PREMIUM SEARCH Search by job title, geography and build a list of executive contacts
Actor Clint Eastwood made my day recently. Last week's Assistive Technology column dealt with the battle he's having with lawyers who, he says, abuse the Americans with Disabilities Act (see BW Online, 5/10/00, "Now, Dirty Harry Is Gunning for the ADA"). A lawyer representing a woman in a wheelchair has sued his Mission Ranch Hotel in Carmel, Calif., for allegedly failing to comply with ADA requirements. The allegation: One of the bathrooms in his historic, 32-room hotel should have a wider door to make it accessible. This despite the fact that Monterey County has inspected the building and declared it in compliance with the ADA.
I had called Eastwood to get his side of the story but couldn't reach him in time for that column's publication. Still, imagine my shock when I picked up the phone on May 11 and heard, "Hi, Mr. Williams, it's Clint Eastwood." We had a long and interesting chat.
The man who's famous for portraying tough guys on the silver screen -- characters ranging from the stogie-smoking gunslinger in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly to San Francisco detective Dirty Harry -- wants Washington to fix the ADA: He supports an amendment sponsored by Representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) that would give businesses 90 days to remedy any alleged noncompliance with the accessibility provisions of the law before they can be sued. As it stands now, the 10-year-old law provides no cushion -- any business owner can be sued at any time. A growing chorus of critics say trial lawyers are abusing the act, targeting small businesses randomly with frightening and expensive lawsuits.
Eastwood says he won't allow lawyers to push him around. He sees himself as a champion of small business against a dirty dozen (or far more) of trial attorneys who are abusing the ADA to collect fistfuls of dollars. Eastwood was polite but firm and quite candid. I sensed a controlled anger in his tone. Like many business owners, he's confused about the law and hungry for information about it. Here are edited excerpts from our conversation:
Eastwood: I understand you know a lot about the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Eastwood. What do you know about the ADA?
A: I'm not unfamiliar with it. And I'm learning more about it every day. I support civil-rights laws.
Q: Do you support the ADA?
A: Yes.
Q: But you're interested in changing the law?
A: I would like to see an amendment passed so that when a business is accused of violating the law, they would have a minimum of 30 days to respond to compliance without being hassled by lawyers and forced to pay huge legal fees. This is a bipartisan issue. Members in both parties are looking at the amendment.
Q: What happened at your hotel?
A: I own a small hotel in Carmel that is in the midst of restoration. We've been working with the county authorities on accessibility issues and are in compliance with the law according to the county. A woman in a wheelchair came in and said we weren't accessible. And then the lawyers came in. They said we did not have sufficient signs for [people with] disabilities. They said our rooms are not accessible. We have accessible rooms. We have accessible wheelchair ramps.
The lawyers, who say they represent the woman, are trying to charge us hundreds of dollars an hour whenever they meet with my lawyers on this matter. The woman said she was in the hotel a year ago and complained we weren't accessible then for her to use the bathroom. But none of the hotel staff could remember her and her complaint. Still, in a year, the staff sees a lot of people.
Q: How do you feel about the people who allegedly abuse the ADA?
A: What about a small businessman who doesn't know about the law? Few do. This type of abuse is wrong. These exorbitant legal fees can put them out of business. I am very concerned about this wrong. That's why I want the amendment passed.
Q: Do you think these people suing your hotel are doing it because you are who you are?
A: I do. But I'm not going to roll over. Look, I can afford to fight these guys -- and I am. But what about other small-business owners? They can't.
In last week's column, I worried that Congress might engage in a wholesale weakening of the ADA if lawmakers reopen the landmark law. I still don't think it's a good idea to put enforcement of ADA provisions under state jurisdiction, as the Foley amendment would do. Some states will not be as vigilant in enforcing the ADA as others. The ADA is a federal law that should remain under federal jurisdiction.
But the more I've thought about it, the more I'm persuaded that businesses should have an opportunity to fix any accessibility problems before they're sued for noncompliance. Yes, businesspeople should learn more about the ADA before they condemn it. But the fact is, many lawyers are abusing the act.
The Foley amendment would require that any lawsuit for discrimination under the ADA must be preceded by a written notice of violation by certified mail from the plaintiff or a representative of the plaintiff. The Foley provision would require 90 days' advance notice. Clint Eastwood requests -- quite reasonably -- a minimum of 30 days. So maybe Congress will soon make Eastwood's day.
What do you think about this issue? Visit BW Online's Assistive Tech Forum and join in a discussion. Or drop John a line at JMMAW@aol.com EDITED BY DOUGLAS HARBRECHT
Get BusinessWeek directly on your desktop with our RSS feeds.
Add BusinessWeek news to your Web site with our headline feed.
Click to buy an e-print or reprint of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story or video.
To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please click here.
Copyright 2000 , by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Printer-Friendly Version
