{"id":605,"date":"2025-04-16T11:01:48","date_gmt":"2025-04-16T11:01:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/spanishliteratureintranslation.com\/?p=605"},"modified":"2025-04-16T17:57:13","modified_gmt":"2025-04-16T17:57:13","slug":"proposed-colorado-law-will-cause-explosion-in-predatory-disability-lawsuits-opinion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/spanishliteratureintranslation.com\/index.php\/2025\/04\/16\/proposed-colorado-law-will-cause-explosion-in-predatory-disability-lawsuits-opinion\/","title":{"rendered":"Proposed Colorado law will cause explosion in predatory disability lawsuits (Opinion)"},"content":{"rendered":"

A bill now under consideration in the Colorado Senate threatens an explosion of drive-by disability lawsuits in Colorado courts.<\/p>\n

House Bill 1239<\/a> was originally presented as a mere re-organization of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), but the bill doesn\u2019t merely modify or update remedies. Instead, it creates, through legislative fiat, new damage claims that do not otherwise exist.<\/p>\n

For example, the bill (introduced by state representatives Yara Zokaie and Andrew Boesenecker, both Democrats from Fort Collins) allows a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit against a business for a violation of CADA and entitles a successful plaintiff to $50,000 in damages for pain and suffering, inconvenience or emotional stress.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s just the tip of the iceberg. To further fuel litigation, the bill allows a fine of $5,000 per plaintiff for each violation.<\/p>\n

Colorado has a history of laptop plaintiffs \u2013 some from out-of-state \u2013 who file drive-by lawsuits against our local businesses. Court records often show that these plaintiffs have never even visited the businesses they\u2019re suing. Worse still, they file lawsuits by the dozen.<\/p>\n

The Denver Post editorial board in 2017<\/a> criticized \u201cthose exploiting this important law for personal gain\u201d and called drive-by lawsuits \u201cpredatory.\u201d\u00a0 If HB 1239 becomes law, many lawsuits, once filed under federal law, will now shift to state court because damage provisions are more lucrative.<\/p>\n

Two years ago, several small-business owners testified to a legislative committee that Americans with Disabilities Act plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers filed spurious complaints, alleging what appeared to be a random list of violations in an attempt to frighten and intimidate the business owner. In these cases, plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers offered to make their complaints go away for $15,000 with little concern about whether the alleged ADA violations were corrected or not.<\/p>\n

If HB 1239 becomes law, the price of settling these dubious lawsuits won\u2019t be $15,000. Instead, add $50,000 for \u201cinconvenience\u201d and \u201cemotional stress.\u201d Then, instead of one plaintiff, a group of plaintiffs, each seeking a $5,000 fine per violation, can sue together. Six plaintiffs alleging five violations at $5,000, each, could claim $150,000 in additional fines.<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, Chief Justice Monica Marquez asked the legislature for 28 new judgeships, citing the courts\u2019 increased workload which she politely attributed, at least in part, to bills passed by the legislature in recent years.<\/p>\n

Originally, this bill expanded the time that plaintiffs could bring complaints to the Colorado Civil Rights Division from 60 days to one year. Legislative analysts said that would cost the state up to $2.2 million a year. Miraculously, those same analysts are oblivious to cost of diverting dozens of cases from federal courts into our state court system and creating juicy financial incentives for lawsuits to multiply.<\/p>\n

For anyone who scoffs at complaints about frivolous lawsuits, the Colorado Civil Rights Division\u2019s most recent annual report<\/a> shows that of 1,254 public accommodation complaints in 2022-23, only nine were determined to show probable cause for further action.<\/p>\n

Many business owners and managers believe that when they receive a certificate of occupancy, that means their facility complies with local zoning ordinances and other relevant state codes as well, including ADA. To their credit, legislators passed House Bill 1030 (sponsored by Reps. Junie Joseph, D-Boulder, and Rebekah Stewart, D-Arvada) to require local governments to conform their building codes to accessibility standards.<\/p>\n

Often, the first time business owners learn of an accessibility issue is when they are notified of a lawsuit. That\u2019s just crazy. Someone with a legitimate grievance can surely put themselves in the business owner\u2019s shoes long enough to recognize a much more productive strategy is to first advise the owner of the problem without filing a lawsuit.<\/p>\n