Advertisement

Eastwood Says Disabilities Act Needs Reform

Share
From Associated Press

Angered by a lawsuit against a hotel he owns, actor Clint Eastwood urged Congress on Thursday to amend the Americans With Disabilities Act and discourage what he calls frivolous lawsuits by attorneys reaping six-figure legal fees from small businesses.

“It’s really not fair,” Eastwood told a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing. “These lawyers cloak themselves under the guise they’re doing a favor for the disabled when really they’re doing a disservice.”

Eastwood has been speaking out since a California woman sued him and cited his Mission Ranch Resort in Carmel, Calif., for violations to the 10-year-old law.

Advertisement

The lawsuit, filed three years ago, claims at least one bathroom and the hotel parking lot at the 32-room hotel and restaurant did not comply with the law and there were not enough rooms accessible to the disabled.

Eastwood says the claims are bogus. An accessible bathroom, for instance, has been in place since 1988, he insists.

He has lashed out at provisions in the federal law that prohibit the disabled from collecting damages but allow attorneys to collect fees. Paul Rein, the attorney for plaintiff Diane Zum Brunnen, wants $577,000 in legal fees, he said.

The lawyers drive off “in a big Mercedes and the disabled end up riding off in a wheelchair,” he said.

A bill sponsored by Florida Republican Reps. Mark Foley and Clay E. Shaw Jr. would require plaintiffs to give defendants notice of alleged violations and then 90 days to comply.

Rein said it would be unfair to require the disabled to notify people they believe discriminated against them.

Advertisement

“If a black person is not allowed to enter a business because of his race, he’s not required to send a letter. If a woman is not allowed to . . . , she’s not required to send a letter. Why should disabled persons be the only class of persons required to send letters?” Rein said.

The Clinton administration also opposes the measure, saying it would “undermine voluntary compliance . . . and it would unduly burden legitimate ADA enforcement activity.”

Advertisement