Dear Laurence F. Pulgram:
We, the undersigned, write to express our deep concerns about the American Bar Association Section of Litigation’s CLE program, “Drive-By ADA Lawsuits: Public Service or Open Season.”
This program, no doubt sparked by the recent 60 Minutes episode on so-called “drive-by” cases, originally featured two presenters--both non-disabled, defense-side attorneys. This is of particular concern because the Section of Litigation (“Section”) calls the program a “roundtable” but it obviously will not adequately represent perspectives of disabled/plaintiff-side attorneys who are experts on this issue. Considering that this program has multiple section sponsors, and the fact that disability is at the core of this conversation, the fact that there was little to no communication with the Disability Rights Section and none with the disability rights community is both glaring and egregious.
The description of the event disparages disabled plaintiffs and their attorneys by referring to them as a “cottage industry” declaring “open-season” on “trapped” businesses. The “drive-by” metaphor also trivializes the experiences of people harmed by gun violence, many of whom are actually disabled people. Enforcing anti-discrimination law in places of public accommodation has been notoriously difficult. Non-compliant businesses shut disabled people out of public life notwithstanding the clear federal mandates of affirmative inclusion. Vilifying and trivializing efforts to enforce a civil rights law that has existed for over 25 years to increase accessibility of public places should not be the role of the American Bar Association (“ABA”). More to the point, no ABA roundtable about the rights of disabled people should ever happen without actually disabled people/attorneys at its center.
While we understand there has been a recent scramble to find a disability rights attorney to fill this void, that does not change the fact that this ill-advised and poorly named program was conceived without feedback from or inclusion of the disabled community/bar. This puts that attorney in a particularly unfair position and does a great disservice to disabled people and the disability rights bar. Had anyone in the Section considered reaching out to actually disabled people/attorneys, this disastrous display of ableism might have never happened; and the ABA’s resources might instead have been redirected to support the efforts of disabled people/attorneys in fighting to enforce what protections exist in the law while pushing to address countless gaps.
Any conversation on the Americans with Disabilities Act that treats disabled people/attorneys as opportunistic and exploitative for attempting to gain access poses a major threat to the preservation of rights which have been and continue to be hard-fought and under blatant attack. The ABA should hold itself to higher standards. Specifically, the ABA should ensure that its policies, practices and programing are not ableist. This requires, at minimum, not organizing events about disability without the inclusion of disabled lawyers and community. Our lives literally depend on federal disability rights law to ensure that we can enter--not merely “drive-by”--places that we have just as much right to enjoy as abled people.
Here are a few of numerous responses from disabled attorneys to the 60 Minutes piece. Shamefully, your Section’s decision to host this one-sided roundtable, mean these pieces are equally applicable to the American Bar Association.
• David Bekhour, a member of the State Bar of California, Anderson Cooper: What Were You Thinking? (
goo.gl/ZxdanW)
• Robyn Powell, Disability Rights Consultant, member of the State Bar of Massachusetts, Here’s what 60 Minutes got Wrong about the ADA: Everything (
goo.gl/DyfSyh)
• Arlene Mayerson, Directing Attorney of Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Shame on You, Anderson Cooper (
goo.gl/S4llT7)
The ABA has the capacity to influence many members of the legal profession nationally, and purports to represent the profession to the public. This roundtable, sends a clear and resounding message of total disregard of liberty and justice for a large segment of the U.S. population--including members of the profession, whose liberty and rights are under constant attack. Should the Section actually wish to rectify its enormous blunder, we would invite the Section to engage in necessary conversations with disabled people before and during planning any subsequent event on disability law to ensure that the ABA is actually working to “eliminate bias in the legal profession and [legal] system, and to work for just laws, including human rights, and meaningful access to justice for all persons” -- all goals outlined in the ABA’s own mission statement.
If the ABA actually intends to uphold the spirit of its motto “defending liberty, pursuing justice,” then nothing short of cancelling this disingenuous “roundtable” and reconvening a new roundtable, in conversation and collaboration with disabled people/attorneys, will be even remotely acceptable. This event, even with the last-minute inclusion of a plaintiff-side attorney, is an insult to the many disabled people whose rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act have not been guaranteed even with the existence of this civil rights law--and for whom weakening or gutting the protections in the ADA could have catastrophic consequences.
Sincerely,
