BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 52
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB
52 (Gray) - As Introduced
SUBJECT: PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS: CONSTRUCTION-RELATED
ACCESSIBILITY CLAIMS
KEY ISSUES:
1)SHOULD A PLAINTIFF WHO IS DENIED FULL AND EQUAL ACCESS TO A
PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION BASED UPON HIS OR HER PHYSICAL
DISABLITY BECAUSE OF THE DEFENDANT'S VIOLATION OF A
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD BE ENTITLED TO A
MAXIMUM OF ONE QUARTER OF THE DAMAGES RECOVERABLE BY A PERSON
WHO IS DENIED ACCESS TO A PUBLIC FACILITY BECAUSE OF ANOTHER
PROTECTED STATUS, WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS A BUSINESS THAT MAKES
UP TO TEN MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR AND THE BUSINESS CORRECTS
THE VIOLATION UP TO SIX MONTHS AFTER DENYING ACCESS TO THE
PLAINTIFF?
2)WOULD REDUCTION OF THE MAXIMUM LIABILITY FOR A VIOLATION OF A
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD DETER AN
UNSCRUPULOUS ATTORNEY FROM FILING A LAWSUIT AGAINST A SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER, CONSIDERING THAT AN EXISTING PROVISION OF THE
LAW REDUCED THE MAXIMUM LIABILITY FOR SUCH A VIOLATION AND THE
AUTHOR ASSERTS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE IN CURTAILING
THE PROBLEM?
3)ARE THERE OTHER APPROACHES TO DECREASE PREDATORY LAWSUITS AND
SETTLEMENTS BY SMALL BUSINESSES (WHICH FUEL SUCH LAWSUITS)
SUCH AS GIVING DEFENDANT BUSINESSES MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
AB 52
Page 2
LIMITS OF THEIR LIABILITY, AND AN EASIER WAY TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINTS THAT ALLEGE CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACCESSIBILITY
CLAIMS?
SYNOPSIS
Like other civil rights statutes that prohibit discrimination in
businesses open to the public, the statutory scheme for
enforcement of disability access laws rests on voluntary
compliance and individual legal actions. There is no
governmental entity charged with administrative or judicial
enforcement of these obligations. This bill reiterates a
controversial question that the Legislature has frequently heard
and consistently rejected: should people with disabilities be
required to comply with special procedural barriers not facing
others who endure discrimination before they can assert legal
claims against businesses that violate their right of access to
public accommodations, and should they also be entitled to a
small percentage of the damages recoverable to persons who are
denied access to public accommodations because of another
protected status, and be prevented from recovering for their
injuries at all when the business corrects the violation at some
point up to six months in the future?
According to the author, the bill is necessary because many
small businesses are out of compliance with longstanding state
and federal disability access laws, leaving them vulnerable to
lawsuits. Some of these suits, the author and supporters allege,
are brought by plaintiffs for personal financial benefit, not
out of an altruistic desire to improve disability access for
disabled consumers, and some of these suits are brought against
businesses that are willing to comply but are hampered by the
complexity of the law. Disability rights advocates oppose the
bill, but they agree with the supporters on a number of points,
including that many businesses are not in compliance with access
laws despite their long duration and that many lawsuits are
filed, some by plaintiffs seeking monetary recovery. Opponents
argue that they have supported prior legislation to increase
business awareness of access obligations, improve voluntary
AB 52
Page 3
compliance, and reward responsible behavior and those reforms
should be furthered, not circumvented. Opponents argue that
this bill singles out people with disabilities for unprecedented
obstacles to the enforcement of civil rights, deprives them of a
remedy for actual violations, and will deter, not encourage,
compliance with disability discrimination law. Moreover,
opponents state that the promise of the bill may be misleadingly
unattainable because the requirements it would impose are
inconsistent with federal disability discrimination law and
therefore would not preclude the law suits from which businesses
seek protection.
