Morally Disabled

Outside the movies, people who do bad things rarely see themselves as bad people. The gleeful serial killer, Heath Ledger's Joker, or the mustache-twirling villain are cinematic. Real people, in my experience, tend either to avoid reflection about their bad behavior, or to construct elaborate justifications about how their behavior is decent, acceptable, or even noble.

In the last category, take, for instance, Thomas Mundy and his fellow thuggish litigants.

Mundy, and people like him, make their living suing small business for alleged noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and its California analogue statutes. It's lucrative:

Divorced and jobless except for the self-assigned ADA work, Mundy won't say how much he has earned by filing lawsuits demanding five-figure sums then settling out of court with business owners keen to escape a costlier defense. Attorneys representing those he has sued estimate Mundy's proceeds at about $300,000 in little more than a year, and a similar sum for his attorney, Morse Mehrban, from Mundy's cases alone.

Nice work, if you can get it. And how, you might ask, can he get it? Has Thomas Mundy tried to use a courthouse, a hospital, a library, a grocery and been unable to enter because of steep steps and no ramp?

Well, not exactly. The ADA, and the regulations promulgated under it, are a hellishly complex thicket of requirements governing nearly every aspect of designing, building, stocking, and running anything that can be construed as a public accommodation. Pay a lot of money to experts and lawyers, and you might be in compliance. Otherwise, good luck — people like Mundy are on the prowl, looking to make money off of you:

Mundy is trolling for barriers to his patronage — a threshold too high for his wheelchair, a parking lot with blue-striped access lanes narrower than eight feet, a public restroom where the coat hook on the back of the door, if there is one, is above his reach.

"He might as well have had a gun and asked me for $1,000 when he came in," Paul Venetos, owner of Anaheim's Varsity Burgers, said of an April visit by Mundy that led to a lawsuit over a condiments counter that was half an inch too high.

The burger joint's security camera recorded Mundy wheeling in, looking around for a few minutes then leaving without perusing a menu or attempting to order, Venetos said. He believes Mundy came in only to look for a chink in his ADA armor.

Some Californians have made a cottage industry out of casting about for violations and then suing. And of course attorneys are only too willing to help:

"Confined to a wheelchair in California?" [Morse] Mehrban asks potential clients on his website, "You may be entitled to $1,000 each time you can't use something at a business because of your disability."

If someone in a wheelchair has been doing laundry once a month for a year at a laundromat where the paper-towel dispenser is too high, "you're entitled to $12,000," the lawyer advertises.

Now, you might ask, wouldn't any decent jury see this for the contemptible shakedown that it is, and reject it? Well, yes, frequently:

While Mundy and Mehrban have racked up out-of-court settlements in all but a few cases, they lost one in mid-December.

A lawyer for a Garden Grove Del Taco franchise — one of a handful of Del Taco outlets Mundy has sued — cast him before a jury as an abuser of laws intended to help the disabled.

"The first thing he said wasn't even about Del Taco, it was about how 'Mr. Mundy can afford a Rolex watch,' and then he went after the number of lawsuits and the money I've made in settlements," Mundy said, apparently baffled at the portrayal of his work as something other than noble. "I wasn't able to talk hardly at all about all the good things I've done."

Here's the problem — that Del Taco franchisee just spent in legal fees somewhere between the cost of a sports car and the cost of a modest house to win that case. And though he'll recover costs — copies, deposition transcripts, witness fees, and the like — in our system he's not getting those legal fees back, even though he won the case. To do so, he'd have to sue Mundy and Mehrban for malicious prosecution, and win under a very difficult standard. So he's achieved a moral and legal victory, and a financial defeat.

That's what allows the litigation thugs of the world — like Mundy — to make upwards of three hundred large a year. It's also why it doesn't particularly matter if that counter was actually a half-inch low, or if that paper towel dispenser was a little too high. It only matters that there are people like Mundy willing to wheel around and sue, and people like Mehrban willing to help them do it. If someone sues one of my clients for one or five or ten or fifteen grand, I'll tell them to settle — even if the case is bogus, rent-seeking, and malicious. I'll explain to them that right is right, and justice is justice, but money is money — and there's no way that they are going to win the case for anything less than a large multiple of the money the plaintiff is demanding, and no realistic prospect of ever getting those costs back. Our broken system allows people like Mundy and Mehrban to feed at the trough of that strategic inequity. In a more just system — in which Mundy and Mehrban had to pay defense fees upon a loss, or get strung up by the testicles, or something — this would not be a problem.

