The number of ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal court in 2018 hit a record high of 10,163 – up 34% from 2017 when the number was a mere 7,663. This is by far the highest number of annual filings since we started tracking these numbers in 2013, when the number of federal filings was only 2,722. In other words, the number of cases has more than tripled.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
South Bay Home Health Care partners with ADA Supreme™, a Los Angeles-based B2B access advisors consulting firm, to defend against fraudulent charges brought by serial litigation firm, Center for Disability Access (POTTER HANDY, LLP), under the guise of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in Sylve vs. Tenne at a mediation on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 10 am at 400 Oceangate, Long Beach, CA 90802.
The plaintiff’s sole charge in 2018 was of an ADA non-compliance “service counter height” – a charge that was never confirmed. South Bay Home Health Care maintains that they have always provided reasonable accommodations by the nature of owning a durable medical equipment (DME) business.
“The owners of South Bay Home Health Care have gone over and beyond federal and state ADAAG compliance. At this juncture, opposing counsel is merely trying to fatigue and squeeze money out of the dedicated owners, Joseph and Miriam Tenne. This case fits their pattern. The Center for Disability Access / POTTER HANDY, LLP has filed countless fraudulent lawsuits to profit off of the ADA.” says ADA Supreme™ CEO and founder, Joe Martinez.
ADA Supreme™ points to their record. With Mr. Sylve as a repeat plaintiff represented by the Center for Disability Access / POTTER HANDY, LLP, at least fifteen lawsuits show inside 17 months. Orlande Sylve v. F.O.F. Inc. (8/24/2017), Orlande Sylve v. SRA Exchange One (12/26/2017), Orlande Sylve v. State of California (1/11/2018), Orlande Sylve v. Laurie Industries (1/16/2018), Orlande Sylve v. Regency Center LLC (1/22/2018), Orlande Sylve v. JP Morgan Chase Bank (9/24/2018), Orlande Sylve v. Pacific Plaza Partners (9/27/2018), Orlande Sylve v. Airway Kittyhawk (10/16/18), Orlande Sylve v. Shivji Investments (12/17/18), Orlande Sylve v. Tamara Anderson (12/17/18), Orlande Sylve v. Best Buy (12/21/18), Orlande Sylve v. Taylor (1/03/2019), Orlande Sylve v. ROIC California LLC (1/15/2019), Orlande Sylve v. Cesar G. Pena (1/31/2019), and this suit, Orlande Sylve v. Tenne (12/18/2018).
For more information, contact:
How is “disabled” defined? Or to be precise, how is a person deemed as having a “disability”?
Depending on who you ask, the definition will differ. According to the National Network for Information, Guidance & Training on the Americans with Disabilities Act, “The ADA defines a person with a disability as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity.”
California has a higher standard for accessibility due to the UNRUH Act which uses the term “any discrimination or distinction”. With California’s legal climate for ADA lawsuits, it’s imperative that this higher standard be understood. At ADA Supreme we understand these higher standards and are well informed of new access issues which have surfaced from recent legal challenges. We truly are the ADA Supreme authority!
The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against a “qualified individual with a disability.” A “disability” is defined as an impairment that substantially limits an individual in one or more major life activities – such as walking, lifting, talking, seeing, and breathing, among others. A “qualified individual” is one who can perform the essential functions of a job with reasonable accommodation. The ADA also protects workers who are erroneously “regarded as” being disabled. The new Supreme Court decisions will help employers answer the threshold question in dealing with an applicant or employee with a physical or mental impairment – is the person protected by the ADA?
Workers with Correctable Impairments Are Normally Not Disabled Under the ADA.