Unlike two prior measures, SB 1608 (Corbett and Harman) of 2008
and SB 1186 (Steinberg and Dutton), historic bipartisan measures
to reduce disability access violations and unnecessary lawsuits,
this bill does not seek to encourage compliance with disability
access laws and is not the result of open stakeholder meetings
and mutual compromise. Rather, it reflects no input from
disabled advocates or amendments as a result of its harsh impact
on disabled citizens and their rights. This bill is supported
by business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce
and the Civil Justice Association of California, and opposed by
disability rights advocates, including Disability Rights
California and the American Civil Liberties Union of California.
SUMMARY: Provides that statutory damages recovered in a
construction-related accessibility claim against a place of
public accommodation resulting in a denial of full and equal
access to the place of public accommodation that is based upon a
violation of a construction-related accessibility standard are a
maximum of one-quarter of the minimum damages that are
recoverable for other violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
and are not recoverable at all under certain conditions.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Amends the provisions for notice, right to cure, and reduced
statutory damages that are available under current law to some
defendants---specifically those who correct all of the
violations alleged in the complaint and had either sought an
inspection by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) prior to
the date on which the plaintiff was allegedly denied full and
AB 52
Page 4
equal access, or passed inspection by the local building
department permit and inspection process as new construction
and not made further changes to the premises-as follows:
a) Statutory damages are further reduced to a maximum of
one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each offense (rather than
a minimum of one thousand dollars, as provided in existing
law (and a minimum of $4,000 for all other violations of
the Unruh Act).
b) A defendant who is eligible for the reduced damages
described above has an additional 120 days to correct all
of the construction-related violations that are the basis
of a complaint alleging a construction-related
accessibility claim, allowing those violations to remain
uncorrected for 180 days after the complaint is served,
rather than the 60 days provided under current law.
c) Removes the January 1, 2016 sunset on one method for
qualifying for reduced damages in a construction-related
access lawsuit: when the basis of an alleged violation is
new construction or an improvement that was approved by,
and passed inspection by, the local building department to
allow all new construction projects approved by, and passed
inspection by, the local building department permit process
within five years prior to the date the claim being served
on the defendant to qualify for reduced damages.
1)Amends the provisions for notice, right to cure, and reduced
statutory damages that are available under current law to some
defendants---specifically a defendant who corrects all of the
violations alleged in the complaint and qualifies as a "small
business"-as follows:
a) Further reduces statutory damages to a maximum of one
thousand dollars ($1,000) for each offense (rather than a
minimum of two thousand dollars, as provided in existing
law (and a minimum of $4,000 for all other violations of
the Unruh Act).
b) Gives a defendant who is eligible for the reduced
damages described above an additional 150 days to correct
all of the construction-related violations that are the
basis of a complaint alleging a construction-related
AB 52
Page 5
accessibility claim, allowing those violations to remain
uncorrected for 180 days after a complaint is served,
rather than just 30 days, as provided under current law.
c) Greatly expands the definition of "small business" from
a business that makes $3.5 million per year to any business
with 100 or fewer employees and average annual gross
receipts of ten million dollars ($10,000,000), or any
California manufacturer with 100 or fewer employees,
regardless of annual income.
1)Prohibits all damages in a construction-related accessibility
lawsuit against a "small business" as defined above, unless
the defendant seeks and is "granted a 180-day stay of court
proceedings from the day the claim is filed during which time
the place of public accommodation may meet the requirements of
a qualified defendant as defined by paragraph (8) of
subdivision (a) of Section 55.52."
EXISTING LAW:
1)Pursuant to federal law, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), provides that no individual shall be discriminated
against on the basis of disability in the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations of any place of public
accommodation by any person who owns, leases, or leases to, or
operates a place of public accommodation. (42 U.S.C. 12182.)
2)Pursuant to the state Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh), provides
that all persons, regardless of sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability or medical condition,
are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages,
facilities, privileges, or services in all business
establishments of every kind whatsoever. A violation of the
ADA also constitutes a violation of Unruh. (Civil Code
Section 51. All further statutory references are to the
California Civil Code, unless otherwise indicated.)
3)Provides that a violation of Unruh subjects a person to actual
damages incurred by an injured party, treble actual damages
but not less than $4,000, and any attorney's fees as the court
AB 52
Page 6
may determine to be proper. (Section 51 et seq.)