This is the consequence of enacting a regime of accessibility regulations, then leaving enforcement of that regime to profit-seekers in a hopelessly flawed legal system. The result is arbitrary and capricious — people pay to settle cases not based on an evaluation of their merits, but on an evaluation of the cost of the fight. Moreover, this system does not select the worst offenders — the businesses least accessible to the disabled, with the most violations, or the most egregious violations. The choice of targets is not systematic at all. Rather, this system targets — and imposes costs upon — whatever small businesses people like Mundy choose. And people like Mundy and Mehrban frequently choose targets most likely to settle quickly — the poor, the foreign-born, people with limited command of English, people without the funds, support, or knowledge to fight.

If we were serious about a principled program of requiring public accommodations to offer access to the disabled, we would enforce it through a government agency. There's little to love about another government bureaucracy. But if we are going to go down this path of requiring accessibility, it's unconscionable to do so through a legal system that rewards the likes of Thomas Mundy.

Last 5 posts by Ken White


  1. says

    This is reminiscent of California's Unruh Act, which mandates a minimum $4,000 civil award for ANY incident of illegal discrimination, no matter how slight.

    Is it any wonder, therefore, that there are, e.g., men who actively seek out "ladies nights" at bars for the sole purpose of filing Unruh claims, or law firms that specialize in Unruh litigation (i.e., ambulance chasing)?

  2. Chris Berez says

    I have to pop in a DVD to be certain, but I think that this Mundy guy was featured on an episode of Bullshit! where they gave an example of him bringing lawsuits against all of the businesses in this small town, which, it seemed, he'd never actually visited; and businesses in the lawsuit were ADA accessible.

    People like Mundy and his lawyer deserve to spend the rest of their worthless lives rotting away in whatever happens to me the worst prison in the country. It's infuriating that they can continue to get away with this crap.

  3. Amy says

    It's so frustrating when people "jack" the system..and when a little boy (my son Ben) deteriorates for the better part of the year..and the high-paid neurologist keeps switching seizure meds..but never. ONCE. scanned his head. By the time he was almost dead, and I took him to ER at UCLA, it took a 4 minute CT scan to find out that he had a HUGE brain tumor. The pressure in his head was 7 times the normal was an emergent situation. The pressure on his eyes permanently made him legally blind..the course of action, once it had reached that stage, made our options was stage 4 by seems so apparent to the normal person she was negligent and didn't do right by him.

    Top firms in LA won't sue her as she was a professional witness for them..2 more firms decided it would be hard to prove malpractice (negligence would be a breeze..but I don't guess that is where the money is?!) and that his odds of survival were so poor that they didn't wish to take the case.

    I don't care about the money..I just want her to have to account for her poor care of scan the next child's brain if the child deteriorates.

    Very frustrating.

    Anyhow..vent over.


  4. Carl says

    What a disgrace!!! It is morally irreprehensible that such a fat bastard could get away with such blatent extortion. Who care's that he's in a wheel chair. Get over it. Many people are much more physically worse than he is and are highly productive members of society with lots to contribute. He is doing nothing more than destroying the very foundation that this country was built upon (capitalism, hard work, ethics, etc). He should get off his lazy ass and do something productive. Society would be much better off without creeps like him… may they burn in hell.

  5. Richard says

    This guy is nothing but worthless scum. I hope the next time he sues someone they take him to the end of a long pier and roll him off. This is the problem with our country today… everyone wants something for nothing.

  6. says

    ADA has been in place for NINETEEN years. How long do people with disabilities have to wait before it's possible that we enjoy places other than the "courthouse, a hospital, a library, a grocery"? In your list of places that it's acceptable we ask able-bodied people nicely and hope they comply, where is a church? How about a school?

    The ADA guidelines are clearly laid out for anyone to read. If you're a small business owner, you're expected to understand complicated tax laws and surely you understand the civil rights expectation that you can't deny someone entrance or use of your facility based on race. You should be held accountable to the same standards for customers with disabilities. Instead-it's ignored, there are no consequences, and businesses cry foul when their violations are caught.

    We don't want something for nothing-we want want each and every able bodied citizen is afforded in our country-access to everything-not just the courthouse, library, and grocery.

