U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

74–818 PDF 2012

ACCESS (ADA COMPLIANCE FOR CUSTOMER 

ENTRY TO STORES AND SERVICES) ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 3356 

JUNE 27, 2012 

Serial No. 112–133 

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 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

RICHARD HERTLING, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 27, 2012 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 3356, the ‘‘Access (ADA Compliance for Customer Entry to Stores and 

Services) Act’’ ........................................................................................................ 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution ....................... 1 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ....... 6 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California 

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

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

Lee Ky, Reedley, California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34 

Andrew D. Levy, Partner, Brown, Goldstein & Levy 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 37 

David Warren Peters, CEO and General Counsel, Lawyers Against Lawsuit 

Abuse 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 45 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on the Constitution .............................................................................................. 8 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ................ 21 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in 

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

Constitution .......................................................................................................... 58 

Material submitted by the Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 64 

Page

IV 

Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on the Constitution .............................................................................................. 66 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BUT NOT REPRINTED

David Warren Peters, CEO and General Counsel, Lawyers Against Lawsuit Abuse, 

submitted supplemental materials with his statement that the Committee chose 

not to print. However, the materials are on file in the official hearing record. 

Please contact the House Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution for that information. 

(1) 

ACCESS (ADA COMPLIANCE FOR CUSTOMER 

ENTRY TO STORES AND SERVICES) ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:40 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Franks, Chabot, Lungren, King, Nadler, 

Scott, and Quigley. 

Staff present: (Majority) Zach Somers, Counsel; Sarah Vance, 

Clerk; (Minority) Heather Sawyer, Subcommittee Chief Counsel, 

and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. FRANKS. Good afternoon. We have called today’s hearing to 

examine H.R. 3356, the ‘‘ACCESS Act,’’ which Mr. Lungren of California introduced to make a minor, but very important, change to 

the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA. 

The ACCESS Act is a common sense proposal to 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. 

This legislation, which applies to cases involving physical barriers to entry in public accommodations, would both improve public 

access for disabled individuals and eliminate thousands of predatory lawsuits. 

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. 

Unfortunately, enterprising plaintiffs and their lawyers have 

abused the law by filing tens of thousands of ADA lawsuits aimed 

at churning out billable hours and extracting money from 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 through good faith efforts, such as hiring an ADA 

compliance expert, a business can still find itself subject to a lawsuit for the most minor and unintentional of infractions. 

According to one compliance specialist, ‘‘I rarely, if ever, see instances where there is not an access violation somewhere. I can 

2 

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 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 driven 

primarily by the ADA’s attorneys’ fees 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 preemptively filed since settlement prior to filing a lawsuit does not entitle 

plaintiff’s counsel to attorney’s fees under the ADA. As one Federal 

judge observed, the result is that ‘‘the means for enforcing the ADA 

attorney’s fees—have become more important and desirable than 

the end—accessibility for disabled individuals.’’ But the ADA was 

enacted to protect disabled individuals, not to support a litigation 

mill for entrepreneur plaintiffs’ attorneys hunting for ADA violations to justify lawsuits. 

The ACCESS Act would help eliminate predatory ADA lawsuits 

and increase compliance with the ADA by giving businesses the opportunity to fix ADA violations instead of dragging them into litigation. 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 sooner and 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 in litigating claims. Small businesses are critical to America’s economic recovery and should not 

be burdened by unnecessary or predatory litigation. The ACCESS 

Act whould protect the interests of the disabled and of America’s 

small businesses and ensure that ADA violations can be remedied 

without the need to file a lawsuit, if possible. 

The ACCESS Act preserves the rights of the disabled and fixes 

the ADA so that professional plaintiffs are not able to exploit this 

landmark civil rights law for their own private gain rather than for 

the benefit of the disabled. 

And with that, I would now yield to the Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement. 

[The bill, H.R. 3356, follows:] 

3 


HR3356-1.eps
4 


HR3356-2.eps
5 


HR3356-3.eps
6 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been here before. Twelve years ago, movie star and California business owner, 

Clint Eastwood, testified in support of legislation that would require pre-suit notification before a claim could be filed under Title 

III of the ADA. And we have had legislation on this introduced in 

every Congress since then, including this one. 

Mr. Eastwood testified passionately about the need for pre-suit 

notification to prevent business owners, like himself, from being 

victimized by unscrupulous lawyers. The plaintiff and lawyer in his 

case actually had notified him of the alleged violations at his resort 

before filing suit. 

Proponents of pre-suit notification ignore the fact that, as in Mr. 

Eastwood’s case, a demand letter does not always work. Not every 

business owner will gladly make changes to increase accessibility. 

Nor is it clear why a letter should be required where a violation 

is obvious or where 22 years after enactment of the ADA, a public 

accommodation has taken absolutely no steps to bring itself into 

compliance with the law. 

Pre-suit notification is a virtual get out of jail free card for every 

public accommodation in America. By requiring a person with a 

disability to notify a public accommodation before bringing legal action to enforce the law, bills like H.R. 3356 remove the only incentive for voluntary compliance with the ADA, namely the risk of 

being sued and having to fix the problem and pay reasonable attorney’s fees. 

Title III of the ADA does not allow private parties to sue for 

money damages. Only an order to remedy the ADA violation and 

reasonable attorney’s fees are possible, and then only if the plaintiff is a prevailing party; that is to say, that the defendant is found 

to have violated the law. 

By removing the risk of litigation, H.R. 3356 would send a clear 

and devastating message to every public accommodation in America that there is no need to comply voluntarily with the ADA. Instead, wait and see if you ever get a demand letter. 

Twenty-two years after passage of the ADA, many businesses remain inaccessible to persons with disabilities. Yet instead of talking about how to improve compliance, here we are again considering a bill that further excuses noncompliance. 

Proponents claim that pre-suit notification is needed to stop unscrupulous lawyers who have made a so-called cottage industry out 

of filing lawsuits in order to force businesses into quick cash settlements, and who have no intention of increasing access for persons 

with disabilities. But let us be clear about one thing. There simply 

is nothing unethical or inappropriate about suing a business that 

is violating the law. 

The filing of a single or even multiple suits alleging violations of 

the ADA or State disability laws says nothing about the underlying 

merits of that, or those suits, or the intent of the parties involved. 

Moreover, there is absolutely no reason that the mere filing of a 

lawsuit should result in years of costly litigation. A defendant who 

is sued under Title III of the ADA responds to a summons by 

agreeing to remedy the problem, as we are assured would be the 

case of only pre-suit notification were required, faces only the cost 

of the repair itself and reasonable attorney’s fees. Courts decide 

7 

every day whether a fee request is reasonable, and will not approve 

an award that is disproportionate to the actual work done. 

While some might prefer that attorneys who enforce the law 

were to get nothing for their work, thus eventually forcing them 

out of business entirely and reducing the possibility that those who 

violate the law will ever be brought to justice, Congress decided to 

allow reasonable attorney’s fees with the understanding that doing 

so is necessary to enable private lawyers to help enforce the ADA. 

Where, as may sometimes be the case, the lawyer actually does 

engage in affirmative misconduct, for example, by providing misleading information, by making factual or legal arguments in bad 

faith, or by unreasonably and vexatiously prolonging the matter, 

courts have the tools they need to sanction this misconduct, and 

often do so. Courts in California and Florida, for example, have 

sanctioned lawyers who have brought ADA and States law claims 

where the underlying allegations were not sufficiently supported or 

where the lawyers misled defendants. The courts have required 

these lawyers to pre-file any future suits with the courts or in 

other cases have denied attorney’s fees and damages available 

under some States’ laws. 

It is an unfortunate reality that some lawyers may act inappropriately at least some of the time, but this is not limited to lawyers 

who represent plaintiffs. One of our witnesses here today, Mr. Peters, whose practice consists of defending against ADA and States 

disability lawsuits, was found to have ‘‘acted intentionally in bad 

faith with an improper purpose and with an intent to harass the 

plaintiffs’’ in one case. Explaining why sanctions against him were 

warranted, the district court explained that Mr. Peters, ‘‘unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the litigation, which resulted in excess costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees to the other litigants,’’ and 

that, ‘‘this is the essence of frivolous and bad faith litigation.’’ 

I would like to submit the District Court’s ruling in that matter, 

along with the 9th Circuit’s order affirming sanctions against Mr. 

Peters for the record. 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

8 


74818A1-1.eps
9 


74818A1-2.eps
10 


74818A1-3.eps
11 


74818A1-4.eps
12 


74818A1-5.eps
13 


74818A1-6.eps
14 


74818A1-7.eps
15 


74818A1-8.eps
16 


74818A1-9.eps
17 


74818A1-10.eps
18 


74818A1-11.eps
19 


74818A1-12.eps
20 


74818A2.eps
21 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. This makes clear that the courts can 

and do handle complaints about attorney misconduct, and the notion that the mere filing of lawsuits alleging noncompliance with 

the ADA is itself an indicator of bad faith or frivolous litigation 

should be rejected. Indeed, as courts that have imposed sanctions 

against vexatious litigants have been careful to recognize, given the 

fact of widespread noncompliance with the ADA, lawsuits themselves are not an evil to be avoided, but the only way of enforcing 

the ADA and, thus, of achieving its goals. 

As the 9th Circuit said in Mosley v. Evergreen Dynasty, ‘‘For the 

ADA to yield its promise of equal access for the disabled, it may 

indeed be necessary and desirable for committed individuals to 

bring serial litigation, advancing the time when public accommodations will be compliant with the ADA.’’ 

To the extent that continued noncompliance with the ADA is 

leaving businesses vulnerable to litigation, the appropriate solution 

is to beef up technical assistance or otherwise determine what 

more is needed to ensure affirmative voluntary compliance. We 

should not enact legislation like H.R. 3356, which seeks to excuse 

every public accommodation whether large or small, and even when 

knowingly and deliberately violating the law, from taking any steps 

to comply with the law until and unless it receives a specific 

enough demand letter. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. And without objection, 

other Members’ opening statements will be made part of the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee on 

the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution 

Today we revisit the question of enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act. Although we have long had a bipartisan consensus in favor of vigorous ADA 

enforcement—going back to the administration of the first President Bush—the legislation we will examine today would undermine the most effective enforcement 

mechanism Congress created: the private right of action. 

We have been through this before. I have had to sit though numerous hearings 

in which some members have ignored the widespread non-compliance with the ADA 

and the exclusion of persons with disabilities from too many places in our society, 

and instead preoccupy themselves with the complaints of businesspeople who, by 

their own admission, have violated the law. 

We live in a topsy-turvy world, and the rights of those least able to defend their 

rights, rather than the law-breakers, have become the target. That’s wrong. 

Compliance with the ADA is largely voluntary. While the Justice Department 

does have enforcement power, it lacks the resources to reach the many facilities that 

are out of compliance, and the law grants them the power to enforce the act in a 

limited number of cases. 

