A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has sent shockwaves through the world of ADA litigation. In Natosha Dunston v. 243 Dekalb Ave. LLC, the court rebuked a serial ADA plaintiff who sought to enforce attorneys’ fees from a settlement—without providing any evidence that the agreed-upon accessibility improvements were actually completed. The ruling raises concerns that some ADA lawsuits may be more focused on generating attorneys’ fees than achieving real accessibility compliance.
This case highlights a major shift in judicial scrutiny over accessibility lawsuits, particularly those that result in settlements with minimal oversight. The court’s decision not only denied an automatic payment of attorneys’ fees but also took the extraordinary step of requiring proof that this and all of the plaintiff’s other lawsuits have resulted in actual access via remediation.
For further details, read the original article here:
Serial Plaintiff Seeking to Enforce a Delinquent Settlement Payment Gets a Sharp Judicial Rebuke from EDNY Federal Judge
Case Summary: What Led to This Ruling?
The lawsuit was originally filed by Natosha Dunston, a frequent filer of ADA lawsuits, against a Brooklyn restaurant and its property owner. She alleged that the business failed to comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by maintaining architectural barriers that prevented full access to disabled patrons.
The parties initially settled the case, agreeing to:
- Install a portable ramp with a doorbell for assistance.
- Provide accessible dining tables inside and outside.
- Arrange a restroom-sharing agreement with a neighboring business.
- Pay $10,000 in attorneys’ fees within 30 days.
However, when the defendants failed to make the full attorneys’ fee payment, the plaintiff returned to court to enforce the agreement—but not to ensure that accessibility improvements were made.
The judge took issue with this, questioning whether the case was truly about improving accessibility or merely about collecting “substantial” fees. As a result, the court denied the immediate payment of attorneys’ fees and issued an unprecedented requirement: proof that the agreed-upon remediation had been completed, both in this case and in all of the plaintiff’s other ADA lawsuits.
Read the previous again. The court expects the plaintiff to prove that the result of various lawsuits was accessibility – not just payment of money.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling
This case presents one of the strongest judicial criticisms of ADA serial litigation and raises important questions about the true intent behind some accessibility lawsuits. Below are key excerpts from the court’s opinion that emphasize why accessibility remediation, not just legal fees, should be the primary focus of ADA litigation.
1. ADA Settlements Must Prioritize Remediation Over Fees
The court emphasized that the only remedy allowed under the ADA is remediation, not financial damages:
“Because the settlement here doesn’t just provide for the payment of attorneys’ fees, a judgment for breach of the settlement agreement shouldn’t either. The So-Ordered settlement required defendants to perform remedial measures to make the offending premises accessible. Such remediations are the only remedy allowed by the ADA; there is no damage remedy.”
The ADA does not allow for compensation, yet most lawsuits seem to be filed for this very naked purpose. The court further criticized the plaintiff’s counsel for failing to request enforcement of the accessibility improvements while aggressively pursuing attorneys’ fees:
“Plaintiff’s counsel, seemingly uninterested in the provisions of the settlement agreement that benefit her client, did not ask for such an order. This strikes the Court as odd because, based on defendants’ failure to even pay the attorneys’ fees, the chances are slim to none that they have even started, let alone finished, remediating the inaccessibility problems identified in the settlement.”
2. The Court Calls Out the Unscrupulous Business Model of ADA Serial Lawsuits
The judge raised concerns that some ADA lawsuits are more focused on extracting settlements than improving accessibility. The ruling noted:
“Plaintiff’s cookie-cutter complaint alleged more than 15 pages worth of specific ADA regulatory accessibility violations, and yet the settlement boiled down to the few minor items described above: one ramp, two tables, and a bathroom-sharing agreement with a neighboring restaurant.”
The court further questioned whether ADA lawsuits were being used more as a tool for legal fees rather than meaningful change:
“Title III of the ADA has primarily become a tool not used to ensure disabled persons can access privately operated public accommodations, but instead used by a specialized plaintiff’s bar against ‘mom and pop’ operations (i.e., bodegas, bars, restaurants, retail and convenience stores) to extract attorneys’ fees.”
This concern aligns with broader criticisms that some ADA lawsuits result in financial settlements but leave accessibility barriers largely unchanged.
3. The Court’s Unprecedented Move: Requiring Proof of Remediation in Other Lawsuits
In a rare legal maneuver, the judge refused to allow attorneys’ fees to be collected until the plaintiff provided proof that remediation had actually occurred in this and her other cases:
“However, to ensure that this action has been brought for plaintiff’s benefit, and not the benefit of her attorney, enforcement of that portion of the judgment requiring the payment of the $9000 in attorneys’ fees is stayed pending a showing by plaintiff that: (a) the remedial changes contemplated by the judgment have been accomplished; and (b) the remedial changes contemplated in each of plaintiff’s other actions brought in this Court have also been implemented.”
This requirement forces serial filers and their attorneys to demonstrate that their lawsuits are leading to real accessibility improvements rather than serving as a mechanism for legal fees.
Our Opinion: A New Wave of Website Accessibility Claims
In our view, this ruling will likely encourage plaintiff attorneys to take a more aggressive approach in monitoring and pursuing claims against businesses—including and especially websites—that fail to remediate accessibility violations. This could lead to repeat litigation, where attorneys continue to profit while businesses face ongoing legal exposure.
It is far easier to run automated scans on a website or hire someone to run tests, than to send a plaintiff back to the business for physical inspection. We predict that this ruling will impact website lawsuit tactics in a major way.
Given this trend, remediation and continued periodic monitoring are essential to avoid future claims. Businesses that fail to implement and maintain accessibility improvements could find themselves paying multiple rounds of legal fees and settlements.
Key Takeaways for Businesses
- While this is not legal advice, ensure Settlement Agreements Include Clear Remediation Steps – Businesses facing accessibility lawsuits should negotiate settlements through their legal counsel that include specific, actionable steps toward compliance which also consider undue burdens, changes that may alter the goods and services offered, and freedom of artistic expression. Avoid overpromising fixes or adherence to subjective guidelines or aggressive expectations.
- Follow Through on Accessibility Fixes – Failure to implement promised improvements can lead to additional legal liability.
- Continuous Monitoring is Critical – Accessibility is not a one-time fix. Regular audits and updates are necessary to maintain compliance and prevent repeat claims.
- Work with Accessibility Experts – Consulting professionals who specialize in website and digital accessibility can help businesses proactively address compliance issues before they become litigation targets.
Staying Ahead of Accessibility Compliance
With courts placing greater scrutiny on ADA settlements and requiring proof of actual remediation, businesses can no longer afford to take a “settle and forget” approach to accessibility compliance. Ensuring your website and digital platforms remain accessible through proper remediation and ongoing monitoring is the best way to mitigate legal risk and improve usability for all users.
If you’re unsure whether your website meets current accessibility standards, speak to us about your compliance strategy. Being proactive is always better than being reactive.
