Houses Passes Bill Aimed at Curbing Abuse of ADA Public Accommodations Lawsuits
Time 2 Minute Read
Categories: Class Action

On February 15, 2018, by a vote of 225 to 192, the House of Representatives passed the ADA Education and Reform Act (HR 620). Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was enacted to ensure access for persons with disabilities to public accommodations. Too often, however, serial litigants have abused Title III to shake down businesses for quick settlements over minor, technical violations without actually seeking to improve access. By amending the ADA to include a notice and cure provision, proponents of HR 620 say this bill will curb predatory public accommodations lawsuits brought by serial plaintiffs and their lawyers against businesses. 

If passed, HR 620 would amend the ADA to provide a notice and cure period. Under the bill, those wishing to sue businesses in federal court over an ADA public accommodations violation must first deliver a written notice to that business detailing the illegal barrier to access and then give that business 60 days to come up with a plan to address the complaints and an additional 60 days to take action. The written notice must “specify in detail the circumstances under which an individual was actually denied access,” and must specify (1) the address of property, (2) specific sections of the ADA alleged to have been violated, (3) whether a request for assistance in removing an architectural barrier to access was made, and (4) whether the barrier to access was a permanent or temporary barrier. The plaintiff can then file a lawsuit only if the business does not respond within 60 days with a description of the improvements that it will make to remove the barrier, or if the business responds as required, but fails to remove the barrier or make “substantial progress” toward removing the barrier within 120 days after the notice first was issued.

HR 620 also directs the U.S. Department of Justice to develop a program to educate state and local governments and property owners on effective and efficient strategies for promoting access to public accommodations. It also requires the Judicial Conference of the United States to develop a model program to promote the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including a stay of discovery during mediation, to resolve Title III claims. Some courts, such as the Northern District of California, already require a stay of discovery for these types of cases to facilitate early settlement.

The bill now moves to a vote in the Senate. We will track and provide updates as the legislation progresses.

  • Partner

    For more than thirty years, Michael Brett Burns has represented leading employers and management in a wide range of employment and public accommodations-related matters. Brett’s practice focuses on employment class ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 2 Minute Read

California has introduced Assembly Bill 2244, proposing a pioneering “California Certified” labeling standard for foods not classified as ultra-processed. The bill relies on forthcoming regulatory definitions and imposes retail placement requirements for qualifying products. As California continues to advance UPF regulation, this initiative is expected to shape food law trends nationwide.

Time 1 Minute Read

As reported on the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives blog, SB 574 is a California bill that would set specific duties for attorneys who use generative artificial intelligence and would restrict how arbitrators may use such tools in decision-making.

Time 1 Minute Read

The California Consumer Privacy Act continues to drive significant enforcement activity—particularly when minors’ data is involved. In a recent action, the California Privacy Protection Agency imposed a $1.1 million fine on youth sports platform PlayOn Sports for alleged violations involving student data and inadequate opt-out mechanisms. The case highlights growing regulatory scrutiny around how companies collect, share, and provide transparency about personal information—especially when schools and students are involved. 

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page