As a result, according to the National Council on Disability, ‘‘many public accommodations are not in compliance with Title III and are not, in fact, accessible.’’ 

Too many businesses are simply unwilling to comply with the law, which requires 

businesses to remove architectural barriers that are ‘‘structural in nature, in existing facilities . . . where such removal is readily achievable.’’ The ADA defines ‘‘readily achievable’’ as ‘‘easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much 

difficulty or expense.’’ This ‘‘readily achievable’’ standard has been the governing 

legal principle for increasing access to existing facilities since the ADA’s passage 22 

years ago. It ensures that, rather than having a one-size-fits-all requirement, businesses have flexibility to determine what steps are possible based on their size and 

22 

resources and the prospective cost of an improvement. A small, family-owned business does not have to take the same steps as a large commercial chain. 

I recall that businesses fought for this standard during passage of the ADA because of its flexibility; with flexibility also comes responsibility for determining, with 

guidance and rules from DOJ, what steps are possible. 

After 22 years, the fact that many businesses have not undertaken that basic step 

is simply intolerable, and legislation that would further undermine the promise of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act is simply unacceptable. 

As we discuss this issue, I hope we can keep these points in mind. 

First, providing property owners with this kind of get-out-of-jail free card simply 

means that they can ignore the law with impunity. If they ever are caught, they 

can simply do what they should have done all along. There is absolutely no down 

side to failing to comply. You will more than likely get away with it—as the report 

of the National Council on Disability and other research on non-compliance demonstrate—and if you get caught, your only cost is to comply. 

Second, this legislation is unnecessary. The much-touted problem of ‘‘drive-by law 

suits’’ is overblown. To the extent that it is a problem, it is limited to a few states 

that allow for monetary damages. That is an issue for the states with those laws, 

and does not demand radical changes to the ADA. 

Many of the examples of fraudulent suits and other misconduct has nothing to 

do with the ADA or with the notification law. Those are problems that can come 

up in all civil litigation, and are not limited to ADA cases. Existing law does, however, provide remedies when parties lie, or engage in abusive conduct. 

When faced with this problem courts have sanctioned parties found to be ‘‘vexatious litigants,’’ have refused to award attorneys fees where a lawyer failed to serve 

a defendant with a demand letter prior to filing suit, and have dismissed cases for 

a lack of standing where the plaintiff cannot allege harm. 

It is, again, not a question of notification, but of enforcing the basic rules governing conduct in all civil cases as the attorneys on the panel are, no doubt, well 

aware. 

Third, there are ample resources to assist those businesses that genuinely want 

to comply with the law. There are substantial tax credits and deductions—up to 50% 

in credits for eligible expenditures to increase accessibility in a year, up to a maximum each year of $10,250. Section 190 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a 

tax deduction of up to $15,000 per year for removal of architectural barriers. Small 

businesses can use these incentives in combination if they qualify under both sections. 

The Justice Department, as well as many state and local governments, and nongovernmental organizations, provide technical assistance so that those who, in good 

faith, wish to comply, can do so. Compliance with the law should not be a guessing 

game. The point of the ADA is not to encourage litigation, but to encourage compliance. 

We should never forget that the reason Congress enacted the ADA, and why it 

has enjoyed such broad bipartisan support over the last 22 years, is that we are 

committed as a Nation to promoting inclusion. Too often, access to jobs, stores, restaurants, and other facilities that the rest of us simply take for granted are denied 

to those with disabilities. 

When we fail to guarantee access to the disabled, they remain excluded from society and marginalized. There is no longer any question about the consequences of 

this exclusion, and a decent society must never tolerate it. 

So, we should be working to promote greater compliance, not to undermine one 

of the few mechanisms available to assure greater compliance. To the extent that 

there are bad actors out there, we should be looking to the existing mechanisms 

available to punish misconduct in, and misuse of, our courts. If we need to ensure 

that those mechanisms are more effective, we can and should certainly discuss that. 

But undermining the available remedies for disabled people everywhere in all situations by giving property owners in violation of the law a free ride is not the way. 

I join the distinguished Chairman in welcoming our witnesses today, and I look 

forward to their testimony. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

23 

Mr. FRANKS. Our first witness is Representative Dan Lungren of 

California. Mr. Lungren represents California’s 3rd Congressional 

District. He was first elected to Congress in 1978. 

From 1991 to 1999, Mr. Lungren served as Attorney General of 

California. In 2005, he returned to Congress and is currently the 

Chairman of the Committee on House Administration and is a 

Member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees. 

Mr. Lungren, your witness statement will be entered into the 

record in its entirety. And I would now recognize Representative 

Lungren for 5 minutes to make an opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL E. LUNGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Mr. Ranking Member and other Members of the Subcommittee. 

Since my statement will be entered into the record, let me just say 

a couple of things. 

One is that my staff and I have spoken with dozens of small 

business owners in California, restaurants and other small business enterprises. And the number one fear that they expressed to 

me is the fear of abusive ADA lawsuits. They tell me that they 

want as many customers as possible to come to their store. It is not 

in their business interest to put up barriers of entry for people to 

come in. 

But, in fact, the practice in California, and especially my district, 

where you have had thousands of lawsuits that have been filed, in 

most cases, without any specificity. And the claim that is being 

made or the grievance that is being presented without specificity 

gives no opportunity for the owner/operator to be able to respond 

in a meaningful way and thereby do what we really want this law 

to do, actually result in access. 

My bill does nothing to change the underlying ADA. Rather, it 

requires that the grievant put in writing with sufficient specificity 

that the reasonable owner/operator understands he is in violation 

of the ADA. It then gives that individual an opportunity to respond, in writing, within a specific period of time, with specificity 

as to how they are going to handle it. And then the third part is 

that there would be a period of time in which the owner/operator 

can actually make those physical changes. 

Now if the owner/operator does not do these things, it seems to 

me the grievant is in a remarkably enhanced position as they go 

to court. If I am a Federal judge, the fact that the owner/operator 

basically did not take this seriously, and if there is any basis whatsoever for finding that there is a violation of the ADA, that puts 

the defendant, I think, in a very, very poor position. In fact, that 

would be the best mechanism by which you could achieve access 

sooner rather than later. 

I am aware of a sandwich shop that was a defendant in an ADA 

lawsuit in which the litigant never visited the shop, but used 

Google maps to determine that the disability or handicap signage 

was missing. The plaintiff in this case sued for trauma and embarrassment as a consequence of not being able to access a business 

that the plaintiff never visited. 

24 

In another case that has come to my attention recently, a locksmith owner in my district, who himself has a disability, closed his 

shop in mid-April 2012 to undergo surgery. When he came back a 

month later to reopen, he learned that a generally-stated ADA lawsuit had been filed against his business. His attorney advised him 

that at his age it would probably take a number of years for them 

to resolve it. The cost would be excessive. He never opened his 

doors again. The business owner called this extortion. Other tenants in the building may be told that they have to move as well. 

That is not what the ADA was intended to do. 

Now, the Ranking Member referred to this as a Republican proposal. There is bipartisan concern about the ADA. In April 2012 

letter, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote to California Senate 

President Pro Temporary Darrell Steinberg and stated, ‘‘Today we 

are still witnessing an alarming rate of demand letters that are 

being sent to small business owners demanding settlements in the 

range of $5,000 to $8,000. The payment of this settlement amount, 

combined with the cost of hiring a lawyer to respond to a demand 

letter, can easily add up to more than $15,000 in costs for a small 

business owner. As you know, these unforeseen costs can be devastating to the mom and pop stores that are struggling to remain 

in business.’’ 

It is not, therefore, a partisan issue. There is an effort going on 

at the State level in California to try and respond to this in some 

enlightened way. 

So, I hope this not viewed in a partisan way. I hope that Members will understand that there is a need to tweak this law to make 

it more effective to reach what I think we all, on a bipartisan basis, 

want. And that is access that has been established, not long litigation. 

The abuse falls disproportionately on small businesses. In my 

State, it falls disproportionately on minority-owned businesses, 

which happen to be, in most cases, the ones that have less capital 

than others. Oftentimes, it falls on those operators whose first language is not English, and frankly, they have difficulty responding 

to a generalized letter of complaint. And really the demand that 

they get is pay up or you will suffer, and that is what we are trying 

to get away from. 

Again, we do not in any way change the underlying proposition 

of ADA. We attempt to try and change the process so that there 

will be more expeditious resolution of problems which exist. Everybody admits that there are too many violations out there, technical 

and otherwise. The question is how do you handle that? How do 

you provide incentives for people to move toward access as opposed 

to a standoff? And if you require a specificity such that there can 

be, under the reasonable person standard, notice as to what the 

problem is, there is a far greater chance that you are going to have 

a resolution of that problem. 

Simply, that is what this bill does. And I would say it has strong 

support from the small business community. I hope that we can 

reach a bipartisan accord on this. And I thank you for listening. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lungren follows:] 

25 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California 

Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak on 

behalf of my legislation—H.R. 3356, the ACCESS Act. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a landmark civil rights law. The 

passage of the ADA was a watershed moment in American history because our nation stood up to protect and defend the dignity of persons with disabilities and their 

rights to accessibility in our Nation. This is what the ADA was intended to do— 

to ensure that public accommodations will be accessible to all Americans. 

Unfortunately, however, across the nation and especially in my district in California, thousands of lawsuits have been filed under the ADA in which litigants have 

the sole intent of obtaining settlement money from small business enterprises. These 

litigants usually have no intent whatsoever of obtaining increased accessibility for 

persons with disabilities. In these lawsuits that abuse the Americans with Disabilities Act, litigants routinely make general allegations against businesses about noncompliance with the ADA. Business owners all too often find themselves unaware 

of the specific nature of the allegations against them. The litigants then quickly 

seek to settle for thousands of dollars while usually not pursuing that business’ actual compliance with the ADA. These kinds of abusive lawsuits are based upon a 

desire to achieve financial settlements. In the vast majority of these cases, they do 

not seek to achieve the facility modifications necessary to provide equal access to 

places of public accommodation. 

What is the impact of these lawsuits that abuse the Americans with Disabilities 

Act? Professional litigants make money. ADA compliance is not truly enforced because these cases often never make it to court. Unsuspecting businesses in my state 

are forced to close or temporarily shut down because of the inability to pay settlements or insufficient time to make the necessary improvements. Nobody wins. In 

one particularly egregious example, one plaintiff has filed over 2,000 of these kinds 

of lawsuits. The ADA was never intended to be a money making machine for the 

few while failing to increase accessibility for the many. 

My staff and I have spoken with dozens of small business owners in California— 

restaurants and other small business enterprises. What is the number one threat 

they fear—abusive ADA lawsuits. They tell me they want as many customers as 

possible. They tell me they try hard to comply with the ADA because they do not 

want to turn anyone away, especially in this economy. But they believe these abusive ADA lawsuits are not what the ADA was intended to do. 

