 

this one. 

I will give you a couple of examples; like I was in Virginia Beach. 

There is a timeshare down there and if we sat through like a—I 

am sure a lot of you have experienced this. If you sit through a 

presentation, they give you some reward, right, so the reward was 

to be able to go on this whale watching tour. 

So we sat through the presentation, me, my wife, and my son sat 

through the presentation. They gave us our whale watching tickets 

and, by the way, none of the timeshares—I could not have purchased any of the timeshares because they are all inaccessible. Not 

a single timeshare did not have a step in front of it. So they are 

all inaccessible. 

So then we go to the whale watching tour and they tell me they 

do not take people in wheelchairs on their tours. 

So I talked to the guy that took the tickets and said, ‘‘Are you 

aware of the Americans with Disabilities Act?’’ 

He said, ‘‘Yes, that does not apply to us.’’ 

I said, ‘‘Where is the manager? Can I speak to the manager?’’ 

‘‘I am the manager.’’ 

I said, ‘‘You still do not think the ADA applies to you,’’ and he 

said, ‘‘No.’’ 

So when I got back home I talked with the Department of Justice 

and we went into where you work it out between you. We did that. 

They, with very little expense, built a ramp to the boat. Now they 

take people with disabilities on their whale tours. 

Another one that just happened like very recently, is there is a 

business association here in Washington D.C. that I went to; could 

not get in. The front entrance is not accessible. Could not independently enter the building either. I told them all of that. I gave them 

resources to get information on what the fixes were. 

I checked back with them in about two and a half months later 

to see if they had made any progress on making their building accessible. I got no response, so I waited for about another 2 weeks, 

sent them another e-mail, asking if they had made any progress; 

no response. I did that three times with no response. So then I 

made a phone call. They were not in, so I left a message; no response to my phone call. 

Frankly, that is the—most of the responses that you get when 

you notify people that there is a problem; you do not get any return 

response. That is what has happened to me over and over. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you sir, I appreciate it and my time is out. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, 

for 5 minutes. 
55 

Mr. KING. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I thank the witnesses 

for your testimony here today. I am just thinking about how the 

Americans with Disabilities Act in a way changed by what life, and 

I want to put this narrative into the record. I happened to have 

been the only public building in the community that was wheelchair accessible right after the passage of the ADA, and so they 

came and asked me; ‘‘Would you be the host of the Republican caucus in your community?’’ 

And I said, ‘‘Sure, I am happy to open up my doors and help people out,’’ and then I became the chairman of that caucus, and now 

here I am in Congress. 

So I just slip that in as, I do not know how many different implications there are. I am sure it is affected your lives a lot more than 

it is affected mine, but it is ironic that, if that meeting had never 

taken place, who knows what I would be doing today? 

So I wanted to ask, and I wanted to ask especially Mr. Buckland, 

and I would ask if you could be brief in your analysis of this, but 

you lived through 20 years prior to the ADA in a wheelchair and 

26 years afterwards, and you probably did not see the immediate 

results of that because we had a lot of new construction that took 

place, and refurbishing that took place. So I do not have any doubt 

that it changed a lot of accessibility and you have seen incrementally from your eyes. 

The question back then in 1990 was, do we require compliance 

with the ADA only on new construction or also for existing buildings and facilities, and I recall going in and doing curb cuts and 

making wheelchair accessible, and I am wondering why did we not 

think of that when we built the sidewalk in the first place? 

It was a huge oversight on the part of our society not to see how 

simple and how cheap that part of the ADA could have been. But 

what would it be like today, do you think, if the ADA had been 

written in such a way that new construction complied, but old construction was voluntary? What kind of progress do you think we 

would have made in the last 26 years? 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Mr. Chairman, Mr. King, very little. I mean, if 

you walk around this town, most of this is old construction. So if 

we had not applied the ADA to existing structures, nothing here 

would be—not nothing, but a lot of the buildings here would not 

be required to comply. 

Mr. KING. Okay, so do you think—and these buildings, especially, have got some of the oldest buildings here, and in my neighborhood, it would be different for different reasons. We have a lot 

of new sidewalks and a lot of new curb cuts would have been done. 

But I want to ask you on your perspective and you have given it 

to me and I appreciate it. 

And I would like to turn to Ms. Shah, and you mentioned that 

there are essentially a copy and paste, 100 lawsuits from a single 

lawyer, and though those lawyers in many cases—it is either you 

or Ms. Ky—that said that the lawyers had not been in the facility. 

