Slew of lawsuits over disability access frustrates US cafe and shop owners

Rodrigo Nogueira was met with a surprise in April 2025 when lawyers contacted him out of the blue. They asked whether he needed legal assistance over a summons his restaurant received for violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

It was the first he had ever heard of it. The lawsuit listed 35 violations against No More Cafe, his restaurant in Manhattan’s East Village.

One violation alleged a table outside the restaurant was not ADA compliant, an accusation that puzzled Nogueira: the cafe had no outdoor tables. Other alleged violations were about infractions inside the restaurant, yet the plaintiff said he was unable to enter the restaurant.

When Nogueira researched the lawsui, he discovered that the plaintiff who sued him and the plaintiff’s lawyer had filed complaints against dozens of small businesses. The attorney who filed the lawsuit against him alone had filed more than 100 ADA lawsuits over the past nine years against storefront businesses.

Nogueira, sitting at a table in his café, said: “The [plaintiff] that’s suing me – he’s got 67 cases.”

Before possibly hiring a lawyer, Nogueira filed a motion to dismiss the case himself. But the judge said a company cannot represent itself in court. For small businesses, thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to just file a motion, can be prohibitively costly.

Frustrated with the process, Nogueira sought to speak with other small business owners. He went through public court records and found nearby businesses that were also being sued for ADA noncompliance.

“Every business owner I spoke to had opened within the last year or two. Every one of them was an immigrant,” Nogueira, who is from Brazil, wrote in a post on his website about the lawsuit. “None of us had any idea how to navigate the federal court system. Most were already several thousand dollars into legal fees by the time we talked. Several of them did not realize they had been sued until the deadline to respond had already passed.”

Other small business owners the Guardian spoke to, who largely declined to speak on the record, said they also feel unfairly targeted by serial ADA litigants. This barrage of ADA litigation filed against storefront businesses has put the small business community at loggerheads with ADA plaintiffs and their lawyers.

The ADA became federal law in 1990, Title III was created to ensure that people with disabilities do not face “barriers to entry” and have access to spaces such as stores, restaurants, bars and cafes. However, even with the law in place, many people with disabilities and their advocates have long been frustrated by the lack of ADA compliance in restaurants, cafes and shops, which might not have usable entryways, bathrooms or tables.

While the Department of Justice might take up corporate ADA noncompliance cases, there is no local regulation, and private litigation is often the only means that brings smaller businesses into compliance.

Businesses are given some leeway in the ADA’s standards for accessible design, which can be confusing for business owners. Modifications should be made when they are “readily achievable” or “easy to do without much difficulty or expense”, according to the standards, and “a business with more resources is expected to remove more barriers than a business with fewer resources”.

“The issue is around the ability for small business owners to make these changes,” said Jessica Walker, president and CEO of the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, who testified last year in front of the New York city council on the impact that these serial ADA lawsuits can have on small business owners. “Oftentimes the repairs can be cost-prohibitive.”

Many storefront businesses feel they could successfully fight alleged violations on the grounds that they are unable to fix them or that they are already in full compliance. But the cost of going to court and paying thousands of dollars in legal fees often makes fighting the violations, regardless of whether they are valid, insurmountable.

When a business is served with an ADA lawsuit, there are only two options for business owners: fix the violations that are “readily achievable” and settle out of court, which could cost anywhere from $13,000 to $20,000 in legal fees, (in Nogueira’s case, the plaintiff’s settlement offer was $8,000, which doesn’t include his own lawyer fees); or go to court, which could cost between $20,000 to $50,000 or or more in legal fees.

To business owners, being forced to hire a lawyer can feel unfair. When it comes to enforcement of other laws, such as health, fire safety, or liquor regulations, for example, hiring legal services is rarely necessary. Businesses work directly with the city to become compliant.

Small business advocates say that the ADA’s enforcement system allows for lawyers who represent serial litigants to make thousands off of small businesses.

Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York (LRANY), a nonprofit that advocates for legal reform in New York state, said the lawyers do not seem to care if the lawsuit’s listed violations are even valid.

“It is the definition of throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks,” said Stebbins, adding that the lawyers and plaintiffs seem unconcerned whether the lawsuits would actually lead to substantial changes.

Rather, they seem to be coercing small businesses to pay out a settlement. This practice has frustrated business owners, who feel like the law is “being abused by bad actors right now”, Stebbins said.

But disability advocates say the lawsuits are necessary to enforce a civil rights law and make businesses more ADA compliant.

“I get that store owners don’t like to be sued, but the vast majority of cases that are filed – whether they are filed by individuals filing their first case or individuals who are filing 20 cases a month, there’s actual violations there,” said Michelle Uzeta, executive director of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

“The ADA has been in place for 30-plus years at this point. There is no reason why accessibility issues have not been dealt with by now.”

Ruth Colker, a newly retired professor at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, who specializes in constitutional law and disability discrimination, said serial litigation is a consequence of how Congress set up the ADA.

“[It] was Congress’s decision to only allow enforcement through injunctive relief, primarily through private litigation,” Colker said. “That is what Congress said has to happen in order for the world to become accessible.”

Ronnette Riley, a New York architectwho has worked on accessibility and ADA compliance her entire career, said that the law was likely created with new construction in mind. Owners of buildings constructed after the ADA became law have no excuse for being noncompliant.

But ADA compliance in older buildings is far more complicated. Structural changes in older buildings, especially those landmarked or in a historic district, often requires approval from other government agencies. This poses a challenge for small business owners who may not know the ins and outs of ADA regulations, including what would be considered “feasible” or “readily achievable” under the law.

The ADA code is “not for the faint of heart”, Riley said. “It’s very convoluted in places and there are judgment calls.”

Jessica Walker, president and CEO of the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, who testified last year in front of the New York city council on the impact that these serial ADA lawsuits can have on small business owners, said there needs to be more education for small businesses so they know what their ADA responsibilities are.

For example, leases often include a clause that makes renters responsible for ADA violations, including paying the legal fees of their landlords, who are often named in the lawsuit as well.

Stebbins said that the court system should be more willing to sanction lawyers for filing false claims against small businesses, which would discourage serial litigation. Nogueira determined that more than 75% of the 35 violations listed in the lawsuit against him were invalid.

Another solution to help business owners was proposed in the US House in December: the bipartisan ADA 30 Days to Comply Act would offer a 30-day remediation window for businesses to become ADA compliant.

But ADA advocates are concerned that such a cure period would set “a dangerous precedent for all civil rights”.

“If Congress accepts that disability discrimination deserves a warning and a waiting period, it invites the same logic for every other protected class. Advocates across the civil rights coalition should treat this as a test case, not a niche disability issue,” Uzeta said.