End the ADA lawsuit madness in NYC: Stop the Marks brothers and paraplegic Jocelyn Pierre!

New York Post - Apr 17th, 2025

Bradly and Darren Marks, lawyer-brothers, have filed 113 federal ADA lawsuits on behalf of Jocelyn Pierre, a paraplegic New Yorker, against various businesses in New York City. This wave of lawsuits has led to financial gain for Pierre and the Marks brothers, as many businesses opt to settle rather than endure costly court battles. The targeted establishments range from upscale boutiques to small businesses and nonprofits, such as the Electric Lotus tattoo parlor and Emma's Torch, a culinary nonprofit aiding refugees. The legitimacy of these claims is questionable, as business owners argue that Pierre's claims are fabricated or exaggerated, and evidence that could exonerate the businesses is often unavailable due to timing issues.

The story highlights an ongoing issue of ADA-related legal schemes that exploit laws designed to protect individuals with disabilities. This practice of leveraging ADA regulations for financial gain has been reported before, yet continues due to insufficient federal and state reforms. The lack of stringent oversight and the lucrative nature of settlements perpetuate these lawsuits, adversely affecting small businesses and charities. The story calls for stronger legal frameworks and proactive measures by state authorities to protect businesses from such predatory legal actions, emphasizing the need for reform to prevent ADA lawsuits from becoming a tool for opportunistic legal exploitation.

Americans With Disabilities Act Bradly Marks Darren Marks Jocelyn Pierre Ada Lawsuits New York City Small Businesses Legal Exploitation

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

3.4

Unfair Story

Approach with caution

The article presents a provocative view on ADA lawsuits, focusing on a specific case involving Jocelyn Pierre and his lawyers. While the topic is timely and of public interest, the story suffers from a lack of accuracy, balance, and source quality. The claims made are largely unverified and presented without supporting evidence, leading to potential misinformation. The narrative is heavily biased, omitting critical perspectives and failing to provide a comprehensive view of the situation. Despite its readability and potential to engage readers, the sensational tone and lack of transparency undermine its credibility. The article could benefit from more balanced reporting and thorough fact-checking to provide a clearer and more reliable account of ADA litigation issues.

Accuracy

The article presents several claims that require substantial verification. It states that Jocelyn Pierre and his lawyers have filed 113 ADA lawsuits, but this number is not corroborated by any court records or official documents. Moreover, the claim that Pierre has bought a Mercedes and lives in 'swanky digs' lacks financial evidence or settlement documentation to support these assertions. Additionally, the story suggests that businesses find it cheaper to settle than to fight these lawsuits, a statement that aligns with general trends in ADA litigation but lacks specific data or examples from the cases mentioned. The claim that the lawsuits are a 'racket' is a serious accusation that requires evidence of fraudulent intent or patterns of abuse, which the article does not provide. These gaps indicate a need for more precise and supported reporting.

Balance

The article lacks balance, primarily presenting a one-sided view that characterizes the lawsuits as exploitative 'shakedowns.' It does not provide perspectives from the accused businesses, the lawyers involved, or any disability rights advocates who might offer a different view on the necessity and impact of ADA lawsuits. The narrative is heavily skewed towards portraying the plaintiffs as opportunistic, without exploring any potential legitimate grievances or the broader context of accessibility issues. Such an imbalanced presentation can lead to a misleading understanding of the situation, as it omits critical voices that could provide a fuller picture.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and engaging style, with a straightforward narrative that is easy to follow. However, the tone is highly sensationalized, using language like 'shakedown rackets' and 'swanky digs' that injects bias and diminishes the neutrality of the reporting. The structure is logical, but the use of sarcastic and inflammatory language detracts from the clarity and seriousness of the topic, potentially misleading readers about the gravity of the issues discussed.

Source quality

The article does not cite any sources, official documents, or experts to substantiate its claims. There is no evidence of interviews with involved parties, such as the businesses sued or legal experts who could provide context on ADA litigation. The lack of attributed sources significantly undermines the credibility and reliability of the information presented. Without authoritative sources or corroborating evidence, the article's claims remain largely unverified and speculative.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its reporting. It does not disclose the methodology behind the claims, such as how the number of lawsuits was determined or the basis for financial assertions about Pierre's lifestyle. There is also no mention of potential conflicts of interest or biases that could influence the reporting. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to assess the validity of the information and understand the underlying motivations or context of the story.