Employment discrimination lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have nearly doubled in the last five years, and this trend shows no signs of slowing down, according to the Transcational Records Access Clearinghouse. The 90 percent increase in discrimination lawsuit filings follows changes to the ADA in 2008 that significantly broadened the range of workers protected under the statute and simultaneously made it harder for employers to obtain summary judgments for frivolous complaints, says employment litigator Michael Baum of Dallas-based Munck Wilson Mandala.
"The broader definitions of who qualifies as 'disabled' under the ADA, coupled with an economic downturn in which out-of-work employees are more likely to sue their former employers, has resulted in a significant uptick in these types of lawsuits across the country," he says.
Writes the Washington Times:
In the last fiscal year, disability-related complaints lodged with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also rose to their highest level, at 26,000, and payouts to complainants through that process nearly doubled to $103 million compared with the figure from 2007. That does not include money paid out to those who took their complaints to court.
The flood includes more frivolous claims than ever: Despite the broadened law, the EEOC saw the highest percentage yet deemed “no reasonable cause” last year.
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 undid a court precedent requiring judges to take into account “mitigating measures” that treat disabilities, effectively saying that hearing-impaired people are not disabled if they wear hearing aids that restore hearing. Attorneys for employees say those measures don’t entirely undo a person’s disability.
The number of lawsuits filed against debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has skyrocketed from 3,200 in 2006 to more than 12,000 last year, in part because of a litigation business model in which law firms that specialize in Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) claims file large volumes of cases in which successful plaintiffs collect a relatively modest award while the law firms reap significant legal fees paid by the defendant.
That model could change now that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh in on whether plaintiffs who unsuccessfully sue debt collectors can be required to pay the defendant’s legal fees. Dallas collections attorney Brandon Starling of Shackelford Melton & McKinley says a ruling that upholds the lower court’s opinion has the potential to shift the legal landscape and reverse the trend.
“This might make law firms that file massive numbers of these fair debt collection suits think twice,” Starling says. “If the Supreme Court were to say these debt collection firms can be awarded fees and costs in their legal defense, it might make these plaintiff firms more reasonable and easier to deal with.”
Writes the ABA Journal: The case turns on the interplay between the federal rule and this provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: “On a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs.”
An avid boater, Dallas personal injury lawyer Robert S. Gregg has seen firsthand how cavalier attitudes about boat safety can have serious consequences. Gregg collected boat accident stats going back five years and came up with some very interesting results. His analysis found that operator inattention and alcohol consumption are the top contributing factors for boat accidents on Texas lakes. Additionally, Gregg found that the boat accidents traditionally spike during the busy Memorial Day weekend. See a news report on Gregg's analysis by CW 33's Dawn Tongish below.