4)Provides that a violation of Unruh subjects a person to
injunctive and actual damages - plus treble actual damages but
not less than $1,000, and attorney's fees as the court deems
proper. (Section 54.3.)
5)Provides for a California Commission on Disability Access (the
Commission), an independent state agency composed of 19
members, with responsibility for monitoring disability access
compliance in California and authority to recommend necessary
changes in to the Legislature in order to facilitate
implementation of state and federal laws on disability access.
(Government Code Section 8299 et seq.)
6)Requires an attorney, when serving a demand letter or a
complaint on a defendant alleging a construction-related
accessibility claim or noncompliance, to provide a written
advisory with each demand letter or complaint, as defined. The
written advisory shall include information about the
defendant's rights and obligations, including the right of a
qualified defendant to request a stay and an early evaluation
conference regarding the allegations in the complaint. The
written advisory is only required from any attorney, and not
from a pro per plaintiff. (Section 55.3.)
7)Requires an attorney alleging the construction-related
accessibility claim or noncompliance to state facts sufficient
to allow the defendant to identify the basis for the claim.
(Section 55.31.)
8)Provides that upon being served with a complaint asserting a
construction-related accessibility claim, a defendant may move
for a court stay and early evaluation conference if the
defendant is any of the following: (A) Until January 1, 2018,
a defendant whose site had new construction or improvement
between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2016 and was approved
AB 52
Page 7
pursuant to the local building permit and inspection process;
(B) a defendant whose site had new construction or improvement
that was approved by a local public building department
inspector who is a certified access specialist (CASp); or (C)
a defendant who is a small business. The stay to the
construction-related accessibility claim, as provided, may be
provided for 90-days unless the plaintiff has obtained
temporary injunctive relief. (Section 55.54.)
9)Authorizes a defendant who does not qualify for an early
evaluation conference (EEC) pursuant to these provisions, or
who forgoes those provisions, to request a mandatory
evaluation conference, as specified, and authorizes a
plaintiff to make that request if the defendant does not make
that request. (Section 55.54.)
10)Specifies that a court shall lift the stay when the defendant
has failed to file and serve the CASp inspection report when
required and also did not produce the report at the EEC,
unless good cause for the failure is shown. (Section 55.54.)
11)Specifies that a court may lift the stay at the conclusion of
the EEC upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff.
(Section 55.54.)
12)Specifies the court's authority to schedule additional
conferences or to extend the stay for no more than an
additional 90 days, upon a showing of good cause. (Section
55.54.)
13)Provides that the stay and early evaluation conference shall
not be deemed to make any inspection report or opinion of a
CASp binding on the court or to abrogate the court's authority
to make appropriate findings of fact and law. (Section
55.54.)
AB 52
Page 8
14)Provides that the stay and early evaluation conference shall
not be construed to invalidate or limit any California
construction-related accessibility standard that provides
greater or equal protection for the rights of persons with
disabilities than is afforded by the ADA and the federal
regulations adopted pursuant to that act. (Section 55.54.)
15)Provides that notwithstanding the requirement that offers of
compromise are privileged and protected under Evidence Code
Section 1152, the court may consider, along with other
relevant information, settlement offers made and rejected by
the parties, in determining an award of reasonable attorney's
fees and recoverable costs in any construction-related
accessibility claim. (Section 55.55.)
16)Provides that statutory damages may be recovered in a
construction-related accessibility claim only if a violation
or violations of one or more construction-related
accessibility standards denied the plaintiff full and equal
access to the place of public accommodation on a particular
occasion. Existing law specifies that a plaintiff is denied
full and equal access only if he or she personally encountered
the violation on a particular occasion or was deterred from
accessing the public accommodation on a particular occasion.
(Section 55.56.)
17)Requires the court, in assessing liability in any action
alleging multiple claims for the same construction-related
accessibility violation on different particular occasions, to
consider the reasonableness of the plaintiff's conduct in
light of the plaintiff's obligation, if any, to mitigate
damages. (Section 55.56.)
