Alaska Employment Law

The 9th Circuit this morning held that a District Court erred when it reduced a successful plaintiff’s fee award because he hadn’t made a pre-litigation demand on the ADA defendant.  (This is apparently an access, not an employment case.) 

The panel wrote:

Hager claims that the district court abused its discretion when, in deciding to reduce the lodestar amount by 50 percent, it relied upon his failure to provide any pre-litigation notice to Karkhanechin and LDC. We agree. The ADA does not contain a pre-litigation notice requirement, and we have expressly declined to imply one. Skaff v. Meridien N. Am. Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832, 844-45 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court’s order is thus squarely at odds with our decision in Skaff. As the district court based its decision on an inaccurate interpretation of the ADA, it abused its discretion. See Barrios v. Cal. Interscholastic Fed’n, 277 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2002).

Hager v. Karkhanechin, 2008 WL _______ (9th Cir. Aug. 5, 2008)(unpub.)