  7. Patrick says

    While I agree with you that reasonable accommodations should be made for people with disabilities Kara, I'd like to ask you a question: Do you believe that filing lawsuits against businesses one doesn't patronize, and doesn't intend to patronize, is an appropriate means of making a living for a disabled person who appears to be otherwise employable, as with Mr. Mundy?

  8. says

    Unfortunately the system hasn't appointed anyone/any government sector as the "ADA police". If Mundy and other people with disabilities don't enforce the laws-there's literally no one assigned (or with the incentive) to do so. On the report by CNN, it ends with his refusal to file a lawsuit because of the reason you mention: He never intended to buy something from a store that didn't have a ramp.
    I do think it's an appropriate way to make a living because he's improving access for other Californians (who potentially work full-time and are too busy to file lawsuits of their own!) who may want to access those facilities. People with disabilities are extremely diverse. It's unfair that only certain places be accessible.
    I think this is an entirely appropriate course of action for Mundy (and hopefully others) UNTIL businesses are in compliance. I ask you this:
    If there were a number of businesses in your town that refused services/business/access to Black people, would it be ok for someone in your community to repeatedly file lawsuits until they changed?
    Thankfully, there are no longer the shear NUMBER of businesses that blatantly refuse to comply to other civil rights laws so I don't understand why people with disabilities aren't afforded the same respect.
    Is it a career path I want to pursue-not particularly. But it's not up to me to judge what jobs are appropriate (if they are legal). The fact Mundy has been so successful is an indication of how many barriers we face.

  9. Patrick says

    Unfortunately the system hasn’t appointed anyone/any government sector as the “ADA police”.

    Is that a fact, Kara? Do you know whether Mundy has gone to the police?

    If there were a number of businesses in your town that refused services/business/access to Black people, would it be ok for someone in your community to repeatedly file lawsuits until they changed?

    I would file such suits myself, Kara. But there's a difference, with all due respect. Refusing to serve black people is a willful act, whereas the de minimis barriers of which Mundy complains (a countertop a half inch too high, etc – read the article) are founded on simple neglect, often by third-party architects and contractors rather than property owners themselves. I appreciate the barriers that disabled people face, but comparing the wrongs that Mundy fights to the evils of racial segregation trivializes morality. One who builds a countertop half an inch too high does not intend to dehumanize another person, whereas one who puts up a "Whites Only" sign does.

    But it’s not up to me to judge what jobs are appropriate (if they are legal).

    It is up to you, as an advocate for the disabled (if that's what you are), and as a moral, thinking person. If not you, who?

    The fact Mundy has been so successful is an indication of how many barriers we face.

    That isn't the only thing it indicates.

  10. says

    Kara, your comment here and on your own blog post is rather disingenuous. No fair-minded reader would have taken away from the above that handicapped people should only have access to courthouses and hospitals. Rather, as the entire context shows, people who support ADA litigation try to pretend it is about people being excluded entirely from buildings, when in reality business can be sued for half-inch-too-high counters or paper towel dispensers.

    Moreover, you ignore the the core of the comment, which is about how enforcement of ADA rules or norms through a broken legal system results in injustices rather than genuinely improved access. Hence my last paragraph.

  11. says

    I agree it's not the only thing it indicates…Mundy's success also indicates the state of California's willingness to provide legal avenues to see to some actual improvements to ADA compliance. It MAY indicate Mundy's difficulty in finding traditional employment. It also implies a creative option of livelihood in today's tough times.

    The semantics of "judgment" aren't important. Do I deem/judge it to be appropriate? Yes.

    It's no accident that ADA is a civil rights law and it's categorized as such because the refusal to provide access has much more severe consequences than the height of a counter. A society has to have rules. The standards are exceptionally clear. A half an inch violation is a half an inch. Businesses should hire contractors that agree to follow legal standards. What may seem menial to you-is about more than the height of a counter. It's about whether I can enjoy society as an equal.

  12. says

    Mundy's success also indicates the state of California's willingness to provide legal avenues to see to some actual improvements to ADA compliance.

    The notion that Mundy's actions — and the actions of professional litigants like him — actually have the impact of improving access is an assertion without evidence. You're assuming that in every case he settles, part of the settlement is that the business fixes the alleged problem, right?

    That may or may not be true for Mundy himself — I don't know. But I can tell you that for many serial litigants who troll for violations of the ADA or other statutes, all they demand is money. The business pays its $1,000 or $5,000 or $10,000, and that's it. The litigants, and their lawyers, don't want to spend time and money on drafting, negotiating, and policing precise construction standards. They want their money.