18)Reduces a defendant's minimum liability for statutory damages
in a construction-related accessibility claim against a place
of public accommodation in the following circumstances:
AB 52
Page 9
a) To a minimum of $1,000 for each unintentional offense if
(i) the defendant has corrected all construction-related
violations that are the basis of the claim within 60 days
of being served with the complaint, and (ii) the structure
was either CASp -inspected, or was new construction
approved in the building and permitting process, prior to
the complaint being filed.
b) To a minimum of $2,000 for each unintentional offense if
(i) the defendant has corrected all construction-related
violations that are the basis of the claim within 30 days
of being served with the complaint and (ii) the defendant
is a small business that has 25 or fewer employees and
annual gross receipts of less than three million five
hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000) averaged over the
past three years. (Section 55.56.)
1)Separately defines "small business" for purposes of state
contracting as an independently owned and operated business
that is not dominant in its field of operation, the principal
office of which is located in California, the officers of
which are domiciled in California, and which, together with
affiliates, has 100 or fewer employees, and average annual
gross receipts of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) or less
over the previous three years, or is a manufacturer, as
defined in subdivision (c), with 100 or fewer employees (and
regardless of income). (Government Code Section 14837(d)(1).)
2)Defines "qualified defendant" as "a defendant in an action
that includes a construction-related accessibility claim that
is asserted against a place of public accommodation that met
the requirements of "meets applicable standards" or "inspected
by a CASp" prior to the date the defendant was served with the
summons and complaint in that action." (Section 55.52(a)(8).)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), a business that constitutes a place of public
accommodation (e.g., many places of lodging, entertainment,
AB 52
Page 10
recreation, restaurants, bars, theaters, stores, health clubs,
etc.) is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of
disability if its operations affect interstate commerce.
Prohibited discrimination can take a number of forms - e.g.,
denial of participation in the facility, or a service, benefit,
or good of the business; denial of equal participation in a
good, service, or facility; or provision of a different or
separate facility, service or good (unless necessary to provide
services and the like that are as effective as that provided to
others). Government facilities are also covered by the access
obligations of the ADA.
Public accommodations in California are required to comply with
not only the ADA, but also with the state's Unruh Act, which
incorporates the ADA into its provisions and makes a violation
of the ADA punishable as a violation of Unruh. (Section 51.)
All violations of Unruh are subject to statutory damages of at
least four thousand dollars per violation, except some cases
where the violation is based on a construction-related
accessibility claim, in which case lower damages (a minimum of
one thousand or two thousand dollars, depending on the
circumstances of the case) apply.
Should state law single out one minority group for special
barriers to enforcement of civil rights protections? Persons
with disabilities are just one of the many groups protected from
discrimination in the use and enjoyment of public facilities and
accommodations. Under the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act, other
protected characteristics include race, national origin, sex and
sexual orientation. This bill would greatly expand the right to
cure and reduced damages provisions in existing law so they
apply to far more businesses.
This bill would make the following additional changes to state
law: (1) reduce statutory damages to, at most, 25 percent of the
amount that is payable to all other persons who are victims of
discrimination under the Unruh Act; (2) appear to effectively
eliminate all damages payable to disabled plaintiffs who are
denied access to public accommodations; (3) grant certain
AB 52
Page 11
procedural benefits to large businesses and manufacturers; and
(4) allow violations to be uncorrected for up to six months with
no additional penalty.
These proposals significantly alter the Unruh Act, which is
designed to ensure access to public accommodations for all
persons in the state and make special protections and remedies
available to those who are members of groups whom the
Legislature has deemed to be particularly vulnerable to
discrimination because of their "sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition,
marital status, or sexual orientation" (Section 51 (b)) from
further discrimination. This bill alters the Unruh act in a way
that hurts only one protected class of vulnerable persons: the
disabled. The Committee should be wary of any proposed law that
limits access to the courts. "Because the right to access the
courts implicates due process and First Amendment rights, courts
have been exceedingly reluctant to restrict such access" (Moy v.
