District Court Judge finds that no individual liability exists under the ADA.

The plaintiffs, self-appointed advocates for the disabled, habitually assessed and documented parking access violations at public accommodations. They then filed municipal court criminal complaints and then claims under the ADA and NJLAD in federal court. The plaintiffs are former patients of the defendant, a medical practice, and they observed a van improperly parked in the handicap parking space of the medical practice. After the municipal court charges were dismissed due to a lack of ownership of the property in question, the medical practice sent the plaintiffs a letter terminating the patient-doctor relationship. The plaintiffs filed suit, claiming the termination of the relationship constituted retaliation under both the ADA and NJLAD. In dismissing the claims against the individual defendants, the District Court concluded that the ADA does not provide for individual liability. Further, the court found that no patient-doctor relationship existed since neither plaintiff had been seen by the practice for over a year and, therefore, no retaliation could occur as a matter of law.

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2016}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2016 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}