With thousands of these lawsuits nationwide and in my district in particular, the 

number of egregious lawsuits are too numerous to count. I have been told of a music 

store that was the defendant in an ADA lawsuit in which the complaint failed to 

state any violations specific to that store. What was the primary issue of the lawsuit? The number of handicapped parking spaces in the parking lot despite the fact 

that the plaintiff had not ever visited the music store. I am aware of a sandwich 

shop that was the defendant in an ADA lawsuit in which the litigant never visited 

the shop but used Google maps to determine that the handicapped signage was 

missing. The plaintiff in this case sued for trauma and embarrassment as a consequence of being unable to access a business that the plaintiff never visited. In another case, a locksmith owner, who himself has a disability, closed his shop in MidApril 2012 to undergo surgery. His shop is located in a building that is approximately 100 years old. When he came back a month later to reopen he learned that 

an abusive ADA lawsuit had been filed against his business. His attorney advised 

the owner, age 66, to never open his doors again. The business owner calls it ‘‘extortion.’’ Other tenants in the building may be told they have to move. This is not what 

the Americans with Disabilities Act was intended to do. It was intended to increase 

accessibility for all Americans with disabilities not to enrich the few. 

There is bipartisan concern about abuse of the ADA. In an April 2012 letter, U.S. 

Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote to California Senate President pro Tempore Darrell 

Steinberg and stated: 

‘‘[t]oday, we are still witnessing an alarming rate of demand letters that are being 

sent to small business owners demanding settlements in the range of $5,000–$8,000. 

The payment of this settlement amount, combined with the cost of hiring a lawyer 

26 

to respond to the demand letter, can easily add up to more than $15,000 in costs 

for a small business owner. As you know, these unforeseen costs can be devastating 

to the ‘‘moms and pop shops’’ that are struggling to remain open for business.’’ 

Though discussing state legislation and not commenting on my ACCESS Act specifically, Senator Feinstein agrees that a new right to cure approach is needed to 

solve this problem. She continues: 

‘‘Thus, I believe it is critical that a 90-day right to cure be enacted to help 

small businesses respond to this problem and, once and for all, to end these 

abuses by certain aggressive attorneys and predatory plaintiffs. I strongly 

urge you to reconsider your position on this approach. A business owner’s 

ability to cure an ADA violation within 90 days would give that owner the 

opportunity to comply with the law without the wasteful expense of a lawsuit, which in my view would represent a win both for people with disabilities and for California small businesses.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit Senator Feinstein’s April 13, 2012 letter for 

the record. 

My legislation, H.R. 3356, the ACCESS (ADA Compliance for Customer Entry to 

Stores and Services) Act of 2011, ensures greater compliance with the Americans 

with Disabilities Act while protecting small businesses from abusive lawsuits. 

The ACCESS Act would serve the underlying purpose of the ADA by creating a 

legal structure which enhances the prospects for real corrective action. Under my 

legislation, any person aggrieved by a violation of the ADA would provide the owner 

or operator with a written notice of the violation specific enough to allow the owner 

or operator to identify the barrier, make the needed changes, and thus become compliant. 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 then have 120 days to remove the 

infraction. The failure to meet any of these conditions would allow the suit to go forward. 

The ACCESS Act will refocus the ADA on what it was meant to do—ensure that 

public accommodations will be accessible to all Americans. Increasing public accommodations for persons with disabilities is not inconsistent with the need to protect 

small business owners from lawsuits that abuse the purpose of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. The ACCESS Act demonstrates that we can indeed do both. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Lungren. And I will now begin 

the questioning by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Lungren, you have been an attorney in private practice. You 

served as an attorney general of California. And I am not a lawyer, 

but it would seem to me that as a matter of professionalism and 

courtesy, a lawyer should at least make some attempt to work out 

a dispute prior to going to the trouble of filing a lawsuit. 

Does your bill require anything more than the common courtesy 

of asking a business to fix a violation so that a lawsuit does not 

need to be filed? 

Mr. LUNGREN. The only thing I would say is that it requires a 

level of specificity so that under a reasonable person standard, one 

would be put on notice as to what the violations of the ADA are. 

And that would be my only addendum to your statement. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I think your legislation is a common sense solution to predatory ADA lawsuits, and it is consistent with other 

civil rights laws that require notice before lawsuits can be filed. 

However, those opposed to your legislation argue that if this bill 

becomes law, the rights of the disabled will be threatened. Do you 

believe that your bill will threaten the rights of disabled individuals to use public accommodations? 

27 

Mr. LUNGREN. If my bill in any way changes the underlying 

proposition of the ADA, you might be able to make that argument, 

but it does not. What it does is change the process and provide an 

incentive for resolution of the problem in a specific, practical way. 

And it seems to me rather than undercutting the rights of anybody, 

it enhances the rights of individuals who are disabled in one fashion or another. 

I guess I would call it a common sense approach to improving the 

underlying bill such that you can resolve the problem rather than 

extend the problem or never get satisfaction to a complaint. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Lungren. And I am going to 

now yield to Mr. Nadler for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I understand and somewhat even sympathize with what you are saying in some cases, I suppose. My 

problem is we do not permit damages here. If someone has not 

complied for 20 years and is found not have complied, the only 

remedy we have is comply. Spend the money to make your business 

accessible. 

Now in various other things we allow damages. Here we do not. 

But if that is the only remedy—get into compliance now—order an 

injunctive action, in effect, to get into compliance now. And you 

cannot bring a lawsuit even to do that until you have had a letter, 

which presumably has not been reacted to adequately, what incentive is there for someone, other than pure good will, what incentive, 

what legal or monetary incentive is there for a business owner to 

get into compliance before he gets a demand letter? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, thank you for the question. I would say a 

couple of things. One is right now there are demand letters oftentimes made, but they are of a general nature. They do not put the 

person on notice as to how they could take care of it so that there 

is not the incentive to try and take care of it with a sense of immediacy. 

Secondly, I would argue, having been a litigator for a number of 

years, that if a business called me up and said we had this letter 

that told us what we needed to do, we have ignored this letter, 

frankly, I do not want to take it seriously. I would either tell them 

find another attorney, or I would say, let me tell you what your circumstance is. You are going into Federal court, and the first thing 

the judge is going to read in the file is that you were put on notice 

with a degree of specificity so that any reasonable person could figure out what the problem was, and you ignored it. I am going to 

tell you, you are in trouble here. 

So I would suggest it actually gives the plaintiff an upper hand 

in a case where there has not been a good faith attempt to try and 

resolve the problem. And, again, I say that as someone who has 

litigated—— 

Mr. NADLER. I understand that. And certainly if I were the attorney for a plaintiff, I might very well start with such a letter. But, 

again, what incentive, if your bill passed, would there be for anyone to bother with compliance at all until he received such a letter? 

And let me ask you one other question as you answer that. What 

would you think of a proposal to say, okay, we will enact your bill, 

but we will amend it to include some sort of sanction, maybe monetary sanctions, if you should have brought yourself into compliance, 

28 

if you did not have to be a genius not to know that you were not 

in compliance and you did not do it before the letter. 

In other words, the problem right now is that your letter, I think, 

would completely eliminate any incentive for someone to spend 

money to bring himself into compliance before that letter was received. And maybe if we had the letter, but we still had some sort 

of sanction for not having acted if you knew you should have acted 

beforehand, that would be more reasonable. What would you think 

of that? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, first of all, I would just say we are talking 

about my bill versus the status quo. For the status quo now, one 

would have to ask what is the incentive for someone to try and 

take care of a violation of ADA prior to legislation being filed. Ours 

is a predicate to the litigation, but it does not stop the litigation 

from going forward. 

Mr. NADLER. Excuse me, Dan. The incentive now under the status quo is that you may be sued and be responsible not only for 

the expense of getting into compliance, but for attorney’s fees. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Sure. 

Mr. NADLER. That is a fairly weak incentive perhaps, but it is 

an incentive. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, you still have that as it exists now. Mine, 

I think, actually puts some robustness behind the threat of a lawsuit because you have got to take seriously if, in fact, they have 

given you notice. So I would say it adds to an incentive. 

The fact of the matter is, and I think you will hear this testimony, there are, for instance, 100 specific standards that deal with 

a disabled restroom. There are, I believe, something like 2,400 or 

2,500 separate standards, physical standards, that deal with operating a business that comes under the aegis of this statute. 

To suggest that people are sitting around consciously violating 

these things, I think is incorrect. And the idea that they have 20 

years to do this—oftentimes we are talking about businesses that 

have just set up. Someone goes in. They are starting a small business. And this happens to be the case, and it goes to one of the 

points you made earlier about a lack of full information. They may 

have, and we have had instances of this, people going to the local 

building department of their local jurisdiction and being told, oh, 

yeah, you have met the standards, or, you know, under the law, 

there is a grandfather clause, which there is not. 

And I remember when I was attorney general, one of the things 

we attempted to do was to try and help local jurisdictions in California understand precisely what the laws were. We had a case 

where the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl were undergoing a 

major renovation of the Rose Bowl. Part of it was actually a replacement of their press box. And what they intended to do with 

respect to accommodation for disabled was insufficient for the law. 

We had to go down as the office that has overall responsibility 

in our State and basically demand that they make the change and 

make it within a very short time period. They were gearing up for 

either the World Cup in soccer or the Super Bowl, I forget which. 

But we did that. Now, if you are going to ask me did they intend 

to violate the law? No, they did not understand even with their 

own building department, even with the information they had. 

29 

So, in many cases you have these businesses that, frankly, are 

unaware. And I am not saying they are all that way, but I am saying the vast majority, in my experience, are that way. So, how do 

we get from there to doing what we want to do, which is to get access to places of public accommodation? 

It seems to me creating a path where there is a greater incentive 

to work it out sooner rather than later is the way to do it. Now 

that is my approach to my bill. You may disagree with me, but that 

is the intent behind it. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. And I now recognize the 

distinguished gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the gentleman from California for bringing the bill. This seems like such 

pure common sense to me, it is a little amazing that we have sat 

around here for over 2 decades before something as simple as this 

has come forward. 

But I am curious, and I may be missing it in your testimony, how 

does that first notice come? If you have a disabled individual who 

is aggrieved by this, how does that first notice come to their attention? 

Mr. LUNGREN. They would send a written notice, most likely a 

letter, to the individual owner or operator of the place of public accommodation. And in there, they would be required to have sufficient specificity such that the person receiving it, under a reasonable person standard, which is a common law notion, reasonable 

person standard would be able to determine what the violation of 

the Act is. And then that person would be given a 60-day period 

of time to provide the aggrieved person with a description outlining 

the improvements to address the barrier. And then they would 

have 120 days in which to take care of it, then actually go forward. 

