After 15 months of meetings and contentious court filings, the attorneys for two disabled women and Apple Inc. have reached an agreement on a lawsuit alleging the San Francisco store does not meet the requirements of the federal Americans With Disability Act (ADA). As usual with such cases, the terms of the settlement were not dislosed in court filings. Jana Overbo and Nicole Brown-Booker filed the lawsuit in September 2007 after visiting the two-level San Francisco and finding the aisles were too narrow, shelving was too high and the elevator was too difficult to find. The women also said the store’s employees did not accomodate them during their visit and that a Genius Bar counter wasn’t convenient. After a year of meetings, Apple held to its position that the store meets all accessibility requirements, while the women’s attorneys took the opposite position. Earlier this year both sides told U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston they were deadlocked, and asked for mediation. That process did not lead to a settlement, and last October the women’s attorney asked Illston to move the case directly to a trial. However, Illston denied the request and ordered both sides back to mediation. In the most recent court filing, the attorneys said they had settled on the injunctive issues, including a consent decree and damages. But a court filing adds that “issues relate to payment of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs” have not been settled. The attorneys noted the “approaching holidays,” and asked permission from Illston to postpone a December 18th meeting to January 20, 2009, “so that the Parties can either settle these issues or agree to make an attorneys’ fees motion to the Court.” Download (pdf) the latest court documents. Update: Both parties later agreed to postpone the January 20th meeting to February 2, 2009, and then on that date asked the judge to postpone the settlement conference again to February 16, 2009. “Whereas, the Parties are presently finalizing the Settlement Agreement and proposed Consent Decree…” the court document states.
E-mail this story
Related posts:
Loading ...
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Hustlers come in all sizes and conditions. These women and their attorneys appear to be dedicated to getting paid for nothing. Apparently their greed gene is not disabled. The ADA was intended to provide important protections to disabled Americans, but like most well-intentioned American law it merely becomes another excuse for lazy people and ambulance-chasers to sue at the slightest opportunity.
I agree with filecat13’s comments. As a physician who has been the subject of a frivolous lawsuit, there is no more frustrating experience than being victimized by someone else’s greed and laziness. The fact that Apple has to waste their time and money defending something this ludicrous is emblematic of many of our society’s current problems. There needs to be far stiffer penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits because as it stands currently, these people have nothing to lose. They face no risk and have potential reward as most of these suits get settled for a nuisance amount of money just to make the plaintiffs go away. This same pair has filed an identical suit against Lowe’s/AMC theaters which says volumes about their intent.
i haven’t been to that particular store, but i have seen 1st hand that some stores “hide” their elevators pretty well…
the store in munich, germany, had no sign showing the way to the elevator and when i asked the apple store employee looked strangely at me and only after telling the person that i’m handicapped (above the knee amputee) she led me to the elevator, which can’t be operated without a key… not a very handicapped friendly attitude…
so i do somehow understand the concerns brought forward in this lawsuit… it’s about being able to live your life w/o the need of help of others… to have shelves up to high or counters that have no low sections for wheel chaired clients is not a good thing…