United States (9th Cir. 1990) 906 F.2d 467, 470.), especially
one which appears on its face to discriminate against a class of
citizens who are entitled by state and federal law to special
protections.
Section Two of this bill appears to effectively eliminate ALL
statutory damages for violations of the Unruh Act AND the
Disabled Persons Act by conditioning the award of damages upon
action by the defendant business that is against its financial
interest. Section Two of the bill adds Section 55.565 to the
Civil Code, providing that:
When a plaintiff brings a construction-related
accessibility claim alleging a violation of a
construction-related accessibility standard by a place of
public accommodation that is a small business as defined in
Section 14837 of the Government Code, statutory damages
under subdivision (a) of Section 52 or subdivision (a) of
Section 54.3 may be recovered against a place of public
accommodation only if the place of public accommodation
where the alleged violation occurred is granted a 180-day
AB 52
Page 12
stay of court proceedings from the day the claim is filed
during which time the place of public accommodation may
meet the requirements of a qualified defendant [who obtains
a CASp inspection and thereby qualifies for an early
evaluation conference].
Subdivision (a) of Section 52 sets forth the standard damages
that may be awarded for a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights
Act, providing that a defendant is "liable for each and every
offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be
determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a
maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no
case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any
attorney's fees that may be determined by the court in addition
thereto." Meanwhile, the other statute referenced in Section
Two--subdivision (a) of Section 54.3--describes the standard
damages to be awarded for a violation of the Disabled Persons
Act (which prohibits all acts of intentional and unintentional
discrimination against the disabled having access to public
accommodations): "up to a maximum of three times the amount of
actual damages but in no case less than one thousand dollars
($1,000), and attorney's fees as may be determined by the court
in addition thereto."
By its own terms, Section Two of the bill prohibits a disabled
plaintiff who has been denied access to a public accommodation
because of a violation of a construction-related accessibility
standard from collecting any damages unless the defendant - the
person who violated the disabled plaintiff's civil rights-seeks
and obtains a 180-day stay from a court, during which the
defendant is allowed to correct the violations. It is unclear
whether this 180-day stay is concurrent with, or in addition to,
the 180-days that the bill provides in Section One as the
standard period for a "small business" to correct violations.
But aside from the merits of giving a defendant six months (or
perhaps even a year, if the stay were in addition to the
standard six-month period) to comply with a decades-old law, why
would a defendant ever seek a court stay, knowing that by not
doing so, he or she would eliminate all potential liability for
statutory damages? This provision effectively forecloses the
AB 52
Page 13
ability of a disabled plaintiff to collect any damages for a
violation of the Unruh Act or the Disabled Persons Act. Could
this possibly be the author's intent? Apparently so, according
to the author, who (without suggesting any intent to amend or
remove Section Two from the bill) explains his reasoning as
follows:
The bill also recognizes that many small business owners
cannot afford an attorney to guide them through the legal
system. Small business protections that are put in place
are often underutilized because the businesses owner fails
to evoke them. AB 52 puts the onus on the attorney who has
filed the suit to understand the defendants [sic.] rights.
If they do not seek the 180 day fix-it period for small
businesses, no statutory damages may be awarded.
The general principle of our civil (and criminal) laws is that
everyone is held accountable for the wrongs they have committed,
even if they are not warned in advance and even if they comply
with the law in the future. The Committee is unaware of any
provision in civil rights law that is as extreme (and
discriminatory) as the one in Section Two of this bill.
This bill undermines recent bipartisan negotiated collaboration
and compromise on disability access reform, pre-litigation
relief to small businesses, and the important role and work of
the Disability Access Commission. In response to complaints
that small businesses were the victims of predatory lawsuits
alleging ADA violations, a bipartisan and bicameral effort with
disability rights organizations and business advocates over a
period of years ultimately lead to the adoption of SB 1608
(Corbett and Harman) in 2008. It was the product of extended
and careful consideration by thoughtful legislators and input
and support from members of the disability and business
communities including Disability Rights California, the
California Chamber of Commerce, the California Foundation for
Independent Living Centers, California Restaurant Association,
Business Properties Association, California Hotel Association,
and several others.
