Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.

Disability Lawyers File Class Action Over San Bernardino Courthouses

Report Fraud
Case ID: 4937 | Civil Rights | 10/19/2006

The Disability Rights Legal Center filed a class action in U.S. district court against San Bernardino County and the San Bernardino Superior Court over alleged deficiencies in courthouse accessibility for disabled patrons.

Filed in the Central District of California’s Riverside courthouse, Goldkorn v. County of San Bernardino, claims violations of various federal and state statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the First and Fifth Amendments, and the California Constitution.

The five named plaintiffs, all wheelchair users who allege harm due to unsuitable courthouse facilities, are seeking a declaratory judgment that the county and superior court are violating the law, as well as an injunction directing them to modify the county’s 11 courthouse facilities to provide adequate access.

“There are myriad access issues throughout the San Bernardino courts, including inadequate parking, lack of accessible paths of travel to and within courthouses, as well as inaccessible courtrooms, clerks’ offices, filing windows, libraries, bathrooms, cafeterias, elevators, and witness stands,” the complaint asserts. “The systemic nature of these barriers creates a court system that is a real life obstacle course for people with disabilities.”

The complaint includes allegations by plaintiff Alfred Chichester, a frequently retained expert witness in civil matters, that most witness stands in San Bernardino courtrooms are completely inaccessible to him. As a result, Chichester allegedly must sit on a platform next to the witness box, which hampers his view of many of the jurors and enables the jurors closest to him to see the notes he places in his lap.

On one occasion, the complaint states, Chichester was present as a defense witness but had to sit at the plaintiff’s counsel’s table during his testimony due to an inaccessible witness stand.

Among the plaintiffs are San Bernardino attorney Michael Flippin, who on one visit to the San Bernardino courthouse was unable even to enter the courtroom to make an appearance, and had to announce his presence from the doorway. The matter was transferred to a courtroom in the Rancho Cucamonga courthouse as a result, the plaintiffs said.

“[T]here are substantial numbers of attorneys affected by it, and we know that the ways in which attorneys with disabilities are impacted by this has an impact on their practice, has an impact on their clients and the way that they do business” said the director of litigation for the DRLC.

The DRLC brought a similar suit against Los Angeles County that ended in a settlement this January, under which the County agreed to make substantial changes to improve accessibility in 51 Superior Court courthouses. The modifications, which have been commenced and will cost approximately $4.6 million in their entirety, include removal of the double leaf swinging gates that separate spectators from participants, or replacement with ADA compliant swinging gates.

“It’s particularly ironic that the very place where one goes to seek access to justice, is the very place that people with disabilities encounter so many barriers,” said an attorney for the plaintiffs.


At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints.

Other Civil Rights Cases of Interest

A statewide collective action has been filed in New York against the City of Newburgh. The action is brought on behalf of all current and former employees of the Newburgh Police Department who were not paid overtime compensation since December 31, 2000. The action is brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks back pay, statutory damages and liquidated damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. As a collective action, all potential claimants must "opt-in" to the case in order to be considered part of the class. The employees have requested that the court issue notice to all potential claimants.
 
A national class action has been filed in California against internet giant, Yahoo!, Inc. The action is brought on behalf of all U.S. residents who have purchased credit repair services from Yahoo!, known as "Yahoo! Credit Manager." The action is brought under the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act as well as common law contract and seeks compensatory, punitive and statutory damages as well as disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief and the establishment of a constructive trust.
 
A nationwide class action has been filed against the US Department of Agriculture on behalf of black farmers who farmed or attempted to farm between January 1, 1997, and August 30, 2004, and who allege that the agency has conspired to take their land through tacit racial discrimination expressed through government farm loan and program policies. The lawsuit alleges that the USDA has violated the 14th amendment of the American Constitution, the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and seeks at least $20.5 billion in damages.
 
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation. A class action has been filed against petroleum company Sunoco, Inc. on behalf of current and former salaried non-union professional African American employees employed within the Philadelphia area at any time during the period from January 1, 1996, to the present, in violation of Title VII of the federal 1964 Civil Rights Act.
 
A statewide collective action has been filed in Florida against Joysi Group, Inc. and subsidiary, Vijay Group, Inc. Joysi and Vijay operate convenience stores in South Florida, in particular the "Joysi Food Market" and "S&G Market". The action is brought on behalf of all current and former employees who, since December 31, 2000, were deprived of proper overtime pay by Joysi and Vijay. The action is brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks back pay, statutory damages, liquidated damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. As a collective action, all potential claimants must voluntarily "opt-in" to the case in order to be considered part of the class. The employees have requested that the court issue notice to all potential claimants.
 
A multi-state class action has been brought in Pennsylvania against Accredited Collection Agency, Inc. and attorney Norman G. Kalina. The action is brought on behalf of all Pennsylvania and New Jersey consumers who, since March 16, 2003, have been contacted by Accredited or Kalina in an effort to collect an alleged outstanding debt. The action is brought under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and seeks actual and statutory damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.
 
Become a LawCash Member - FREE!
'Find Money' E-Book
Weekly Email Alerts




privacy policy
YouNewz Beta
IT'S FREE

Report

Report Newz and easily upload your own newzworthy photos from your cell phone or computer to the web.

Share

Quickly share your photos with family, friends, co-workers, or the world with your own Newzpaper.

Read

Instantly find Newz and photos from other YouNewzers and read other YouNewzers Newzpapers.
 
Class Action Lawsuit Center || Product Recall Center || Consumer Complaint Center || About LawCash Link Exchange
Privacy Policy || Legal Policies || Terms & Conditions || Website Advertising Policy || Site Map || Top Lawsuits
LawCash® is a service of nola3, llc
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.

[ Home ]
LawCash
login
Justice is a click away.