So I will ask each of you but we will go first to Ms. Shah. What 

does that list of plaintiffs look like? When you have got a lawyer 

with 100 suits that are copied and pasted, what does the list of 

plaintiffs look like on each of those suits? 
56 

Ms. SHAH. In my case it is just one plaintiff, and so he is using— 

the attorney is using that one plaintiff to fish out other properties 

in the area and slap the same lawsuit on them. 

Mr. KING. And have you looked at the plaintiffs in those other 

lawsuits that were filed by the same attorney? Could it be the 

same plaintiff in some of those cases or even all of them? 

Ms. SHAH. Absolutely, yes. In this case, it is the same. I mentioned that my father received the same lawsuit, the same number 

of pages, the same attorney, same plaintiff at his property. 

Mr. KING. Okay, but there are 98 others out there. What is the 

likelihood that that same plaintiff has also been utilized by the 

same attorney in a number of other cases, in addition to you and 

your father? 

Ms. SHAH. There is a likelihood that there is the same plaintiff, 

same attorney. There is also other plaintiffs and other attorneys. 

So it is an ongoing case, right? I mean, you can have one plaintiff 

suing 100 properties using the same attorney, and that same attorney may want to settle 100 properties and you average $5,000. 

That is a lot of money. 

Mr. KING. Okay, so I am just trying to get this concept; how this 

works in the attorney’s office. You have an attorney that is a hotel 

chasing attorney. And he decides: ‘‘I have got a potential plaintiff 

here. I am going to contact him and the two of us can go together, 

and now we will file, potentially, 100 lawsuits and you be the 

plaintiff. 

I will be the attorney and we will collect this at collect this 

money at the expense of the businesses,’’ who never had a chance 

of a notice to cure; never an opportunity to even know that they 

were potentially out of compliance with the ADA. So I look at that 

and have these plaintiffs then—what is the likelihood that the 

plaintiff had never been in the building before the suit was filed? 

Ms. SHAH. I think each case varies. In my case I looked back 1 

year to check the reservations; if the first name and last name ever 

matched, and there was no record of that person ever staying at 

our hotel. 

Mr. KING. Ms. Ky. 

Ms. KY. Yes. 

Mr. KING. Would you concur with the testimony of Ms. Shah in 

your experience? 

Ms. KY. Yes, on that particular day, this individual sued three 

locations in our city; same person, and he does not live in the city. 

On that particular day, I was not at the shop. I came back from 

doing my errands and I got a package, and I asked everybody, 

‘‘Who is this person?’’ No one knew who he was. 

I even asked the medical record—a medical facility that does provide wheelchairs, just to make sure if he is, you know, in the register with them or buy anything from them. They do not even know 

who he is. And recently, they did kind of investigate on this individual. He is able-bodied. He sits in the wheelchair. He goes to 

places, and he uses wheelchairs to get what he does, and he lift his 

wheelchair to put back in his truck. He has no—— 

Mr. KING. Is that not fraud? Would you say that is fraud? 

Ms. KY. That is fraud, and that is why we are here is that we 

need to stop this. We need to stop this fraud. We need to stop this 
57 

*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing record but is on file with the 

Subcommittee and can be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104943 

ridiculous using ADA to get what they want. Like, you know, Mr. 

Buckland said, that this facility—he contacted three times and they 

no response. Please, go sue them; double the price, whatever needs 

to be done. Yes, but, you know, give us a chance. 

Like I ask myself or Ms. Shah, that we do not have any barriers 

in our facility, no barriers; so just because we do not have the information that you folks change it, the lawyers have no right. It is 

not barriers. If it was barriers, please, come up to us. We have no 

problem. 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much. I thank the witnesses and yield 

back. 

Chairman FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. And I would now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you Chairman Franks, and I thank the witnesses. 

Could I begin by asking unanimous consent to enter into the 

record 14 letters from organizations that have a variety of objections to the measure that we are examining today—the Consortium 

for Citizens with Disabilities, Paralyzed Veterans of America, The 

National—The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 

and plenty of others? Could I ask unanimous consent? They take 

strong exception to this measure, and I ask that these letters be 

included in the record. 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection.* 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to just ask 

Mr. Buckland if—and we are all friends here—if Mr. Weiss’ testimony raised any objections, in terms of your experience as someone 

that is disabled? 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Well, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Conyers, I mean, 

the whole issue around the written notice, and you have to wait a 

certain time for it to cure—all that stuff, like I said in my testimony, I think that will incentivize businesses to not do anything 

until they do get a letter. 

So, yeah, I take exception to that. I also think that, like, just 

naming the number of lawsuits does not mean that is a bad thing. 