AB 52
Page 14
SB 1608 enacted several reforms to increase voluntary compliance
with state and federal laws requiring access to the disabled in
any place of public accommodation. It established incentives
for compliance and protection from litigation by responsible
businesses, including a process by which businesses, if sued for
violation of accessibility standards, could obtain a temporary
stay of any litigation along with an in-person early evaluation
conference with the court, attended by persons with authority to
resolve the dispute between the parties, for the purpose of
deterring frivolous cases and evaluating prospects for early
settlement. Moreover, it clarified the standards for awarding
damages and attorney's fees with respect to a claim alleging a
violation of construction-related accessibility standards. It
also required an attorney, when serving a written demand for
money or a complaint on a defendant, to include a written
advisory to the defendant of the defendant's rights and
obligations. In addition, the bill required architects to
complete coursework regarding disability access requirements and
imposed continuing education requirements on local building
officials relating to disability access requirements.
Importantly, SB 1608 also established the California Commission
on Disability Access (Commission) "to develop[] recommendations
that will enable persons with disabilities to exercise their
right to full and equal access to public facilities, and that
will facilitate business compliance with the laws and
regulations to avoid unnecessary litigation." (Government Code
section 8299.) Among other things, the Commission was required
to conduct studies and make reports to the Legislature. The
Commission is responsible for monitoring compliance, reporting
and making recommendations to the Legislature. Despite initial
funding difficulties and delays, the Commission now has staff,
has been meeting regularly, and is carrying out its
responsibilities.
Four years after SB 1608 was signed into law, Senate Bill 1186
enacted a number of additional reforms to the laws governing
construction-related accessibility claims. According to the
AB 52
Page 15
Senate Judiciary Committee's analysis of SB 1186, Senator and
President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, who was the joint
author of the bill, described it as follows [emphasis added]:
SB 1186 is a compromise that applies a common sense
approach to resolve difficult issues. It maintains the
hard-fought civil rights of the disabled community while
helping to protect California businesses from predatory
demand for money letters and lawsuits. Support for
important laws like the Unruh Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act are weakened when those laws are abused
for personal gain. This measure bans the unscrupulous
practice of 'demand for money' letters, stops the stacking
of claims based on alleged repeat violations to force a
business into a quick settlement, while encouraging
businesses to fix their violations to comply with the law.
Thus, SB 1186 provides some relief to businesses who show
good faith in trying to follow the law and are willing to
correct the violation, which ultimately promotes compliance
and brings greater access to the disabled community.
Senator Dutton, the Senate Minority Leader and joint author of
SB 1186, described the bill as:
. . . the culmination of months of hard work with staff and
all the various stakeholders in the community. [The bill]
will not only provide a reasonable amount of time for small
businesses to fix minor infractions, but will also help
expand the California Access Specialist Program in
California and provide any more tools for businesses to
comply with this vital civil rights law.
The policy goal of SB 1186, according to the authors, was "to
incentivize property owners to correct their violations, as
opposed to settling the case and doing nothing, by reducing the
minimum statutory damages and potential attorney's fees award to
the plaintiff when they correct the violation."
AB 52
Page 16
Finally, SB 1186 gave defendants the option to request an early
evaluation conference (EEC) and an immediate and mandatory stay
of the proceedings, similar to the litigation protections now
given to a qualified defendant who hired a CASp to inspect the
property and issue a report on its compliance status. A
mandatory stay would freeze the litigation at the point of the
court order, which arguably freezes the plaintiff's attorney's
fees at that point. An EEC could be useful to end a case at an
early stage, particularly when the defendant has corrected the
asserted violation.