    The other reason that private enforcement by serial litigants does not improve global access is because it's like being struck by lightening. There is no rigor, no system, no standard to determine whether you get sued — it's all down to whether a professional litigant picks you. Random enforcement does not lead to meaningful change. Moreover, I note that you very conspicuously ignore my point about the selection process people like Mundy use. Professional litigants, as I said, tend to single out minorities, people with poor English, and people with limited resources to fight. It's because they can make the quickest money from them. Can you explain how that system is likely to lead to improved access across society?

  13. Patrick says

    It’s no accident that ADA is a civil rights law and it’s categorized as such because the refusal to provide access has much more severe consequences than the height of a counter.

    It's categorized as such because its drafters chose to call it such. The ADA is not God's law or a moral premise. It is a flawed, badly implemented law of man, the intention of which is good but which has spurred more confusion and needless litigation than most such laws. Despite your assertions to the contrary, the ADA and its enabling regulations are exceedingly arcane.

    For instance, the maximum floor height of a urinal under CFR 36.509, Appendix A, subsection 4.18.2 does not have a moral dimension, and is not as easily conveyed or summarized as "Serve all customers without regard to race or religion."

    What may seem menial to you-is about more than the height of a counter. It’s about whether I can enjoy society as an equal.

    But where does it stop, Ms. Bergeron? While I agree that you should be able, de jure, to enjoy society as an equal, that you are unable to do so de facto may not be my problem. The ADA is an attempt at balanced cost-shifting, and it fails there rather badly in many respects. Some, physically, are so disabled that even the ADA's requirements won't help them get into a Del Taco. Should Del Taco be forced to provide a feeder for quadriplegics, regardless of the cost? If not, why not? If so, if equality at any cost is the goal, how does one accommodate the mentally handicapped, who may be unable to perform certain activities regardless of the assistance they're given?

    Understand, I don't make light of your disability. I may well weigh the costs of accommodating it differently, but that makes neither of us good or bad, moral or immoral. For understandable reasons, you see Mundy's "work" as a moral crusade. I don't, for reasons that might become apparent to you if you were ever the defendant in an extortionate civil suit.

  14. says

    I have to be really careful what I say here. I am aware of a 2007 lawsuit of "homeless" individuals against an assistance organization with the cause of action being that they were not given free places to stay in Venice, Santa Monica, Malibu, or Beverly Hills, California.

  15. says

    Where does it stop?

    Exactly where the standards stop. These are quantifiable, clearly written, easily understood measurements we are talking about. If the standard is 42 inches. It's 42-not 43. It's like a speed limit. If it's posted 45mph, you're still in violation at 46.

    The example of expecting food establishments to supply feeders is ridiculous. There's no where close to such an expectation in ADA and no one here is asking for anything BUT the standards. That would be a healthcare issue and people with disabilities are fully aware of their own personal care needs.

    I completely agree that parts of ADA are flawed. Most concerning is the lack of accountability by any officials to enforce these laws. I do not want to share the career path of Mundy. But if I want to enter some places of business, I have no choice.

    I don't see Mundy's work as a moral crusade. I see it as an unfortunate and very necessary reality. From the stance of an oppressor, it's easy to overlook subtle messages and blatant actions of discrimination, ignorance, and exclusion.

    And last…
    My blog was entirely accurate Ken…your chosen examples of places that would be worthy to sue were a courthouse, a hospital, a library, and a grocery. That's the underlying problem with this entire issue. We should only deserve access to certain places-certain counters-certain bathrooms-etc. Your comment includes the same subtle message that I've read from another who said, "I see people in wheelchairs all the time who do normal jobs, like greeters." Subtle comments are sometimes the accurate indicators of attitudes.

  16. says

    1. The business owners can collectively launch a class action lawsuit. This way, their individual costs to fight against this person will be individually for each business acceptably low
    2. This person should be filed to be a vexatious litigant as soon as possible, barring them from being able to undertake any further legal action.

  17. Patrick says

    Kara, I'm trying to engage you in a moral discussion, not a legal discussion, and I'm doing so based on your initial presentation of Mundy's work as a moral crusade, and your comparisons to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. A legal discussion of the enabling regs of the ADA doesn't much interest me, as I can easily look them up, or walk down the hall to speak with another lawyer who defends these cases if that's what I want.