Mr. KING. Would this likely be the form of a letter from the attorney of the aggrieved person then? 

Mr. LUNGREN. It would not have to be an attorney. It could be 

an individual so that they could describe, as I say, with particularity, as to what the violation is. 

Mr. KING. I am just wondering because I do some of my own 

work that way without going to the attorney. But if I sent a letter 

to someone and they ignored that letter, then is it likely it would 

be a certified letter in order to prove that they received it? I am 

just trying to figure out how do you establish how the clock starts 

to tick on the first 60 days. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Upon receipt of the letter. I suppose if you wanted 

to be careful, you could make sure it was certified. You could also 

hand it to them. I mean, there are any number of ways of doing 

it. 

Mr. KING. Okay. But you have determined that, and that has already been a legal pattern, so I understand that. 

I am just thinking about the statement that you made about the 

proprietor who got back from his surgery and decided that he could 

not continue his business because the cost to recover the loss of the 

investment was too great. And I am just thinking of a community 

in my district that had about a lot and a half alongside a lake. For 

years they provided a dock for public access in a tiny little town 

with hardly any tax base, but it was a convenience thing. 

30 

And there was a little accident down alongside that resulted in 

just a few stitches. And in the ensuing litigation that came, the city 

council just decided that is it, we are not going to allow access to 

this any longer because the liability is too great. 

I just add that to your statement on what are we missing in this 

country, that we do not even know we are missing, because of the 

heavy burden of unnecessary litigation, among other things, and 

heavy regulation, and a whole list of things. 

I just think the richness of the life that we have in this country 

could be greater if we were not intimidating and discouraging people, especially small business folks. I started a business up in 1975, 

and my biggest fear then was how do I meet with all the risks of 

regulation and potential litigation? My oldest son owns that company today. We are in our 37th season. But, it has gotten greater 

and greater. 

The country has changed. The culture has shifted. We have fewer 

entrepreneurs per capita because of the weight of regulation, the 

weight of the threat of litigation. I just would point out that I think 

in those days, when Mr. Lungren and I and many others in this 

room were growing up, we would have an idea, and someone might 

say, well, I have checked my moral compass now, but there is no 

law against it, let us go ahead. And today it is entirely different. 

Now young people say, no one else is doing this, we have to get 

permission to go ahead, so let us just forget it. 

I just think our society is not as rich as it might have been otherwise. I think we are losing entrepreneurs. We are losing competition in business. Our costs are going up, and we have a lot of burden in this economy that is not productive, that does not help the 

quality of life. It just churns dollars, and intimidates people, and 

reduces the quality of life. 

I think this bill adds to our quality of life, and anybody that can 

resolve this issue within 60 to 120 days is a well-intentioned person. I do not see a down side to it at all, and I fully support it. 

I would yield to the gentleman to say anything he would further 

like to say. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I just say there is a famous case in California dealing with this. The Salary Shop made saddles. I think it 

was also a feed store. And they had actually been pioneers in working with those who suffered from disabilities in using horseback 

riding as a therapy. They were sued because it was an older store, 

and they had a handicapped access in the side of the back, not in 

the front. They were sued, and yet they could never get the person 

suing them to tell them precisely what it was they wanted them 

to fix. 

If you question the good faith of those folks, you know, were they 

folks that were not interested in assisting the disabled? Well, I 

mean, they had been pioneers in helping with therapeutic riding, 

which would suggest that they wanted to assist. 

That may be an extreme example, but that is an example of the 

kind of thing that I think most of us would say is contrary to common sense. What I am trying to do here is to figure out a common 

sense process change that does not change the underlying law, but 

would get us to resolution sooner rather than later. 

31 

Mr. KING. It is common sense. Thanks, Mr. Lungren. Thanks for 

bringing it. I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. King. And I would now yield to Mr. 

Scott from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lungren, you know, if we are going to live in a society where 

those with disabilities have access to public accommodations, there 

is going to be some inconvenience to people. And obviously, as you 

have suggested, it ought to be with common sense. 

What should the standard be? The present standard is that any 

change, in order to get into compliance, that would be required has 

to be easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without 

much difficulty or expense. Is that the standard that put your constituent out of business? 

Mr. LUNGREN. That is a standard that has been interpreted by 

a number of different courts, and some refer to that as a small 

business exception. It has not proven to be a small business exception. 

If someone makes that claim, as I understand it, it then makes 

it relevant in discovery for the plaintiff to be able to see the books 

of the operating entity, perhaps going back any number of years to 

prove that relative to the amount of money they have, this would 

fall within that definition. And, that often leads to a tremendous 

amount of litigation. 

I think we all agree that it ought to be something that is reasonably achievable, that it is not unduly costly. So, I think that is a 

common sense portion of the law, but it does not appear, at least 

in the experience of those people that have come to my attention 

in California, to have worked in the way that we all would have 

thought it would have worked. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if easily achievable and able to be carried out 

without much difficulty and expense is too stringent a standard, 

what kind of standard would you suggest? 

Mr. LUNGREN. I am not suggesting to change the standard. What 

I am suggesting is that we have preliminary litigation as an opportunity to resolve the issue such that the priority is not put on litigation, but the priority is put on accommodation. 

Mr. SCOTT. So you are not suggesting we change the standard at 

all. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No, I am not suggesting we change the standard. 

Mr. SCOTT. And the bill, as I read it, only applies to entry. What 

about everything else that is covered by the ADA? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Excuse me, I am sorry. I cannot hear you. 

Mr. SCOTT. As I read your bill, it only speaks to the barrier to 

entry into a public accommodation. How about anything else that 

is covered by the ADA? 

Mr. LUNGREN. This is supposed to deal with the issue of removing structural barriers to entry as the ADA requires because that 

seems to be the locus of complaints that we have received, claims 

of structural barriers without specificity as to what they are. 

I mean, you and I would talk about structural barriers. It goes 

to those standards that have been established, as I said. I believe 

there are 2,400, 2,500 of them in various regulations with respect 

32 

to physical requirements. And they are generally known as structural barriers. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. Well, Mr. Lungren, we are 

out of questions here. And I want to thank you again for testifying 

today. You are excused if you would like, but otherwise you are certainly welcome to join us on the dais here. And I would like to go 

ahead and invite you to do that, and also invite the members of our 

second panel of witnesses to come forward. 

I want to thank all of you for appearing before us today. Our 

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

two donut shops owned by her mother in Reedley and Stockton, 

California. Ms. Ky was born with cerebral palsy and has been in 

a wheelchair her entire life. Her family’s two business have both 

been the subject of abusive ADA lawsuits. In 2010 her family’s 

Reedley shop, where Ms. Ky regularly works alongside her employees, was sued for alleged violations of the ADA that were substantially, but not exclusively, based on signage not being placed in exactly the right position or the failure to have the exact number of 

signs called for under the applicable statute. Ms. Ky was not given 

any notice of the alleged ADA violations before the lawsuit was 

filed. 

Our second witness is Andy Levy, a named partner with the law 

firm Brown, Goldstein & Levy, where his practice focuses on civil, 

criminal, and appellate litigation. He is a fellow of the American 

College of Trial Lawyers, and is listed in Best Lawyers in America 

in 5 categories. Mr. Levy is a longtime member of the adjunct faculty at the University of Maryland School of Law, and his publications include the books, Maryland Evidence: A Courtroom Manual 

and Appellate Practice for the Maryland Lawyer. 

And our final witness is David Peters, CEO and general counsel 

at Lawyers Against Lawsuit Abuse. Mr. Peters has been consulted 

in more than 900 ADA accessibility lawsuits throughout the United 

States and has served as lead counsel in over 300 in California 

alone. Through his work he has exposed over 600 false and/or inappropriate claims in ADA accessibility lawsuits. Mr. Peters has written extensively and has appeared in numerous national television 

and print news features on the problem of litigation abuse. 

Each of the witness’ written statements will be entered into the 

record in its entirety, so I would ask that each of you summarize 

your testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that 

time, there is a timing light on the table. When the light switches 

from green to yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals that the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

And before I recognize the witnesses, it is the tradition of the 

Subcommittee that they be sworn, so please raise your right hand 

to be sworn. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. And I would now recognize our first witness for 5 minutes. And, Ms. Ky, if you will make sure that that 

microphone is on before you start speaking. 

33 

TESTIMONY OF LEE KY, REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. KY. Hi. My name is Lee Ky, and I do live in Reedley, California. I am here to express my concern regarding the Americans 

with Disabilities Act and how it is being used toward all businesses. 

I understand that all businesses 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. 

Public buildings should have accessible entrance doors for both 

wheelchairs and stroller users. Public facilities that have an eating 

area and restrooms 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. I am going to add something right now. At this table here does not have a sign that say 

for wheelchair only. 

Accessible buildings allow people with disabilities to become 

more independent and self-sufficient. As for me, I appreciate businesses that have accessible facility. But personally, I do not care 

if the grab bar is 40 inches or 32 inches on either side as long as 

it is provided and is there 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 regulations related to ADA. Not all businesses are up to code with the 

ADA guidelines. My mother has to donut shops and has been sued 

at both locations for alleged ADA violations. It is not fair for business owners to receive a lawsuit package not knowing what it was 

for, being asked for a certain amount of money and still having to 

pay for the corrections. 

Prior to filing a lawsuit, notification should be sent to a business 

if their facility is not compliant with the ADA. All businesses 

should have 30 days to correct minor violations and 120 days for 

constructional barriers. 

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

same and require businesses to remove 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 or where I should 

sit. 

The ADA should concentrate on accessible curbs and ramps that 

do not wrap around the building with back door access only. Generally, when I enter through the back door, I feel like businesses 

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 people feel 

34 

that small businesses owe it to them because of their current situation. This makes the rest of disableds, who are trying to earn an 

honest living, look bad. 

Throughout my life, people in general are very helpful. Whenever 

I am out and about by myself, 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 whether 

to purchase or to simply use the restroom. 

I would like to see the ADA regulation or Federal laws to be fair 

and not be taken advantage of or misused. I believe our elected officials and city inspectors should inform all businesses in their district of all new laws and changes. 

If this frivolous, nitpicky, and unnecessary money hungry ADA 

laws will continue, many businesses will be forced to shut down because they do not have the money to pay for the lawsuit. To me, 

it is reminiscent of mobsters requesting protection money. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ky follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Lee Ky, Reedly, California 

My name is Lee Ky and I live in Reedley, Ca. I am here to express my concerns 

regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act and how it’s being used toward all 

businesses. I understand that businesses must be accessible for all customers. I 

have been disabled all my life and I am grateful that President George H. W Bush 

recognized the needs for accessibilities for the disabled community when he signed 

the ADA into law in 1990. 