If those businesses were out of compliance, then why is that a 

problem that they got sued for being out of—for breaking the law? 

I do not quite understand that. So there was no mention about 

whether or not they were valid complaints. They were just the 

numbers. So, I am not sure that that—this results in being a bad 

thing. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would it be helpful if the Committee knew what 

the results of all those lawsuits were? 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Yes, I think it would, and then I also think that 

the Department of Justice could provide this Committee with some 

information about how many complaints they have received, what 

the complaints were about, how the complaints were resolved, that 

sort of stuff. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that we might be able 

to follow through on both my suggestion and Mr. Buckland’s, in 

terms of getting a little bit more detail on some of these cases. 
58 

Now, Mr. Buckland, we have four witnesses here this morning. 

You are the only one that is opposed to this measure, and so I 

wanted to ask you: what does the pre-suit notification mean for the 

private enforcement of the ADA, and what would happen if enforcement is left only to the Attorney General if private lawyers stopped 

bringing cases? 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Well, I think you stated the obvious, Mr. Conyers. Like, what will happen if we are—if our ability to file suits 

is impeded, and we have less enforcement and, like I mentioned before, the businesses will just wait until they get a letter. 

Our experience really has been, as I mentioned, it is difficult to 

find attorneys that will take cases, except for those States that 

allow damages. And so I think this is really more of a State legislation issue than it is with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I do too. Proponents now of pre-suit notification argue that it is reasonable to give businesses the opportunity 

to cure a violation before a lawsuit commences. But how might 

such a notification scheme affect voluntary compliance? 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Well, again, it would impede our ability to make 

businesses comply because you would have that waiting period, the 

notification. It would dis-incentivize attorneys, but I want to ask 

the opposite question. Why do they need to be notified? The Americans with Disabilities Act is out there. 

There is lots of information about how you comply. I mentioned 

that before. There are 10 ADA centers, one in each region of the 

country, and they have expertise on the Americans with Disabilities Act; what it requires to comply. They will even come out to 

your business and talk to you about what you need to do. So they 

should be proactive, and they should be—they know the law is 

there. They should get the technical assistance. They should come 

into compliance. 

Mr. CONYERS. I think that is a very good response, and you have 

answered all my questions very appropriately. And, Mr. Chairman, 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman, and I now recognize the 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. The Americans with Disabilities Act fundamentally changed our society for the better. It both literally and figuratively opened the doors of public life that had been closed for too 

long, and I believe that any efforts that we undertake to address 

abuses under the current law have to protect the progress that has 

been made, and we have to continue to ensure that our society is 

open to everyone. 

The goal that we all share is widespread compliance, full compliance, with the ADA. Retrofitting older construction, ensuring that 

all new construction is built inclusively from the start has always 

been the guiding principle. 

I appreciate that the original compromise that created the ADA 

was designed to balance our national interest in accessibility with 

a desire to make private businesses allies in this endeavor, rather 

than our adversaries. 

And I do not want to upset the original balance that makes it— 

that, anyway, would make it harder to work together toward our 
59 

common goal of compliance. But I believe that we have to exercise 

strict oversight to ensure that we are achieving continued progress 

to accessibility. That is what the ADA is meant to provide, and if 

abuses of the process work against those goals, then I think it requires us to stop and pay attention. 

In Florida, which we talked about earlier, in my own State, more 

than one in five ADA claims filed last year originated in the southern district of Florida. Businesses have to retain the right to do the 

right thing, and it has to be an incentive for them to do the right 

thing. The threat of a lawsuit is powerful, and it works. 

But for honest, good faith actors who are making easily correctable small fixes, things that would take a few minutes to remedy, 

we have to have a process that allows them to make these fixes, 

to adjust a grab bar, to re-hang a coat hook, and to be able to do 

it quickly without a lawsuit. I do not take the idea of good faith 

lightly. It should be difficult, a difficult standard to meet. 

It should show that businesses are in partnership with the American people and creating a society that is accessible, and is welcoming to everyone; that public life is for everyone, and we want 

a society where small businesses can thrive doing business with everyone. 

Now, Mr. Weiss, I have been told that some of the worst of the 

repeat plaintiffs do not even bother to follow up to see if the infractions have been corrected, which tells me that complaints often are 

about—more about extracting money than about making a facility 

more accessible. 

The code enforcement officer in Delray Beach, in my own part of 

South Florida, was quoted as saying, ‘‘They do not care if you fix 

it or not. The businesses pay between 5,000 and $12,000, and it 

goes away. People are taking complete advantage. It is a moneymaker. It has nothing to do with compliance.’’ In your experience, 

what has been the follow-through of plaintiffs, post-settlement? 

