Court Opinion

ID: 9415563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 18:59:36.151832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:13.304476
License: Public Domain

RONEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the district court’s decision.
To we who are fully able, it may seem that a disabled person suffers minimal damage when a building does not conform to the legal requirements, but for the person whom those regulations seek to protect, the harm may be far more than minimal. Obviously this is virtually impossible to quantify in economic terms. That is the exact reason that the law provides for liquidated damages. Otherwise there is no way to enforce compliance.
The appellant made an agreement. There is no just reason why it should not pay damages for failure to fulfill the terms of that agreement. Certainly, if the requirement was in the form of a mandatory injunction rather than a settlement agreement, the assessment of the minimal amount here for violation of that injunction would not be questioned by this Court. Although this is an individual case, not a class action, the settlement agreement was intended to benefit others than the plaintiff and it seems to me the district court’s decision should be reviewed with that in mind.