    What I want to know from you is, why should the ADA stop where it does? What is the moral aspect of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and why is enforcing it through litigation a moral act? You speak of speeding violations. Do you believe that everyone who drives 46 in a 45 mph zone should be caught and punished? Is there a moral dimension to the speed limit?

    You speak of Mundy's work as an unfortunate but necessary reality. Why is it necessary? Is it necessary for moral reasons? And while it's wonderful that Mundy's work enables you to enter a Del Taco, what about those who are more severely disabled than you or Mundy, and still won't be able to enjoy an ADA compliant Del Taco? What should be done for them? Why you and not them?

    Where does it stop? And why should it stop where it does?

  18. Al Shaw says

    Well Disney better hope he doesn't visit their California Adventure. I am a post polio patient and us a cane. When I tried to use my Handicapped pass, from Disneyland across the walkway, I was told that I could NOT go to the front of the line. They told me the are 100% ADA compliant because they have wheel chair access and I could RENT a wheel chair and wait in line in a wheel chair. The then said that I should know that they are a walking and standing park! They really said that to me and my travel agent!

  19. Mickey says

    Ken, what is the name of the attorney that defended the lawsuit brought by Mehrban against Del Taco? I think Mehbran finally overstepped by suing me for a "defect" on a piece of property he knew I didn't own. Thanks for any info you can provide.

  20. Maria Matrika says

    It is very sad that useless garbage like MORSE MERBAN calls himself a helper of society.
    People like this scum should be tabooed by society and curtailed to practice in a morgue instead of a law office

  21. LEK says


  22. Alex says

    Mr. Mundy is doing a great job. Lets not forget that most disabled people also fall into that group of people the author claims he is targeting, " people without the funds, support, or knowledge to fight."

  23. PLW says

    Wow.. you don't have much faith in disabled people, Alex. I know plenty of disabled folks who are quite competent to defend themselves and their rights.

  24. CT_Yankee says

    The simple answer is to make it a 100% defence to show that the barrier to use was corrected, with no money ever going towards the person filing (or thier lawyer). Money is used to correct problems, not enrich professional serial litigants and thier disturbing legal advocates. Similar to a "fix it" ticket on a tailight that has no fee if you prove it is promptly repaired. It is only the "no fee" part that enforces the morality of the person making the complaint.

  25. Lala says

    Hi, this is all too real because our business is being sued right now (otherwise I would never have stumbled on this page). Right now he's suing us for not having a bathroom mirror up to ADA standard. I think you're right too, because he sued a business (also small) next to us. We are immigrant but definitely educated, however we do not have the money. I was wondering if there were anyway we can fight this man?

  26. says

    No one here can give you legal advice, Lala.

    Unfortunately the system is not set up to offer reasonable protection to defendants from frivolous and abusive lawsuits. You're left with a choice between forking over some cash or paying ruinous attorneys fees for years in order to win — even if the claim is utterly bogus.

    There are a number of attorneys who have had success against Mundy and his ilk. One such firm — with which we have no affiliation whatsoever — is named in this thread. If you are near them, consider consulting with them.

  27. Patrick says

    For that matter Lala, a lawyer who defended against Mundy successfully is named in the comments of this thread. Look up a bit.

  28. Durka says

    this is to al shaw, my dad has six titanium bolts in his left knee and six in the right, has zero knee caps, can barely walk half the day due to pain, when i was younger, maybe 5 years ago we would go to disney land all the time and guess what, we used him to get to the front of the line every time, including the new add on, california adventure, dont make crap up, its really dispicable

  29. Al Shaw says

    I am telling you what happened. California Adventure changed in 2008!

    I have been going to Disneyland for 25 Years and California Adventure since it opened and I am reporting what the new Management in California Adventure did to me. Disneyland remains as gracious as ever. Please make sure your information and experience is current. The whole reason I posted was because of how their change in attitude at California Adventure totally humiliated me.