Mr. WEISS. I am sorry—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. Turn up the mic—yeah. 

Mr. WEISS. I am sorry to say it is virtually none, and that is part 

of the problem. We spend millions of dollars ensuring our properties are code-compliant and compliant with the ADA, and we 

have millions of dollars invested, and then we have attorneys essentially that come to us with their hand out, not knowing—with 

vague claims of noncompliance. 

They do not have specifics, and they never bothered to follow up 

as long as you have paid to settle the suit. As a follow-up, I guess 

I would just mention, both in your district, Mr. Deutch, this has 

become—this is not just the ICSC issue. There are press reports. 

There was one, in fact, this week of a serial plaintiff filing a thousand lawsuits. 

In response to Mr. Cohen’s reference to lawsuits in California, 

California has actually passed two pieces of legislation to actually 

try to curb the abuse of these lawyers. Even with the damages provision that he thinks will actually help, there are abuses going on, 

and so California has passed legislation as well, to try to limit the 

abuses that are occurring there. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Buckland, is there not a difference between a 

business owner who refuses to include a required number of handi-
60 

capped spaces, or who refuses to make the restrooms accessible, 

and a business owner who runs a business who has followed all of 

the technical assistance, as best as he or she could, and the grab 

bar is two inches too high, or the paper towel holder is a couple 

of inches off, or the line on the handicapped parking space that is 

there is drawn slightly crooked? There is a difference between 

them, is there not, and should we not incentivize? 

Do we not want the people and the bad actors to actually have 

to do what is necessary and lawsuits absolutely are required to get 

them to do it? But should we not require, or give an opportunity 

to the small business owner who used all good faith to comply with 

the law the opportunity to pick something when it might take 5 

minutes to fix, instead of making them pay $10,000 or $12,000 

when a lawsuit is filed? 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Deutch, with all due respect, 

if the only issue is the grab bar is two inches off, the business fixes 

that. Unless you are in a State with damages, there is no money 

paid out. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Well—— 

Mr. BUCKLAND. You only collect—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. Excuse me, 1 second. But, no, I just want to correct 

that, and maybe I misunderstand, but the stories I have heard 

from the businesses in my district where, in South Florida, where 

1 in 5 of these cases are filed, the story I heard from the guy who 

runs the bagel shop that I stopped in in the morning who just 

shared another one of these stories with me. 

He got hit with a lawsuit for one of these very minor mistakes. 

He has used all good faith to try to comply, and you are right. He 

is going to raise it by those couple of inches, and it is going to cost 

him $10,000 in plaintiff’s legal fees, which is a cost that he never 

should have had to incur. 

Mr. BUCKLAND. Well, I am sorry. Unless he has like somehow 

fought against the original complaint, why would there be attorneys’ fees? 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Royce, can you answer that question? 

Mr. ROYCE. The answer is because the suit is filed before the 

business owner even knows what the issue is. So to get rid of that 

lawsuit, you need to—you end up settling it. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And all I am trying—I think the Chairman understands this, and the Ranking Member of the Committee understands this. There is no one on this Committee who fights harder 

to keep the courtroom doors open for people who deserve justice in 

this country than I do. 

Mr. KING. Believe me, he is telling the truth. 

Mr. DEUTCH. But in this situation all I think we are looking for 

is the opportunity for someone, for a small-business owner, to be 

able to—who has exercised all good faith and has only tried to do 

the right thing, to be able to continue to do the right thing without 

being forced to pay an extravagant amount of money; give him the 

opportunity to fix it and they will. I really appreciate the panel for 

being here. I think it is a really important discussion. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman, and this concludes today’s hearing and, without objection, all Members will have 5 legis-
61 

lative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses, for additional materials for the record. And I want to thank 

the witnesses and thank the Members and thank the audience for 

being here, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned subject 

to the call of the Chair.] 

(63) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
64 

Supplemental material submitted by the Honorable Ken Calvert, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California 
65 

f 
66 

1Supplemental material submitted by David Weiss, 

Executive Vice President & General Counsel, DDR Corp. 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

f 
72 

Letter from Elizabeth H. Taylor, Vice President, Government Relations and 

General Counsel, International Franchise Association 

f 
73 

Letter from Amina Donna Kruck, VP Advocacy, Ability360 
74 

f 
75 

Letter from Bridgette Moore, Mayor, City of Wildomar, Wildomar, CA 

Æ