Public buildings should have accessible entrance doors for both wheelchair and 

stroller users. Public facilities that have an eating area and restrooms should be accessible, with tables wide enough and high enough for a wheelchair to fit. The eating area should not be ‘‘designated’’ just for disabled people. Accessible public buildings, allow persons with disabilities become more independent and self-reliant. As 

for me, I appreciate businesses that have accessible facilities. But, personally, I 

don’t care if the grab bar is 48’’ or 32’’ on either side, as long as it’s provided and 

it’s there when I need it. 

All business owners have to recognize the needs of all customers. For example, 

many of businesses provide a carpet or rubber mat at the entrance outside or inside 

to prevent able-bodied customers from slipping. In my experience, the carpet or the 

mat has never become entangled in my wheels. If the ADA regulations remain the 

same and require businesses to remove carpets or mats for the convenience of the 

disabled people, then the ADA will be creating a hazard for the able-bodied person. 

We (the disabled community) should not be made to feel segregated from the rest 

of society. This will only create bitterness between customers and businesses. I don’t 

need a sign to inform me that I am a disabled or where I should sit. 

The ADA should concentrate on accessible curbs and ramps that do not wrap 

around the building with back door access only. Generally, when I enter through 

the back door, I feel like businesses 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 people feel that small businesses owe it to them because of 

their current situation. This makes the rest of the disabled who are trying to earn 

an honest living look bad. 

Many business owners are not aware of the changes or new regulations related 

to the ADA. Not all businesses are up to code with ADA guidelines. My mother has 

two donut shops and has been sued at both locations for alleged ADA violations. It’s 

not fair for business owners to receive a lawsuit package not knowing what it is 

35 

for, being asked for certain amount of money, and still having to pay for corrections. 

Prior to filing a lawsuit, notification should be sent to businesses if their facilities 

are not compliant with the ADA. All businesses should have 30 days to correct 

minor violations and 120 days for construction barriers. 

Throughout my life people in general are very helpful; whenever I am out and 

about by myself, people offer their kindness to assist me whether I accept or decline 

is up to me. I also have a voice and if I need assistance I can ask for help. I don’t 

want business owners to cringe when they see me entering their establishment 

whether to purchase or to simply use the restroom. I would like to see the ADA regulations or Federal laws be fair and not be taken advantage of or abused. I believe 

our elected officials and city inspectors should inform all businesses in their districts 

of all new laws and changes. 

If these frivolous, nit-picky, unnecessary money hungry ADA lawsuits continue, 

many businesses will be forced to shut down because they don’t have the money to 

pay for the lawsuit or correct the facility. To me it’s reminiscent of mobsters requesting protection money. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Ky. 

And I would now recognize Mr. Levy for 5 minutes. And you 

have got that microphone on, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW D. LEVY, 

PARTNER, BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY 

Mr. LEVY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on 

H.R. 3356. It would amend the ADA to require that individual defendants be sent a letter before they could be sued for violating the 

ADA, even if they had been violating it for years, and even if the 

nature of their violations were open and obvious to all, such as a 

few steps that could easily be ramped. 

It is particularly ironic that Congress is considering this bill now 

when we have thousands of newly disabled veterans who need the 

protections promised by the ADA now more than ever. 

Passage of the bill will make enforcement of the ADA more cumbersome and more expensive. Worse, it will eliminate much of the 

existing incentive businesses have to attempt to comply with the 

law voluntarily. The net result of this is that there will be much 

less voluntary compliance. 

The dirty little secret of the ADA is that its enforcement provisions, particularly those relating to public accommodations, are relatively weak. Virtually alone, among Federal statutes, the law currently provides no damages for its violations. Since there are no 

damages for past violations and, if this bill becomes law, you cannot be sued until you get notice, there is zero incentive to comply 

with the ADA until you get a letter, if you get one. And then you 

can comply without risking any sanction for the many years you 

waited to comply. Thus, the proposed amendment effectively creates a blanket nationwide exemption to the ADA. 

In addition, Congress correctly recognized that the Federal Government does not have the resources to enforce the civil rights laws 

entirely on its own. The ADA, like other civil rights statutes, relies 

primarily on private individuals for its enforcement. Lawyers who 

bring ADA cases already assume the risk that they will lose and 

be paid nothing. By making the ADA increasingly difficult and 

cumbersome to enforce, you create additional disincentives for lawVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:49 Sep 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\062712\74818.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
36 

yers to take these cases. It is basic economics. The greater the incentive, the greater the participation. 

The ADA is already a chronically under enforced statute, and it 

benefits a group that already has difficulty accessing legal services. 

If Congress further reduces these incentives that do exist, the result will inevitably be less enforcement of the ADA. If you make 

enforcement of the ADA rely on charity, the ADA will die. 

One should not need a special invitation to comply with the law, 

particularly one that has been on the books for more than 20 years. 

Moreover, the notion that the epidemic of noncompliance with the 

ADA could easily be cured by sending a letter is, in my experience, 

a myth. Implicit in the idea of notification is the idea that most violators are genuinely unaware that they are violating the ADA, and 

that upon getting a letter, they will immediately bring themselves 

into compliance. And yet, they cannot or will not take those same 

steps after they are sued, that once sued, they are mired in the 

courts for years. 

In truth, this hypothetical violator, the one who would have complied if only someone had bothered to let him know that there were 

a couple of steps preventing wheelchair access to a store, assuming 

he exists, can just as easily comply with the law after being sued. 

And under the Supreme Court’s Buckhannon precedent can do so 

without incurring liability for any attorney’s fees. 

Particularly disappointing is the claim that this amendment is 

needed to help small business. Nothing in this bill is limited to 

small business. Large companies, who routinely employ lawyers to 

advise them on what other Federal statutes require, can certainly 

do the same with respect to the ADA. As for small business, the 

ADA already has several provisions that protect small businesses 

from unreasonable requirements, which Mr. Scott in his questions 

earlier pointed out. 

It is a flexible law. The flexibility was purposely included as a 

bipartisan compromise so that businesses of different sizes and circumstances could be treated differently. But with flexibility comes 

responsibility. One cannot fairly complain that the law’s requirements are vague and imprecise on the one hand and not lift a finger to investigate what it requires on the other. 

In closing, I respectfully submit that passage of this ill-advised 

bill is unnecessary and will do far more harm than good to the 

cause of equality and accessibility. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levy follows:] 

37 


Levy-1.eps
38 


Levy-2.eps
39 


Levy-3.eps
40 


Levy-4.eps
41 


Levy-5.eps
42 


Levy-6.eps
43 


Levy-7.eps
44 


Levy-8.eps
45 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Levy. 

Mr. Peters, you are now recognized for 5 minutes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID WARREN PETERS, CEO AND 

GENERAL COUNSEL, LAWYERS AGAINST LAWSUIT ABUSE 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues. 

While I have only been consulted in about 900 ADA cases around 

the country, I am in touch with attorneys who have handled a far 

larger number than that, so I have knowledge of a larger group of 

cases. And I am here to tell you about some of the troubling practices that we have seen occurring in hundreds of cases around the 

country, which have, not surprisingly, required a number of businesses to close. And I would add that that should never need to 

occur in one of these cases. 


Levy-9.eps
46 

H.R. 3356 would change all that in that it would require an almost immediate agreement to make changes with the knowledge 

that if those changes were not quickly made, the pre-litigation notice letter it requires would almost certainly exhibit A to a costly 

Federal lawsuit. I think that is about the worst way to get on the 

wrong side of a Federal judge is to have such an exhibit in your 

lawsuit showing that you were asked to make a change and you 

were not willing to make it. 

In these very difficult financial times, we need to give individuals 

confidence to step forward and create jobs, but hundreds of my clients have received inaccurate information from their local building 

departments, city leaders, and even legislators being told that they 

were grandfathered and that their business did not need to make 

these changes. Of course, grandfathering applies to building codes, 

and these laws involve civil rights at businesses that are open to 

the public. 

So while it is certainly not true that they were grandfathered, 

the answer is that these businesses need information, not to be 

blindsided by a lawsuit for changes that most would gladly make 

if they only knew of the requirements. A lawsuit should not be the 

first notice they get. 

In 2005, I personally witnessed at least 7 small businesses close 

very quickly in the small mountain community of Julian, California 

after an attorney demanded $200,000 as an unlawful investigation 

fee after he had spent a weekend there from about 67 businesses 

in the name of an organization that he created and represented. 

The demands were calculated to increase every day during which 

they were not accepted. 

Since then, we have seen dozens of other businesses close as a 

direct result of these lawsuits, in many cases after making all appropriate changes, just because they never wanted to deal with the 

nightmare of another ADA lawsuit. 

But more troubling is the fact that many hundreds, if not thousands, of these cases are concluded without any changes ever being 

made, which undermines the important public policy objectives of 

the ADA. Exhibit D is just one example of standard terms offered 

by one law firm known to have filed over 2,000 ADA accessibility 

lawsuits. Basically, if you pay the right price, you can obtain a settlement agreement wrapped in a strong confidentiality clause, 

which is, for practical purposes, all but unenforceable. 

Note that the agreement only requires that the defendant do 

what its consultant recommends, but does not require that the consultant be qualified or even that the items mentioned in the complaint be fixed. In many cases, hundreds of cases, they simply are 

not. Many attorneys deliberately leave information about conditions which may need to be changed out of their lawsuits for fear 

defendants will make all of the changes and moot the case. But 

since so many of these cases are settled informally, many defendants never learn about all the changes they need to make. 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently commented that a filer 

of thousands of these lawsuits admitted that he rarely mentioned 

all conditions which could limit accessibility for his clients in the 

complaints he filed because, and I quote, ‘‘Otherwise, a defendant 

could remove all the barriers prior to trial and moot the entire 

47 

case.’’ We are citing Oliver v. Ralphs, which is in Exhibit E. So if 

one of the purposes of the ADA was that these lawsuits would operate to prompt changes for others, practices like these directly undermine that objective. 

But not all lawyers conceal claims. A discreet selling of noncompliance is far more common. I have been told that if my client 

pays the right amount, the plaintiff’s attorney will agree with my 

access plan whether it is appropriate or not. And if that amount 

is not paid, they will find a way to object to it, no matter how meritorious it is. 

At one struggling charity thrift store, which was only months 

from being taken by eminent domain, I was told that if my client 

did not pay $50,000, the plaintiff’s attorney would contend that a 

power door should be installed, even though the business only had 

8 months left to operate. 

In the same way noncompliance is often overlooked in these 

cases, conditions which are completely compliant will provide no 

protection. In the case of Kohler vs. Flava, we had to litigate for 

17 months to prove that each of the claims made by plaintiff’s 

counsel were meritless. This required over $100,000 in legal expense for which we could not bill this very small client, and for 

which the court declined to award us fees, as shown in your exhibits. 

