Portland Attorney Ordered to Pay Fees in ‘Bad Faith’ ADA Lawsuit

Portland Attorney Ordered to Pay Fees in ‘Bad Faith’ ADA Lawsuit

Federal judge finds disability access lawsuit was filed for profit, not justice

October 4, 2025 Portland, Oregon A federal judge has ordered a Portland attorney to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees after finding that a lawsuit he filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was brought in “bad faith” and intended to pressure small businesses into quick settlements rather than address genuine accessibility barriers.

The ruling, handed down Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, marks a rare rebuke in a state that has seen a growing number of ADA-related lawsuits in recent years, some of which courts have described as “serial filings.”

The Case

Attorney Michael B. Jennings, who has represented dozens of plaintiffs in disability access cases across Oregon and Washington, filed the suit earlier this year against Riverbend Café, a small family-owned restaurant in southeast Portland.

Jennings claimed the café’s parking lot and restroom facilities violated ADA accessibility standards and sought both injunctive relief and damages.

However, Judge Ellen Rosenbluth found evidence that Jennings never personally visited the restaurant, and that the plaintiff he represented had not attempted to dine there, undermining the credibility of the claim.

In her 17-page opinion, Rosenbluth wrote that the case appeared to be part of a “pattern of litigation aimed at extracting settlements” from small businesses fearful of costly legal battles.

“The Court concludes this action was initiated not to secure equal access for persons with disabilities, but to obtain financial gain under the guise of ADA enforcement,” Rosenbluth stated. “Such misuse of the law erodes public trust in legitimate civil rights advocacy.”

Ordered to Pay

The judge ordered Jennings to pay $42,800 in attorney’s fees and costs to the defendants, citing “bad faith conduct” and a “reckless disregard for the truth.”

The court also referred the matter to the Oregon State Bar for potential disciplinary review.

Jennings, reached by phone Friday afternoon, defended his record and denied any wrongdoing.

“I’ve spent my career standing up for people with disabilities,” he said. “Businesses that comply with the law have nothing to fear. This decision sends a chilling message to those who rely on the ADA for access and dignity.”

Business Owners Respond

For Lisa Tran, owner of Riverbend Café, the ruling brought relief after months of uncertainty.

“We take accessibility seriously,” Tran said. “We made updates to our building years ago, but the lawsuit made it sound like we didn’t care about our customers. It’s been stressful and expensive to fight something that felt unfair from the start.”

Tran’s attorney, Robert Castillo, said the ruling could serve as a precedent for other Oregon business owners facing similar claims.

“The ADA is an essential civil rights law, but it’s being exploited by a small number of lawyers who use it as a business model,” Castillo said. “This decision draws an important line.”

Broader Context

Disability rights advocates have long debated how to balance enforcement of accessibility laws with preventing frivolous or predatory lawsuits.

The ADA, enacted in 1990, prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires businesses open to the public to provide accessible facilities. Enforcement often relies on private lawsuits, as the law does not include a government inspection mechanism.

In recent years, federal courts in California, Florida, and Oregon have reported a surge in ADA filings, sometimes hundreds by the same attorney or plaintiff, targeting minor infractions such as signage size, ramp slope, or parking space striping.

“The ADA depends on private enforcement, but that system can be abused,” said Dr. Melissa Grant, a disability law expert at Portland State University. “When bad actors exploit it for profit, it undermines genuine accessibility progress.”

What Comes Next

Jennings has 30 days to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, the Oregon State Bar has confirmed it is reviewing the court’s referral but declined to comment further.

Legal analysts say the case could have ripple effects across the Pacific Northwest, prompting more scrutiny of ADA filings that appear commercially motivated.

“Judges are signaling that the ADA cannot be used as a cash cow,” said Mark Sheffield, a Seattle-based civil litigation attorney. “This decision reinforces that advocacy and integrity must go hand in hand.”

A Centrist Take: Accountability on Both Sides

From a centrist standpoint, the case illustrates a complex tension: protecting disability rights while ensuring legal accountability. The ADA remains a cornerstone of equal access, but when its enforcement mechanisms are abused, it risks losing public support.

The judge’s ruling doesn’t weaken disability protections, it calls for them to be pursued in good faith. True progress, advocates say, depends on both strong laws and ethical enforcement.