  30. Mizuha says

    As cruel as this may sound, the disabled need to wake and realize that they have it easy. Years ago, if you were disabled, you were left to starve on the streets unless someone took pity on you. You don't know how lucky you are! And you are going to nitpick about every little detail? There may even come a time when the disabled will no longer be entitled to any rights, considering how this country is slowly turning communist.There will come a time that if you are unable to contribute to society, you will not get your fair share of anything. And this guy's aim is purely selfish.He seeks only to make money, and if something good comes of it for the disabled as a result, well all the better, but if this guy's aims were truly noble, then instead of keeping the money he wins in lawsuits, he would donate it to the benefit of the disabled or give it to the homeless.He's nothing but a filthy hypocrite.There are no laws that give homeless people any rights beyond their basic rights, and the disabled shouldn't have any special rights either.You better be understanding that you only have rights because some people felt sorry for you not because you should be entitled to them. Nature does not care for its disabled. What happens to an animal that becomes lamed? It dies. You are only lucky that humans are more compassionate than animals. If anyone doesn't like what I've written, well tough, because I'm looking at it through a worldly point of view instead of a narrow-minded view.

  31. says

    I am severely disabled with muscular dystrophy all of my life and I am a certified ADA consultant through the Department of Justice since 1991. I have worked closely with restaurants and businesses advising them on how to meet the ADA requirements. Some of these regulations are easily met, while others are tricky and simply could not be accomplished because no products exist on the market to allow restaurants and businesses to comply. In 1999 I began inventing and developing innovative products that would allow restaurants and businesses to meet these regulations inexpensively and easily, and they would meet the needs of people with physical disabilities comfortably and practically.

    These high-quality one-of-a-kind patented products are available now with more on the way. Check out our website

    Let me say that I do not believe in lawsuits to make a living because they do not solve the accessibility problems, instead they drive a bigger divide between restaurants and businesses and people with disabilities. We should be working together with restaurants and businesses and help them to understand the ADA that it simply removes the barriers that prevent people with disabilities from equal participation in society by providing us the opportunities through equal access. Once restaurants and businesses understand what the barriers are that prevents people with disabilities from visiting their places, they are more than willing to spend the money (if necessary) to make the changes required by the ADA.

    My Corp. is dedicated to bringing about peaceful inexpensive accessibility in our society by bringing the experience of people with disabilities together to educate and train the restaurants and businesses to make the appropriate accommodations.

  32. dememavro says

    Listen, The laws are constantly changing. What's ada compliant today, may not be tormorrow. If this sack of you know what is really an advocate for the ADA community. He could be fair and let people know they need to correct items that are not compliant.
    Give them a chance. Even let them know they could be sued. I'm sure they would make sure a fix what ever needed to be fixed. It makes no sense that someone who is trying to make a living to get sued becuase a mirrior is too high. That is bs. I don't care what the disability is. This does not give you a right to sue just because you can. This is why people are so fed up with the bs legal system. This Mundy guy will get what's coming to him and so will his scum bag lawyer.

    A class action lawsuit needs to be filed against Mundy and his lawyer. Bury them in legal fees. I'm sure that they are totally abusing the legal system.

    The lawyer is actually advertising on his website a menu for ada lawsuits. Mirriors are $4000. each time. This is not right. Someone contact me to get the ball rolling.

  33. LDM says

    "As cruel as this may sound, the disabled need to wake and realize that they have it easy. Years ago, if you were disabled, you were left to starve on the streets unless someone took pity on you. You don’t know how lucky you are! "

    Shut up and take your hole, that's basically what you're telling to people who have disabilities – do you realize how many still remain homeless, underemployed, etc. Are you just conscious of how much of a fucking whiner you com across when you complain about "omg my life is hard see these they have it easy".

  34. Mizuha says

    To LDM: Most of the people who are homeless are just sorry.Instead of trying to better their life they would rather beg for money, which most use on alchohol or drugs. If I was looking at the prospect of living on the street, I'd, work as someone's maid to avoid it, or if I couldn't make it in the city, I'd head for the country.

  35. Noel says

    The law needs to be changed! If a disabled person is inconvienced Notice should be sent to the business citing the supposed violation. There then ought to be a 45 day period during which the business or public entity should be able to cure the violation without penality!

  36. Victim says

    We just got hit by the aforementioned person $8000 him and his lawyer. Veni Vidi Vici.
    This sucks for small business owners. He needs to be stopped.
    The state should check for ADA compliance when they inspect the building.
    Even better the ADA itself should have a department for annual checkups i.e the health department.
    We'd rather spent this money for a good cause and not to that looser and his lawyer who abuses the system.

  37. Patrick says

    Do you really want a federal inspector of buildings, doing nothing but walking into other people's places of business to check for ADA compliance annually, Victim?

    There's nothing about Mundy that couldn't be fixed by inserting vexatious litigant protections into the ADA.