As you probably are aware, there is a one-way fee statute in 

these cases by which prevailing plaintiffs almost always recover 

their legal fees, while prevailing defendants are lucky to ever recover a fraction, if any, of them. These have been described as the 

cases you cannot afford to win, and creates a situation where inappropriate positions can easily be taken without accountability. 

The Flava case was unusual because we had photographic proof 

that two of the three sole claims in the complaint were false. The 

property had previously been sued by the same attorney, and the 

changes had been photographed, text messaged, and e-mailed in 

2009. So there could be no question that they did not exist in 2010 

when the plaintiff claimed he had visited. As to the third claim, the 

attorney had sued 105 defendants on that same claim, which is basically that a bench longer than 48 inches, a dressing room bench, 

would cause problems for people with disabilities. And he failed in 

every adjudication, but he nevertheless advanced litigation against 

my client on that claim for 17 months and failed in that case as 

well. 

In that case, what made it unusual was that this attorney has 

falsified the signatures of a deceased client of his on documents 

which were first prepared weeks after the client’s death. When we 

reported this to the court, that attorney sued each of the defendants that had reported the signature forgery to the court. And so 

my client had not one, but 2 lawsuits to deal with. Another defendant had several lawsuits to deal with. 

Worst of all, the attorney felt that he was entitled to falsify those 

signatures 3 weeks after his client had died. And every judge who 

has considered the matter has disagreed with him. But that did not 

help my small business client at all. To date, we probably have 

about a half million dollars in fees that we cannot bill the client, 

and we will probably not see from the court. 

48 

*Mr. Peters submitted supplemental materials with his statement that the Committee chose 

not to print. However, the materials are on file in the official hearing record. Please contact the 

House Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution for that information. 

The ADA does not need to be a game where only the attorneys 

win and people with disabilities too often are the losers. As you 

may know, vast numbers of these cases are concluded without appropriate changes ever being made. One of the reasons for this is 

that it can take 2 years or more to litigate a case, and during that 

time attorneys must often advise their clients not to make changes 

for fear they will be accused of destroying evidence, as one of my 

clients was when making the very changes that the plaintiffs 

sought. In that case as well, two of the three sole claims were adjudicated in the defendant’s favor, and as to the third, the plaintiff 

failed in every known adjudication, but prolonged the litigation 

even beyond the summary judgment phase. 

Moving on, in Pinnock v. Michelin, even though the plaintiff’s attorney could find no problem at a site meeting with attorneys, witnesses, and experts, they nevertheless converted the lawsuit to a 

class action and litigated for an additional 8 months against my client. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Peters, I have got to ask you to wrap up here. 

Mr. PETERS. Understood. I wholeheartedly support H.R. 3356. It 

gives a plaintiff the power to have a change made immediately 

rather than maybe after 2 years and maybe not at all. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peters follows:] 

Prepared Statement of David Warren Peters, Esq., 

CEO and General Counsel, Lawyers Against Lawsuit Abuse* 

I’ve been consulted in over 900 ADA/accessibility lawsuits throughout the United 

States, and defended over 400 such claims as lead counsel. I urge your support of 

H.R. 3356 because it will stop some widespread, troubling practices in these cases, 

reduce the number of businesses which close as a direct result and accelerate improvements for disabled access which are currently not being made in a very large 

number of these cases. 

H.R. 3356 would require an almost immediate agreement to make changes with 

the knowledge that, if changes were not quickly made, the pre-litigation notice letter 

it requires would most likely be ‘‘Exhibit A’’ to a costly lawsuit where the business 

could be forced to make those same changes and pay the plaintiff’s attorney. In 

these very difficult financial times, we need to give individuals confidence to step 

forward and create jobs. But hundreds of my clients received inaccurate information 

from their local building departments, city leaders and even legislators that they 

were ‘‘grandfathered’’ and only needed to make improvements if they made significant structural changes at their business. While that’s certainly not true, the answer is that businesses need information—not to be ‘‘blindsided’’ by lawsuits for 

changes most would gladly make if they only knew of the requirements. A lawsuit 

should not be the first notice they get. 

In 2005, I personally witnessed at least seven (7) small businesses close very 

quickly in the small mountain community of Julian, California after an attorney demanded a $200,000 (Exhibit ‘‘A’’) as an unlawful ‘‘investigation fee’’ (Exhibit ‘‘B’’ 

page 7 paragraph 2) from about 67 businesses in the name of an organization he 

created and represented, which demands increased every day his terms were not accepted (Exhibit ‘‘C’’). Since then, we’ve seen dozens of other businesses close as a 

direct result of these lawsuits, in many cases after making all appropriate changes, 

just because they never wanted to deal with the nightmare of another ADA lawsuit. 

But more troubling is the fact that many hundreds, if not thousands of these 

cases, are concluded without any changes ever being made, which undermines the 

49 

1 Each of the foregoing decisions has already been appealed or is shortly expected to be thus 

requiring even more work for which we can’t bill out clients. 

important public policy objectives of the ADA. Exhibit ‘‘D’’ is just one example of 

the standard terms offered by one law firm known to have filed over 2,000 ADA/ 

accessibility lawsuits. Basically, if you pay the right price, you can obtain a settlement agreement wrapped in a strong confidentiality clause which is, for practical 

purposes, all but unenforceable. Note that the agreement only requires the defendant to do what its consultant recommends, but does not require that the consultant 

be qualified or even that the items mentioned in the complaint be fixed. 

Many attorneys deliberately leave information about conditions which may need 

to be changed out of their lawsuits for fear defendants will make all the changes 

and moot the case; but since so many of these cases are settled informally, many 

defendants never learn about all the changes they need to make. The Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals recently commented that a filer of thousands of these lawsuits admitted that he rarely mentioned all conditions which could limit accessibility for his 

clients in the complaints he filed because ‘‘. . . otherwise a defendant could remove 

all the barriers prior to trial and moot the entire case’’ (see footnote 7 on page 10888 

of Exhibit ‘‘E’’—Oliver v. Ralphs). So if one of the purposes of the ADA was that 

these lawsuits would operate to prompt changes for others, practices like these directly undermine that objective. 

But not all lawyers conceal claims—a discrete selling of noncompliance is far more 

common—I’ve been told that if my client pays the right amount, the plaintiff’s attorney will agree with my access plan whether it is appropriate or not, and if that 

amount is not paid, they will find a way to object to it no matter how meritorious 

it is. At one struggling charity thrift store which was only months from being taken 

by eminent domain, I was told that if my client didn’t pay $50,000, the plaintiff’s 

attorney would contend that a power door should be installed to prolong the case 

and increase defense expense. 

In the same way noncompliance is often overlooked in these cases, conditions 

which are completely compliant still provide no protection. In the case of Kohler v. 

Flava we had to litigate for 17 months to prove that each of the claims made by 

plaintiff’s counsel were meritless (Exhibit ‘‘F’’). This required over $100,000 in legal 

expense for which we could not bill this very small client and for which the Court 

declined to award us fees, as shown in Exhibits ‘‘G1’’ and ‘‘G2’’. As you are probably 

aware, there is a one-way fees statute in these cases by which prevailing plaintiffs 

almost always recover their legal fees while prevailing defendants are lucky to ever 

recover a fraction, if any, of them. These have been described as ‘‘the cases you can’t 

afford to win’’ and creates a situation where inappropriate positions can easily be 

taken without accountability. 

The Flava case was unusual because we had photographic proof that two of the 

three sole claims in the complaint (Exhibit ‘‘H’’) were false—the property had previously been sued by the same attorney, and the changes had been photographed, 

text messaged and emailed in 2009, so there could be no question that they did not 

exist in 2010 when the plaintiff testified he’d first visited. As to the third claim, the 

attorney had sued 105 defendants and failed in every known adjudication (Exhibits 

‘‘M’’, ‘‘N’’ and ‘‘F’’), but kept demanding and receiving nuisance settlements from defendants who found it would cost them less to settle than to prove their innocence. 

The real reason my client was sued is shown in Exhibits ‘‘I’’ and ‘‘J’’—because we 

reported to the court that this attorney falsified several signatures of a deceased client on documents which were first prepared weeks after her death. This attorney 

then filed a handful of new lawsuits against each of the defendants who’d reported 

the signature falsification to the court. Even though the falsity of many of the 

claims was documented in considerable detail, the judges were never willing to consider the evidence about the various cases together because it could create the impression that they were not limiting their focus to the case in question.1

But the ADA does not need to be a game where only the attorneys win and people 

with disabilities too often are the losers. As you may know, vast numbers of these 

cases are concluded without appropriate changes ever being made. One of the reasons for this is that it can take two years or more to litigate a case, and during 

50 

that time attorneys must often advise their clients not to make changes for fear 

they will be accused of destroying evidence, as one of my clients was when making 

the very changes the plaintiff sought (Exhibit ‘‘K’’ at 2:7). In that case as well, two 

of the three sole claims were adjudicated in the defendant’s favor (Exhibit ‘‘L’’), and 

as to the third, the plaintiff failed in every known adjudication (Exhibits ‘‘M’’, ‘‘N’’ 

and ‘‘F’’)—basically, the plaintiff contended that a dressing room bench longer than 

48 inches in length somehow limited accessibility for people with disabilities. While 

every judge we know of has disagreed, if this attorney received similar amounts in 

each of the cases in which he made these claims, he would have received $500,000 

or more for advancing claims which consistently failed. 

In T3Pinnock v. Michlin even though the plaintiff’s attorney could find no problems whatsoever at a site meeting with a number of witnesses (Exhibit ‘‘O’’), they 

still converted the claim to a class action (Exhibit ‘‘P’’) and litigated for over 8 

months against this small picture frame shop shown in Exhibit ‘‘Q’’. In the end, the 

sole picture they produced by court order of the condition on which their claim was 

based showed a compliant counter which had existed unchanged for decades (Exhibit ‘‘R’’). 

In Pinnock v. Coles, that same law firm filed a complaint which represented that 

their client had visited a carpet store on two specific dates (Exhibit ‘‘S’’); but when 

confronted with video footage from the 10 high definition cameras which covered 

every area of the store and that the plaintiff did not appear in it for a week before 

and after each date, they filed another lawsuit (Exhibit ‘‘T’’) in the name of one 

‘‘Robin Member.’’ When reminded that pseudonyms were inappropriate for adult 

plaintiffs (and few kids buy carpet), they indicated that the Plaintiff’s true name 

was Robin Lavender but that they could no longer contact her. We decided to help 

but one of the best private investigators in the area could find no record of anyone 

named Robin Lavender ever having lived anywhere in the county (and most people 

who buy carpet tend to have property ownership or leasing information in credit 

records). Unable to produce plaintiff number two, the lawfirm filed a third lawsuit— 

this time a statewide class action lawsuit (Exhibit ‘‘U’’) for a failure to provide 

Braille and wheelchair access. But when the plaintiff in that case finally arrived in 

court, a courtroom full of witnesses and two Federal judges saw that she needed 

neither Braille nor wheelchair access, because she walked in without assistance and 

was seen reading an ordinary book (Exhibits ‘‘V’’ and ‘‘W’’). 

