A Portland man, Conner Slevin, confessed on August 7, 2024, that he was paid $200 per outing to identify businesses for alleged disability access regulation violations. Currently, Slevin faces legal repercussions initiated by a business owner he previously targeted.
Owner of a small Portland bakery, Joy Baxter, claimed Slevin was not an actual customer but a plant employed by law firms planning to sue for non-compliance. Baxter, faced with crippling fines due to Slevin’s accusations, built a case against him.
Evidence, including video footage showing Slevin performing physically challenging tasks and bank transactions linking him to certain law firms, points towards his fraudulent activity. Yet, Slevin insists on his innocence.
The case of Conner Slevin stresses the alarming loophole in the American Disabilities Act, abused for personal gains. The act, though designed to protect disabled people’s rights, leaves small and medium enterprises vulnerable.
Consequently, many businesses targeted previously by disability access lawsuits worry as Slevin awaits his trial on September 6, 2024. His case symbolizes the urgent need to secure regulations against potential abuse, balancing public interest protection and safeguarding vulnerable communities.
One affected establishment is Tina’s Nails and Spas in Beaverton, Oregon.
Portland resident’s disability fraud trial
Owner Eton Lane, after spending $22,300 modifying his parking area to comply with the American Disabilities Act, is suing Slevin and his lawyer for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Lane accuses Slevin and his lawyer of misleading him for their profit, disregarding fair treatment and the welfare of disabled individuals. Despite this, Lane’s business saw a 25% increase in clientele post-modification, a testament to the value of inclusivity.
Slevin learned about this potential loophole two years ago and joined forces with Tennessee lawyers experienced in disability rights law. Together they launched a calculated campaign upon establishments falling short in adhering to the disability access law. Despite controversies, the endeavor drew resident and business attention to accessibility for individuals with disabilities.
As investigations probe the legitimacy of Slevin’s actions and claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, they prompt reformative dialogue among stakeholders about disability law enforcement and ethically responsible business practices. Despite the controversy, Slevin’s actions have made statewide impacts on accessibility improvements.
A major concern now stands: Were Slevin’s actions powered more by personal profit than by the noble cause he professes? The court remains skeptical, hanging the case on the reframing of Slevin’s motives, his methods, and the presented ethical dilemma.
