The "Professional Plaintiff"

     As I’ve been a lawyer for over forty years, it was inevitable that I’d eventually run into a “professional plaintiff.”  For those of you who haven’t had the pleasure, let me introduce you to one such man - Cory Groshek who operated primarily out of Wisconsin.  Mr. Groshek made his living applying for jobs.  It wasn’t that he wanted the jobs.  He was trying to catch employers who ran a credit check on him without complying with the federal laws on doing so.  Once an employer fell into his trap, he would threaten the employer with a class action lawsuit.  In one year, he collected $230,000.  Not bad pay for filling out 562 job applications.  A couple more years and he’d be a millionaire.

     Everything was going really well for Groshek until he tried to bully Time Warner Cable.  He applied for a job and signed the Time Warner form authorizing the company to check his credit.  Once he had proof that they had run the credit check, he began with the threats.  His initial demand was allegedly for $5 million.  When Time Warner refused to pay, he filed suit.  You may wonder what Time Warner did that violated federal law.  After all, the company did get written consent to check Groshek’s credit as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Groshek argued that their consent form contained irrelevant information.

     In May of 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that because Groshek had not been damaged by the credit check, he had no grounds to file suit.  Groshek had no damages because after running the credit check, Time Warner offered him a job.  Groshek probably wasn’t surprised by the job offer.  As he was making money hand over fist at that time, I suspect that he had a great credit score.

     Even lovely Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has seen  professional plaintiffs at work.  One lady in question was born with cerebral palsy and is wheelchair bound.  As of 2011, she had filed 290 lawsuits against various businesses alleging that they were not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.  This plaintiff lives in Florida but visited a Chapel Hill shopping center on three occasions on her way to see her attorney in Durham.  She claimed, among other things, that the disabled parking spaces “do not have clear and level access aisles”; that signs were “not mounted at sufficient heights”; and that curb ramps contained “excessive slopes.”  While she argued that these “excessive barriers” “endangered her safety,” she did not allege that she was denied access to the stores or that she suffered any physical injuries.  Indeed, she wanted to “visit Defendant’s property once again” because it “has an attractive selection of goods and services.”  The federal court tossed the lawsuit.  It ruled that the plaintiff had not suffered any injury and therefore had no case.      

     Although the plaintiffs lost the above two cases, there are thousands of claims that professional plaintiffs have successfully pursued.  For that reason, it was discouraging to see that in July of 2016, the federal government authorized patients to sue health care providers who do not provide them with federally mandated interpreter services.  During the months that followed, I began to receive telephone calls from clients who had been challenged by patients demanding interpreters.  As I had not received any such calls in the first 40 years of my practice, I cannot help but think that my clients were dealing with professional plaintiffs who were looking to make a buck using the new regulations.  Luckily, those calls have died down and as far as I know no one has been sued. 

     Professional plaintiffs tie up the court system and waste jurors’ time all at the expense of the taxpayer.  They also run up exorbitant attorney fees and court costs for hapless defendants.  When those defendants are health care providers, those expenses will be passed on to all of us in the form of higher health care costs.  Hopefully judges will begin to close the courts to these plaintiffs and order them to pay their defendants’ expenses and sanctions for filing frivolous cases.  Perhaps then, the courts can get back to the business of helping citizens who actually need access to the judicial system.