But the dozens of false claims this lawfirm filed in the name of Plaintiff Lissa 

Hayes were just the beginning. As you can see on the news video I am showing, 

the KABC news copter caught their client Jim Cohan hiking up a hill with his dogs, 

even though they had filed countless claims in his name alleging a lack of Braille 

and wheelchair access (Exhibit ‘‘X’’ is just one example). Their former client Noni 

Gotti recently testified to the California State Senate on video (available on request) 

that she Googled her name and was shocked to see that they filed as many as 243 

lawsuits about a lack of Braille, wheelchair accessibility and numerous other conditions which had never been a problem for her, against many places she’s never visited (Exhibits ‘‘Y1’’ through ‘‘Y4’’). While it is true that one of the attorneys who 

worked on her cases fled the country and tried to resign; the State Bar opposed his 

resignation and pressed charges—the problem is that the charges had almost nothing to do with the false claims discussed above, and to date, there has been almost 

no accountability for any of the small businesses sued in these cases, many of which 

closed immediately. 

But H.R. 3356 can put a stop to all that, and can restore the ADA to its original 

intent and the dignity and respect it was intended to have. What defendant would 

not immediately change out a round door knob or remove an unsecured floormat— 

even if the plaintiff did not need really those things? Almost any small business 

would make the change immediately with its ‘‘first dollars’’ instead of putting them 

toward litigation, where too often they are never made once a settlement is paid. 

I personally visited, photographed and documented 100 properties in 4 cities 

which had been sued in ADA/accessibility lawsuits at least 5 years earlier, so the 

time for appeals and reconsideration would have passed long before. 98 of those 

properties had significant conditions which would immediately support a new ADA/ 

lawsuit, and at many, no changes whatsoever had been made. H.R. 3356 would have 

51 

had changes made at every one of those properties within weeks. After 20 years of 

lawsuits and only a fraction of the progress we owe our citizens with disabilities, 

it’s time to adopt a system which would guarantee immediate changes and stop the 

inappropriate use of these noble laws for improper purposes. I respectfully urge your 

strong support and swift passage of H.R. 3356. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. 

I will now begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

And, Ms. Ky, I will begin with you, if I could. Mr. Lungren’s 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. So I ask you the rather obvious, but I think 

critical, question since you are uniquely credible to answer. Do you 

believe that it is fair to the disabled to require notice and an opportunity to fix a violation before a lawsuit can be filed? 

Ms. KY. Yes, I do. The reason is that many of this is not updated. 

For example, in this building, if I go around, this building is not 

compliant with ADA, and the law is written by you guys. So how 

can you expect the general population to be aware what is being 

written if it is not being publicized? For example, using a speed 

limit, it is posted every, what, half a mile? Say, speed limit 45. If 

you go over it, you get a ticket. You choose to go over it. But we 

did not choose not to comply. 

So minor violations, 30 days, perfect. If I need Braille stickers, 

60 inches above from the ground, I will go to the store to get it. 

But if the concrete needs to be removed and redo it because it is 

3.8 percent because it is not 2.8 percent, we have to find construction. We have to find people that know how to do concrete. And 

that gave me 120 days to do that. 

It is only fair. It is for the community. It is for everybody. You 

cannot just give me a sue packet and say, you sue. What did we 

do? Well, because you are not complying. Well, I did not know the 

law changed every 5 years or every 3 years. Was it announced? 

Was it publicized? Is it 3 strikes, you are out? No. 

So we need some notice whether from the lawyer, from the plaintiff, from somebody. Give me the list. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. I am just curious, did I hear you 

say that this building or where you are sitting now is not ADA 

compliant as we have written it? 

Ms. KY. I am sorry, say that again? 

Mr. FRANKS. Maybe I misunderstood. Did you say that the building that we are in now or that the table that you are at is not ADA 

compliant as you understand it? 

Ms. KY. Yeah, your table here, I do not see a disabled symbol because, you know, on the list that we were cited for, I believe in the 

ADA regs or policy is that a business owner needs to put a universal word symbol on their table to signify saying, oh, this section 

is for you, and you only sit in here. 

So as you can see, I am looking around, I do not see that in here. 

This is a public place, so why is it not in your building? 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. I hope somebody gives us notice on that. 

Ms. KY. Yeah, that would be great. May I go around how accessible you are? 

52 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Ky. 

Mr. Peters, I would like to ask you, the ACCESS Act would require a plaintiff to send the owner or operator of a public accommodation notice of an alleged ADA violation before the plaintiff may 

file a lawsuit. I keep repeating the obvious, but it is important to 

understand really the simplicity, if I am getting it right here. The 

owner/operator then has up to 120 days to make necessary repairs. 

Given your experience with ADA lawsuits, is this 120-day time 

period a significant delay for plaintiffs? Do ADA lawsuits usually 

get resolved more quickly than 120 days under current law? 

Mr. PETERS. A hundred and twenty days—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Make sure your microphone is on, sir. 

Mr. PETERS. Yes, I think it is. 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. 

Mr. PETERS. I did a study of 100 properties that had been sued 

in ADA lawsuits in Federal court as far as 5 years back, so that 

the time for appeals or permits, et cetera, should all have been behind by then. Ninety-eight of those properties still had conditions 

which would support a lawsuit only, and at many of them no 

changes whatsoever had been made. And only 2 could I say I really 

did not see things that would lead to another claim. 

And so you asked about 120 days. That would be a dream come 

true for many members of my family, and many clients and plaintiffs that I have met that tell me that they have asked for months, 

if not years, for changes to be made, and the changes are never 

made. With this bill, if you do not agree to make the change and 

quickly make the change, you are going to have one angry Federal 

judge on your case. And that is the last thing any of these small 

businesses can afford. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, opponents of the bill also argue that if a plaintiff has to provide notification of alleged ADA violation before they 

can file a suit, then business owners will have no incentive to make 

their buildings accessible until they receive notice. Based on your 

experience, do you believe that that argument has merit? 

Mr. PETERS. No, not at all. There are a variety of States laws in 

which a business can still be sued. Actions can still be brought by 

the attorneys general, State or Federal. Frankly, the ADA is still 

the law. This does not change that. It is what needs to be done. 

There are massive tax credits for making ADA changes, and many 

businesses will obey the law because it is the law. 

The overwhelming majority of defendants who have contacted me 

simply did not understand that it was required. Sadly, they got bad 

information from their building departments or their city officials. 

But the minute they understood that it applied to them, they gladly made the changes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Peters. Thank all of you. 

Mr. Nadler, I recognize you for 5 minutes for questioning, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Levy, if lawyers sometimes send demand letters before suing, 

what is the harm in making that a statutory requirement for everyone? 

Mr. LEVY. There are cases in which the lawyer representing a 

particular client may choose to do so for any number of reasons. 

The problem with making it a statutory requirement is that it creVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:49 Sep 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\062712\74818.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
53 

ates an exemption from the law to anyone who has not gotten such 

a letter, regardless of how long the violation has occurred. The 

clock does not start at all until they get the letter. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. So, in fact, that is no incentive to comply 

with the law until you get the letter. 

Mr. LEVY. No incentive at all. You are not going to have to pay 

damages because Title III does not provide for damages. So it does 

not matter how long the violation—— 

Mr. NADLER. Well, let me ask you a question that I asked our 

colleague, Mr. Lungren. Let us assume that statute provided that 

you cannot be sued until receipt of the letter, but also provided for 

damages. Would that be reasonable? 

Mr. LEVY. I think that would be a good starting point, Congressman. I think that if you had a law that provided for damages, it 

changes the dynamic, and no longer notification—just like administrative exhaustion in Title I no longer provides for an exemption 

because damages will be running for violation if there are violations. 

Mr. NADLER. So if the proposal said you are responsible for violations as you are now. You are supposed to comply with the law. 

But you cannot be sued until you get a demand letter, but once you 

get a demand letter, or whatever you call this letter, you can be 

sued for violations going back. 

Mr. LEVY. I think that would be—— 

Mr. NADLER. You can get damages rather for violations. 

Mr. LEVY. That would be a much better bill than the one that 

is proposed. 

Mr. NADLER. It would be better than the current law? 

Mr. LEVY. This one solves a problem that basically does not exist 

in my experience. 

Mr. NADLER. Would such a bill be better than the current law? 

Mr. LEVY. The current bill. 

Mr. NADLER. No, no. What I just suggested. 

Mr. LEVY. I think that the availability of damages in Title III 

would be much better than the existing status quo. How that would 

be structured in terms of notification or exhaustion, clearly that is 

a much more even way to begin the discussion than the existing 

bill. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Mr. Levy again, the bill requires notice 

that is ‘‘specific enough,’’ for a defendant to remedy the problem. 

What do you take this to mean, and might this simply foster litigation over whether a letter was ‘‘specific enough?’’ 

Mr. LEVY. You already have someone who goes and hires Mr. Peters and brings this letter to him. If he is a capable defense lawyer, 

as I know he is, the first thing he is going to do is quarrel with 

the specificity in the notice. He is going to say the notice is not specific enough. Here are all the things it does not tell us. Here are 

all the things we need to know. It creates issues. Issues are the 

mother’s milk of lawyers in terms of billing time. It is going to 

make enforcement of this law all the more—— 

Mr. NADLER. So this is a trial lawyer’s bill? 

Mr. LEVY. For the defense it is because they get paid whether 

they win or lose. 

54 

Mr. NADLER. So this would be a measure to foster more litigation. Mr. Peters—— 

Mr. LEVY. Would have that—— 

Mr. NADLER. What is your reaction to that? Would, in fact, a requirement of a letter ‘‘specific enough’’ lead to litigation over what 

is ‘‘specific enough?’’ 

Mr. PETERS. Well, for us to take a case, first of all, we require 

that the client be willing to make all required changes within 30 

days. And, in fact, if it can be done in 10 days, it needs to be. 

Mr. NADLER. No—yeah. 

Mr. PETERS. I am getting to your answer. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. 

Mr. PETERS. Since Mr. Levy referred to our office, if a letter like 

that comes into our office, we are going to require the client to be 

making all the changes immediately. If the letter is not ‘‘specific 

enough,’’ we can get an investigator to go—I usually visit the property and meet the client and talk about the changes that—— 

Mr. NADLER. But do you think there would be more litigation 

over whether it is specific enough? You say it was not. Someone 

would say it was. 

