Attempts to mediate an accessibility lawsuit filed by two Oakland (Calif.) women against Apple Inc. have failed, but a federal judge has turned down the plaintiffs request to take the case to trial. The legal moves seem to indicate the judge wants both sides to continue their attempts to reach a settlement without a trial. Jana Overbo and Nicole Brown-Booker complained in a 2007 lawsuit that the San Francisco retail store is not accessible to disabled persons, including the entry, paths of travel through the store, the Genius Bar, bathrooms and the second-floor theater seating. The women allege violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and seek damages for “disciminatory experiences, and denial of access and of their civil rights.” They also ask the court to require Apple to make the store totally accessible.
ADA lawsuits follow specific procedures, including disclosures to both parties, an on-site premise inspection, and mediation if the the two parties can’t reach an agreement.
In the latest legal filing on October 15, 2008, the women’s attorneys told the judge that both parties, “have held extensive mediation proceedings, including two full-day in-person sessions.” However, “The case has failed to settle,” attorneys Paul Rein and Julie Ostil wrote. The attorneys continued, “While plaintiffs remain willing to engage in further settlement discussions with defendants, it appears clear that the case does not have a reasonable likelihood of settling without discovery and litigation being undertaken.”
The attorneys asked the judge for “administrative relief,” which would waive the usual settlement procedures for handling ADA lawsuits, and move to the pre-trial stages of discovery and depositions.
In the attorneys’ words, “Plaintiffs further request that discovery be opened immediately so that they can take necessary depositions and propound written discovery to prove their claims.”
However, in an October 22, 2008 filing, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston denied the plaintiffs motion for administrative relief. The decision sends both parties back to mediation or some other method of settling the lawsuit without a trial.
Download (pdf) the latest court documents.
E-mail this story
Related posts:
Loading ...
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I always thought that disabled access was mandatory and that the city is responsible for “passing” or “failing” a business during construction and before it is open for business.
Correct! Thats why its stalled. The city would not allow the store to open unless they passed inspection. These 2 women should be ashamed!
Sounds like money grabbing to me. Apparently it is not the first time they have done this. Maybe they thought Apple would be a soft touch!
FRMRApple — There is no local or state building code requirement for access. Rather, it’s mandated by the federal ADA law, which places all enforcement in the hands of the disabled through the lawsuit process. It’s a very unique law, in that regard.
Ian — I’ve written previously about this lawsuit, noting that these two women do not fit into the category of “frequent plaintiffs” for ADA lawsuits. There is such a category, with those people literally visiting several businesses a week, and then filing lawsuits. In this case, the two women have filed only one other federal ADA lawsuit ever, against a local movie theater they allege has accessibility problems. That lawsuit is also still pending. Ether way, a lawsuit is the method that the Congress defined for enforcement when they wrote and passed the ADA–there is no agency, inspector or other method of handling non-compliance. Therefore, it’s always difficult to judge if a plaintiff is completely genuine in their heart.
Gary,
Thanks for clarifying that.
It must have been something I read that made me think that.
Ian