  38. Noel says

    What if the law were changed to require the aggreived party to notify the business of the alleged violation and the business would have thirty days to correct the problem. If the business failed THEN a lawsuit may be filed. Check the court dockets there are pages and pages and pages of Mundy filings! Let's stop whining and act! Anybody interested in forming a citizen's coalition?

  39. Noel says

    Further to my last…..the ADA was written and is enforced to guaranty access to the disabled. That is a fine goal. Mundy et al are violating at least the spirit of the law as their law suits do not reflect Mundy's inability to access services. This is demonstrated by the steady volume of suits filed by him! I have checked his filings in the Superior Court. They are pages long. Query: how does a disabled man in a wheel chair find so much inaccessible in so little time? I believe an able bodied citizen would struggle to match Mundy's quotidian rounds! Let's STOP Munday and the bottom feeders he dines with.

  40. says

    Mundy / Mehrban sued me last year for no ADA bathroom at Maxwells but we have a brand new ADA bathroom! The lawyers said it would be cheaper to pay them off than take them to court to fight it. These assholes know exactly what it costs to go to court and they make it so people save money by paying them $5000 everytime they walk thru a door. They both belong in jail.
    There should be a class action suit against them. Mundy is a disgusting excuse for a human.

  41. Skyy says

    I would just like to point this out for Kara

    Is this morally or legally justifiable?
    The plaintiff is this case is legally blind, and is sueing a company that supplies visually focused media becuase its visually focused and difficult for him to use as such. Claiming monetary damages via a service that is also visually focused.
    There are software programs out there 9some built into your Operating systems) that use text-to-speech that assist visually impaired persons in using computer applications that by and large are by there nature visually oriented.
    I think that the point people are trying to express to you Kara, is at what point does it cross the line from valid complaint to simple extortion for monetary gain, with no vested interest in improving the quality of life for other disabled persons?

  42. Skyy says

    @ patrick
    "Do you really want a federal inspector of buildings, doing nothing but walking into other people’s places of business to check for ADA compliance annually, Victim?"

    Whether people really want it is irrelevant to the need for this type of inspection. IF its nessecary for a building inspector to checka building for structural deficiencies why not check for ADA compliance as well preventing any possibility of the business owners being scapegoated by people like Mundy?

  43. mike says

    Unfortunately, even businesses that do their best to be accessible still get sued, by Mundy and others, there about a dozen in California that sue everyone.

    I have video of this guy coming in my store every month to purchase cigarettes, he has no issues, we have a ramp and are in pretty good compliance and yet he says nothing, but then sues, just stating there are access barriers….HUH, what, he comes in every month, by himself and his dog, what are the barriers, well I'm sure he can find something.

    But the reality is he's a good customer and has no problem getting in the store, wheeling around and leaving. But I have to settle because it's cheaper than fighting and winning. So that's just one guy, what about the next one….

  44. W&L Law Student says

    Just found out about this Mundy a**hole while listening to the "Crybabies" episode of This American Life. You make some great points in your post. I have to believe Mundy's self-serving litigation will catch up with him once California law is amended to prevent this kind of injustice, rather than facilitate it. If those with disabilities truly want to prevent discrimination, they should get behind these small business owners and stop Mundy and his band exploitative thugs. There not just harming small business owners–they're raping the California tax payer and undermining the intent of the ADA. And to the poor Mr. Mundy: you may be laughing your way to the bank for now, but there must be a God that you will never walk there.

  45. Don Oberloh says

    Boy I sure wish I had been involved with this thread, Patrick pretends he's an attorney, and yet, has no knowledge of the law?

    Kara is bar far one of the few that judge the law by its letter and doesnt pick and choose what law to obey.

    In American we have but three choices, obey the law – change the law – suffer the consequences

  46. Patrick says

    Boy I sure wish I had been involved with this thread, Patrick pretends he’s an attorney, and yet, has no knowledge of the law?

    Kara is bar far one of the few that judge the law by its letter and doesnt pick and choose what law to obey.

    Boy I wish you'd read the entire comment thread before hitting the submit button, Ass-Lip.

    Kara, I’m trying to engage you in a moral discussion, not a legal discussion


  1. […] County jury took 18 minutes to dismiss Mundy's suit against Del Taco [OC Register, MoreLaw, Ken @ Popehat and his followup] Noni Gotti's 45-day spree of 41 lawsuits against 111 businesses and […]