Kaiser
Home Up IHOP Imperial Beach County of San Diego Godfathers' Pizza GM Oil Kaiser Julian Molski v. Arco

 

The Complaiint
ADA Auxiliary Terms Kaiser Agreed To
The Facts

  The ADVOCATES FOR ACCESSIBLE HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS versus Kaiser case settled on June 4, 2004 by Pinnock & Wakefield.  

    The case is a non-class action impact litigation settlement.  Kaiser members with visual disabilities should be aware of Kaiser's obligations to them under the settlement.  Click Here to Read Kaiser's Obligations.

   The ADVOCATES FOR ACCESSIBLE HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS versus Kaiser matter is an ADA Title III Auxiliary Aids case in which Plaintiffs are the prevailing party.  The ADA Title III requires places of public accommodation to avoid discrimination by providing auxiliary aids and services. [See, 42 United States Code 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).]  This case involves the provision of auxiliary aids and services to Kaiser members with visual disabilities.  Auxiliary aids and services for Kaiser members with visual disabilities include qualified readers, taped texts, audio recordings, Braille materials, large print materials, or other effective methods of making visually delivered materials available to individuals with visual impairments.  [See 28 C.F.R 36.303(2)] Qualified readers, taped texts, audio recordings, Braille materials, and large print materials are not defined by the ADA and its regulations.  This litigation sought to compel Kaiser to provide auxiliary aids and services and to define qualified readers, taped texts, audio recordings, Braille materials, and large print materials. 

After two years of litigation and negotiation, the parties agreed to a comprehensive Release and Settlement Agreement wherein Kaiser agreed to provide qualified readers, taped texts, audio recordings, Braille materials, and large print materials.  The Agreement defines, for the first time in the litigation context, qualified readers, taped texts, audio recordings, Braille materials, and large print materials. This lawsuit was the catalyst motivating the Defendants to modify their behavior by agreeing to these definitions.  Also, under the Agreement Plaintiffs’ Counsel was required to file a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs with the stipulation that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party for the purposes of this Motion.  

 

 

 


 

Pinnock & Wakefield, A.P.C.

Plaza Centre

7851 Mission Center Ct., Suite 310

San Diego, CA 92108

Telephone: 619.858.3671 * Facsimile: 619.858.3646

www.PinnockWakefieldLaw.com