Unlike both SB 1608 and SB 1186, this bill is not the product of
compromise or negotiation. It has never been amended in
response to or consideration of concerns raised by the persons
who are directly impacted by the widespread lack of compliance
with construction-related access standards: the disabled
community. There is no indication that anyone who is affected
by construction-related disability access standards and
litigation, other than business groups, has been consulted in
the development of the bill's provisions. As the ACLU observes
in its letter of opposition to the bill:
The bill radically rewrites carefully crafted rules that
were jointly authored and approved with bipartisan support
not long ago after consultation with many experts and
stakeholders. It turns the concept of minimum statutory
penalties on its head by recasting it as a maximum. Under
the bill, a person denied access to a place of public
accommodation on the basis of race or gender would be
presumed to have suffered at least $4000 in damages, while
a person who is discriminated against on the basis of
disability by the same business would be thought to have
suffered at most $1000. The premise of the bill appears to
be that disability discrimination is inherently less
harmful than other forms of unlawful discrimination - a
notion that is both offensive and unjustified. Moreover,
the bill subverts the existing incentives for businesses to
come into compliance by obtaining a CASp inspection, and
for local building departments to employ CASps. Why would
AB 52
Page 17
any business obtain a CASp inspection if it could achieve
the same benefits by simply receiving review by a local
building official. Similarly, why would local building
departments bother to comply with their obligation to
employ CASps if non-CASp review has the same legal
significance? In addition, the bill extends the limitation
on statutory penalties to far more serious violations by
dramatically increasing the "fix-it" window for small
violations that can be corrected in 30 days to much more
substantial violations that require 180 days to fix.
It is also noteworthy that many of the business groups that now
support this bill supported SB 1186 when it was before the
Legislature and claimed that it would greatly improve existing
law by deterring frivolous lawsuits and serial litigants from
filing Unruh Act-ADA lawsuits.
There is a lack of evidence showing that the bipartisan reforms
in 2008 (SB 1608) and 2012 (SB 1186) have been ineffective,
litigation has increased in the past 18 months, or the problems
identified by the author are widespread throughout the state.
The latest reforms to state law governing construction-related
accessibility claims, enacted by SB 1186, took effect on January
1, 2014, less than a year and a half ago.
Nevertheless, the author contends that there is a crisis in
California that merits the severe impact on the civil rights of
disabled Californians that are proposed in this bill. According
to the author:
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides
that no individual shall be discriminated against on the
basis of a disability. California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
declares that a violation of the ADA subjects the violator
to actual damages, treble actual damages, attorney's fees,
and not less than $4,000 in statutory damages per
violation.
Among the five states with the highest disabled
populations, more lawsuits have been filed in California
than Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas and New York combined.
It is estimated that more than 42% of all ADA lawsuits in
AB 52
Page 18
the United States are filed in California.
California's inflated statutory damages have made the state
a hotspot for frivolous lawsuits, particularly against
small businesses that lack the means to defend themselves
in court. An estimated 20,000 ADA lawsuits have been filed
in California since the ADA was enacted in 1992, typically
resulting in a payout of $4,000-$6000. Small businesses,
that made no conscious decision to violate the law, face a
harsh financial decision sometimes resulting in the closure
of the businesses and often costing the local community
jobs and economic productivity.
It is noteworthy that the author does not provide historical
context for these figures. When were the figures
compiled--prior to the date when SB 1186 was enacted, or after?
Has the number of complaints fallen since January of 2012? The
author cites an April 2014 CBS News report that indicates the
investigative team had reviewed 10,000 lawsuits filed in federal
courts around the country since 2005. But only a tiny
percentage of any of those lawsuits, if any, could have been
filed after January 1, 2014, when SB 1186 when into effect. The
author also cites an article in California Lawyer published on
April 30, 2012, almost two years before SB 1186 took effect.
The author also cites an August 2014 article in the Merced
Sun-Star with the headline, Atwater woman sues 21 businesses in
Merced and Stanislaus counties, but the lawsuits discussed in
the article were filed in 2013. Finally, the author cites a
2008 article in TIME Magazine, which was written before SB 1608,
the 2008 ADA reform legislation, went into effect.
Recent and objective evidence is available to provide
perspective about the magnitude of this problem. California has
approximately 3.3 million small businesses. According to data
compiled by the Commission, from January 2014 until January
2015, 3,468 demand letters and complaints were filed in the
state. This means that less than one percent of small
businesses (and a far smaller percentage of all businesses) were
sued in 2014 for violations of construction-related
accessibility standards.
