Abusing Disabilities Act, Everyone Loses

---by Micheal

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was supposed to improve the lives of the less-able. Make-work lawyers are abusing the ADA to extort a generous income for themselves. They will cheapen the lives of everyone in the process.

Case in point: The Ft. Lauderdale Museum of Art opened a King Tut exhibit. Few new exhibitions open without a wrinkle or two to sort out. The Tut exhibit was over crowded and experienced delays at its openings. Things settled out, as they usually do. Despite that rocky start, the museum's spokesman, Michael Mills, said thousands had enjoyed the exhibit which included some 131 artifacts.

Not everyone, however, was there to find out about ancient Egypt. Two disabled women got angry about having to wait 45 minutes for the only scooter-capable elevator and having to use a restroom in a nearby restaurant. They found a lawyer who would file a suit against the museum for not adequately complying with ADA. (This would be a building issue which the museum would have always had. It wasn't Tut-specific. Where were they before this?)

Not to miss a bandwagon (or gravy train), other lawyers also sued the museum on behalf of three blind visitors who felt the museum did not provide them with an adequate experience. Only 19 of the 131 artifacts were described in the audio tour. (Were there 19 really cool objects and 102 other bits of stuff? I mean, a golden sarcophagus is not the same as a clay pot. Does everyone need an audio tour of the clay pot?)

A very telling couple of facts are that the museum had received no complaints, no requests to provide additional services for the disabled or to correct physical errors (such as providing a clear 36 inch wide pathway, etc.). Instead, the first they hear of any trouble is a suit. One of the demands of the suit is that the deficiencies be corrected (why didn't they ask without lawyers?) The more telling fact is that the suit requests attorney's fees.

Now we've lifted the rock and had a peek at the truth. This is a suit to generate income for some lawyers, not to help the handicapped.

Having worked in the museum exhibit design world for over 12 years, I know first hand that most museum directors try very hard to make their exhibits accessible to as many visitors as possible -- old, young, disabled, etc. They want as much happy visitation as they get. Unlike the lawyers, museums live pretty much hand to mouth on ticket sales. They must constantly balance costs vs. reaching the widest practical audience.

I know that no exhibit, no public space for that matter, will be as 100% accessible as 100% of people want it to be. Lawsuits which pretend to redress injustice, but really punish/penalize to make a point will only diminish everyone else's quality of life. Imagine a school in which students who scored under an A were beaten. Very soon, there would be only a few students remaining -- and they'd be very nervous all the time. That's how it will go with Museums. Only a few will be able to afford to offer a scant few things to see. Most will just cease to exist for lack of funds.

As it stands now, lawyers get their money either way. There's nothing to stop them from filing insipid suits to generate income. They either extort it from the plaintiff, or swindle it off the gullible dupes who agreed to bring the suit.

What we need is a provision in which the law firm itself has to pay (and very dearly) for bringing frivolous lawsuits. If being stupid or greedy doesn't have a cost, they'll just keep doing it.