PREMIUM SEARCH Search by job title, geography and build a list of executive contacts
Famed film star Clint Eastwood couldn't have scripted it better himself. On Sept. 29, a U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., ruled that the Academy Award-winning director and actor wasn't liable for damages in a case filed against him by Diane zum Brunnen. A resident of Alameda, Calif., zum Brummen alleged that Eastwood's Carmel Mission Ranch Inn violated title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(see BW Online, 5/10/00, "Now, Dirty Harry Is Gunning for the ADA ") and 5/17/00, "Clint Eastwood Explains His Beef with the ADA ").
Disregarding a closing argument from zum Brunnen's attorney that compared her to Rosa Parks, the five-man and three-woman civil jury found the disabled woman had suffered no harm at Eastwood's inn. The jury did find Eastwood guilty only of two minor violations -- lack of a wheelchair-accessible ramp and not having a sign to point disabled patrons to wheelchair-accessible bathrooms. Eastwood has long since remedied both of these situations.
The verdict makes my day. Many in the disability community have voiced outrage over this outcome. As anyone who reads this column knows, I strongly support the ADA. I believe every building and bathroom should be accessible to the disabled. Access to public and private buildings is a right, and it should be protected.
That said, I also believe that sometimes attorneys and people with disabilities abuse the ADA. The Eastwood case is one of these instances -- and never should have gone to court. Furthermore, I believe these ill-advised lawsuits do far more harm than good by frightening business owners, encouraging expensive litigation, and making cooperation on compliance far more difficult to achieve.
The battle between Dirty Harry and zum Brunnen, who has muscular dystrophy, started when she and her husband arrived on a Sunday afternoon in January, 1996, to spend the night at Eastwood's inn. According to documents filed in the case, the couple didn't have a reservation and learned the only room for wheelchair users was occupied. They stayed for dinner. Afterward, Mrs. zum Brunnen claimed she was directed to an inaccessible bathroom. There was a wheelchair-accessible bathroom closer than the bathroom to which she said she had been directed, but no one told her about it, according to filings submitted in the case.
NO ANSWER. The zum Brunnens left the hotel and sent several letters to Eastwood complaining about the inaccessible bathroom. When the letters went unanswered, on Jan. 21, 1997, zum Brunnen's attorney, Paul Rein, who has initiated more than 20 ADA cases, filed a federal suit against Eastwood. John Burris was brought in for the trial. He specializes in litigating complaints of ADA violations and believed Eastwood had broken the law. "There was a clear violation of the rules when Mrs. zum Brunnen visited, and Mr. Eastwood, as owner of the Mission Ranch, is responsible for the violations of those rules," said Burris during the trial.
For more than two years after the complaint had been filed, zum Brunnen and her attorney sought a cash settlement from Eastwood. Last spring, Eastwood told a congressional committee that zum Brunnen wanted an out-of-court settlement of $576,000. It wouldn't have been her first. Previously, zum Brunnen had won an ADA lawsuit filed against Mendocino's historic Heritage House Hotel, which paid $20,000 to her and $48,000 to her lawyer. In that case, zum Brunnen complained that a doorway was too narrow and an ocean-front path too rough for her wheelchair.
Not only did Eastwood refuse to settle but he also turned the case into a media war and a four-year legal slugfest. "I'm doing this to help protect small-business people from the same kind of lawsuit," he told this columnist before the trial. Eastwood's attorneys warned him that if he fought the case in court, he could end up stuck paying $1 million worth of zum Brunnen's legal bills. Under the law, the complainant's attorneys in ADA cases can collect their legal fees from the other side if they win. This double-whammy is why businesses often settle out of court rather than fight.
During the trial, Eastwood's attorney, Chuck Keller, told the jury that zum Brunnen may not have even visited the hotel. "There are many discrepancies in her story, and there is a lack of corroboration," Keller said. "For zum Brunnen to win, she must prove that she visited Mission Ranch as a bona fide guest, not on a pretext, setting the stage for this lawsuit." For her part, zum Brunnen had pledged to give her legal winnings to charity.
READY TO APPEAL. The jury took only five hours to deliberate -- and it came down squarely on Dirty Harry's side. "The verdict was correct. I hope I set an example for other small businesses to follow," said Eastwood, adding he would have appealed if he had lost. And he's right on the money. All along, Eastwood says that he has supported the ADA's access requirements and continues to. And the facts support him: Eastwood's hotel did have a wheelchair-accessible bathroom and a wheelchair-accessible room. When notified of existing problems, he fixed them, as mandated by the law. And zum Brunnen's offer to settle for nearly a half-million dollars seems excessive to this columnist in light of the circumstances.
By standing up and taking the case to trial, Eastwood sent the right message. Since Congress passed the ADA in 1990, the disabled community has filed thousands of lawsuits against businesses, most of which have been settled out of court. The vast majority of ADA lawsuits have rightfully served as a last resort to force business owners to put in place legally mandated equal-access provisions. And this strong legal crowbar has played a major role in literally opening doors to the disabled across this country.
But the outcome of this trial should serve both as a warning to trial lawyers and a wake-up call to businesses, especially small ones. The ADA is a landmark law. People with disabilities should resort to it as a legal weapon only after they truly have been denied access and have exhausted all other remedies. And small-business owners should understand that they have rights and recourse to reasonable remedies under the ADA, too. Lawyers who knowingly -- and repeatedly -- misuse the ADA to try to collect cash settlements should be dealt with by the American Bar Assn.
At the end of the trial, zum Brunnen's attorney declared that the case was a victory for the disabled by raising awareness of the issues. It sure did, in more ways than he realizes.
What do you think about this issue? Let us know at BW Online's Assistive Tech Forum. Or drop John a line Edited by Alex Salkever
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Copyright 2000, Bloomberg L.P.
Printer-Friendly Version