Mr. PETERS. I really do not. I must tell you, though, I have seen 

a small number of letters, a very small number, where someone 

said I had difficulty in your parking area. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Mr. Levy, since I am running out of time, my 

last question. There are reported claims of businesses routinely 

having to shut down because of ADA. If the required changes for 

existing structures under the ADA only need be made ‘‘readily 

achievable,’’ why is this happening, or this, in fact, happening? 

Mr. LEVY. It is not happening in my experience. I hear these 

anecdotes. They are not consistent with any universe in which I 

live or I practice. In fact, much more common is all you need to 

do is drive down the street and look at the number of storefronts 

with a couple of steps into them that, 20 years after the ADA has 

been the law, no one has bothered to install a ramp. 

They do not need notification. What we need are stronger enforcement provisions so people will be worried enough about complying with the law that they, in fact, go and do so. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. And, let us see. I guess we 

go to Mr. Scott here. I keep looking for Mr. Quigley here. I am not 

forgetting your name, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Levy, you suggested that if this bill goes into effect, there would be no incentive for any business to get into compliance with the ADA until such time as they have statutory notice 

of a specific violation. Is that right? 

Mr. LEVY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now what kind of voluntary compliance has occurred 

since 1990? 

Mr. LEVY. Well, everyone who has looked at this has recognized 

that the ADA is a notoriously under enforced and un-complied with 

law. I mean, I am from Baltimore. We could take a walk 2 blocks 

from my office, see the number of stores that still had steps to get 

55 

into them. And these are not, you know, flights of stairs. These are 

a small number of steps that could easily be ramped. 

And it is the case that not only has there not been voluntary 

compliance up to now, there has been widespread just ignoring of 

the requirements of the law that is on the books. If we put further 

obstacles in the way of plaintiffs seeking to enforce this law, it is 

not complicated. There is going to be less compliance. There is 

going to be less accessibility. You know, it is a simple game, as 

they say. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Peters, did I understand you to say that you 

could be in compliance with building codes and still be in violation 

with the ADA? 

Mr. PETERS. Absolutely. In fact, there are a number of direct contradictions. Speaking only for California, which is where I am from, 

there are about 2,400 points between the ADA and the California 

Building Code. And with some you do ADA, with some you do California. It is really hard for a small business owner to know. 

And there are at least 7 points where they directly conflict. We 

get 3 experts in a room, and they cannot even agree on what needs 

to be done at a particular business. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, would it make sense to work with the building 

code and the ADA rather than inflict this kind of bill on the public 

that would discourage anyone from coming into voluntary compliance? 

Mr. PETERS. That is what has been happening. There is an effort 

to reconcile the building codes with ADA standards. It has been 

going on for, I think, way over a decade. And the progress is commendable, but it is the uncertainty that often drives these cases. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I have no further questions. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. FRANKS. Sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Lungren is a Member of the Committee. If I 

yielded time to him, would he be able to ask questions? 

Mr. FRANKS. I am afraid, Mr. Scott, the rules do not allow the 

august Mr. Lungren the opportunity to speak or ask questions from 

the dais. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I am going to ahead, given the past enforcement of that rule, we are going to enforce that. 

Mr. NADLER. I would ask unanimous consent that he be permitted, if he is still here. 

Mr. FRANKS. And with loving deference my friend, and he understands why I would object. However, I will take the Chairman’s 

prerogative to say that I think he has done a wonderful thing here 

today. [Laughter.] 

And that this is a very good bill, and I hope that it succeeds. 

And I thank all the witnesses for being here today. 

Without objection, all of the Members will have 5 legislative days 

to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, which we will forward and ask the witnesses to respond as 

promptly as they can so that their answers may be made part of 

the record. 

56 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days within which to submit any additional materials for inclusion in the 

record. 

And with that, again, I thank the witnesses, and I thank the 

Members and observers. Thank all of you for being here. And this 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:56 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(57) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

58 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in 

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

Constitution 


74818B1-1.eps
59 


74818B1-2.eps
60 


74818B1-3.eps
61 


74818B2-1.eps
62 


74818B2-2.eps
63 

f 


74818B2-3.eps
64 

Material submitted by the Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary 


74818C-1.eps
65 

f 


74818C-2.eps
66 

Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution 

Policy Statement of the National Council on Disability 

Regarding the ACCESS Act of 2011 

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent federal agency that 

makes recommendations to the President and Congress on disability policy. In this 

role, NCD is responsible for advising on the implementation, impact and effectiveness of the Americans with Disabilities Act. NCD first proposed the concept of the 

ADA in 1986 during the Reagan Administration, and in 1990 it was signed into law 

by President George H.W. Bush. Congress relied on and acknowledged the influence 

of NCD, its reports, and its testimony throughout the legislative process. Since passage of the ADA, NCD has remained actively involved in monitoring its impact and 

advising federal entities on policy issues. 

NCD is deeply concerned about the proposed ADA Access Act of 2011. The Act 

proposes to amend the ADA to require that an individual alleging a business is inaccessible provide written notice to the business about the specific ADA violation before bringing suit. 

Title III of the ADA was intended to balance the interests of small businesses 

along with the accessibility concerns of people with disabilities. It is a myth that 

the ADA’s requirements are too hard on small businesses. The legislative history 

of the ADA is rife with concern about the burden on small businesses and as a result, Title III does not require any action with respect to existing buildings that 

would cause an undue burden or that is not readily achievable. The approach of the 

ADA was not to exempt small businesses from the requirements of the bill, but 

rather to tailor the requirements of the Act to take into account the needs and resources of small businesses– to require what is reasonable and not to impose obligations that are unrealistic or debilitating to businesses. Each of the major sections 

and requirements of the ADA takes into account the fact that some businesses are 

very small local enterprises that may have very limited resources. The following are 

some of the ways in which the provisions of the ADA provide great deference for 

the characteristics and needs of small businesses: 

• the exemption for small employers; 

• the undue hardship limitation; 

• the readily achievable limit on barrier removal in existing public accommodations; 

• the undue burden limitation regarding auxiliary aids and services; and 

• the elevator exception for small buildings, among others. 

NCD addresses this in its policy brief series, Righting the ADA, found at http:// 

www.ncd.gov/publications/2003/Feb202003. 

In addition, businesses have had almost a quarter of a century to comply with 

the provisions of Title III. DOJ has published and distributed multiple technical assistance documents– all of which are available 24 hours a day through DOJ’s home 

page on the Internet. The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research established regional centers on the ADA, the Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs), to provide technical assistance to businesses. 

Clearly, businesses have been put on notice of this 22-year-old landmark law. 

An amendment to the ADA such as the proposed ADA Access Act of 2011, is superfluous. While at first impression the proposed amendment’s notice requirement 

does not appear to be an imposing burden for an aggrieved individual to correct an 

ADA violation, this provision will have the drastic effect of creating a nationwide 

exemption to the ADA. It encourages businesses to do nothing until they get a letter 

of notification– no other civil rights law has a notice provision like this. 

NCD recommends that Congress follow its own careful considerations when enacting the ADA—and not pass this unnecessary amendment. 

67 

Prepared Statement of the National Disability Rights Network 

The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) would like to thank Representative Franks, Representative Nadler, and the House Subcommittee on the Constitution for the opportunity to submit testimony on the important issue of accessibility 

for people with disabilities. NDRN is a nonprofit membership organization for the 

federally mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) and Client Assistance Program 

(CAP) systems, created by Congress in the 1970’s to protect the rights of children 

and adults with disabilities and their families. With a presence in every state and 

U.S. territory and the District of Colombia, the P&A/CAP network is the largest provider of legal services for people with disabilities in the United States. The P&As 

and CAPs offer an advocacy and legal voice to individuals with disabilities by uncovering and eliminating maltreatment and ensuring compliance with laws designed to 

protect the rights of individuals with disabilities, including the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

We need to start with the recognition that even though the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law almost twenty-two years ago, people with disabilities still face barriers to many places of public accommodation. Although NDRN appreciates the interest in ensuring that places of public accommodation have an incentive to comply with the provisions of the ADA, we are opposed to the ‘‘ACCESS’’ 

Act because it would limit the ability of people with disabilities to efficiently obtain 

remedy to ADA violations. 

The ACCESS Act would force people with disabilities to wait between sixty (60) 

and one hundred eighty (180) days to pursue legal action based on a violation of 

the ADA. This would delay the ability of people with disabilities to gain critical access to public accommodations ranging from restaurants to retail stores and lawyers’, accountants’ and doctors’ offices. People with disabilities have had to wait decades to obtain access to these places, and no other civil rights law allows people to 

remain in non-compliance for so long. 

While NDRN understands the concerns behind the desire to pass the ACCESS 

Act, behind the lawsuits filed under the ADA are legitimate concerns regarding lack 

of accessibility. The solution to the perceived problem that is the topic of today’s 

hearing is not to prevent legitimate lawsuits from moving forward and the rights 

of people with disabilities from being promptly addressed. 

Federal law and the Federal court system already have numerous protections in 

place to prevent attorneys from filing frivolous lawsuits, and often impose sanctions 

against attorneys who file these lawsuits. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires attorneys to certify that a pleading is not being filed for an improper 

purpose and is supported by the law and facts. If an attorney violates this rule, they 

may be subject to monetary or other sanctions. Although courts will award attorneys’ fees under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, these fees will not 

go to a party that does not prevail, and when an attorney does win attorneys’ fees, 

courts examine closely the amount of time that an attorney spent on a case and only 

award a reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees based on the effort an attorney put 

into the case. Some courts have even limited repeat ‘‘frequent flyers’’ by requiring 

them to get the court’s leave before filing a lawsuit in certain courts. In especially 

egregious cases, like when an attorney requests monetary payment in exchange for 

not filing a lawsuit, an aggrieved party can file a complaint with the State Bar Association. 

Most importantly, there is little that an amendment to the Federal ADA would 

do to remedy the issues raised today. There are currently no monetary damages 

available under Title III of the ADA, and only some state statutes provide monetary 

damages for plaintiffs in accessibility suits, but that is only under STATE law. To 

the extent that plaintiffs’ attorneys file perceived frivolous lawsuits to gain monetary damages through civil damage settlements, amending the federal ADA statute 

would change nothing. 

Current practice is already tilted toward the business community since many people with disabilities are on a limited income, and an award of attorneys’ fees is 

never certain. So plaintiffs’ attorneys tend to only work on cases where the plaintiff 

will likely prevail, which limits access to attorneys for people with disabilities. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony today. For the reasons 

stated above, we oppose the ACCESS Act because it would require people with disabilities to wait even longer than they already have to obtain equal access to public 

accommodations. 

68 


74818D1-1.eps
69 


74818D1-2.eps
70 


74818D2-1.eps
71 


74818D2-2.eps
72 


74818D2-3.eps
73 


74818D3-1.eps
74 


74818D3-2.eps
75 


74818D4-1.eps
76 


74818D4-2.eps
77 

Æ 


74818D4-3.eps