AB 52
Page 19
Nevertheless, some of the information reported to the Commission
is alarming in terms of the number and frequency of
construction-related accessibility lawsuits being filed by a
small number of law firms in California. According to the
Commission, between September 2012 and October 2014, 5,392
complaints (including demand letters) were filed (in both state
and federal courts). More than half (54%) of the complaints
were filed by just two law firms. Forty-six percent of all
complaints were filed by just 14 parties.
However, data from the Commission shows that more attorneys are
choosing to file lawsuits in federal court, perhaps to avoid
complying with California-specific requirements, such as sending
demand letters to the Commission and the State Bar.
Interestingly, the Commission reports that the state's total
share of complaints and demand letters has gone down. Between
September 2012 and December 2013, state complaints/demand
letters represented 68% of all the complaints/demand letters
that the Commission received. However, between January 2014 and
October 2014, state complaints/demand letters represented only
46% of all complaints/demand letters that the Commission
received. In other words, more complaints are now being filed
in federal court than in state court, which undermines the
author's argument that plaintiffs are solely choosing to file
lawsuits in state court in order to obtain damages.
What can be done or should be done about (the small number of)
attorneys who file large numbers of Unruh Act-ADA lawsuits? The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Molski v.
Evergreen Dynasty Corp. (9th Cir. 2008) 521 F.3d 1215. Molski
was paralyzed from the chest down, needed a wheelchair to get
around, and filed about 400 lawsuits in the federal courts
within the districts in California. (Id. at p. 1051.) Upon
motion of the defendant businesses (including the named
defendant, a restaurant) the district court declared Molski a
vexatious litigant and granted the defendants' request for a
pre-filing order (requiring court approval before Molski could
file additional lawsuits). (Ibid.) The Ninth Circuit
acknowledged that "pre-filing orders are an extreme remedy that
AB 52
Page 20
should rarely be used" and that courts "should not enter
pre-filing orders with undue haste because such sanctions can
tread on a litigant's due process right of access to the
courts." (Id. at p. 1057.) Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit
upheld the order, finding that it was within the district
court's power, "In light of the district court's finding that
Molski did not suffer the injuries he claimed . . . to conclude
that the large number of complaints filed by Molski containing
false or exaggerated allegations of injury were vexatious" and
the pre-filing requirement could be issued. (Id. at p. 1059.)
Also, there is no evidence that these lawsuits are "frivolous."
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "frivolous" as "of little
weight or importance," or "having no sound basis (as in fact or
law) ." In other words, a lawsuit alleging
a violation of the Unruh Act because of a denial of access would
only be "frivolous" if it had no basis in the law (i.e. it did
not state an actual violation). In fact, there is no evidence
that the complaints which are filed are without merit.
According to data collected by the California Commission on
Disability Access, most complaints identify multiple access
violations. For example, of the cases filed in July 2014, most
complaints identified multiple or significant single violations,
such as missing grab bars. Only two out of 201 complaints
identified a single issue, such as a soap or seat cover
dispenser being too high.
Taken together, the information about the high number of
complaints being filed by a very small number of plaintiffs AND
the fact that courts now have the power and authority to limit
the ability of vexatious litigants to file serial Unruh-ADA
complaints, it seems clear that the rights of the vulnerable
should not be sacrificed because of the despicable conduct of a
few bad actors. Also, courts clearly have tools to limit
vexatious litigation, but they will never be able to use those
tools as long as businesses settle, rather than litigate,
complaints.
This bill would greatly expand the number and types of
AB 52
Page 21
businesses that would qualify for the reduced statutory damages
which are now available only to small businesses. Current law
provides reduced damages (a minimum of $2,000 for each
unintentional offense) if the defendant has corrected all
construction-related violations that are the basis of the claim
within 30 days of being served with the complaint and the
defendant is a small business that has 25 or fewer employees and
annual gross receipts of less than three million five hundred
thousand dollars ($3,500,000) averaged over the past three
years. (Section 55.56.)
This bill would greatly expand the number and type of businesses
that would be entitled to reduced damages by incorporating by
reference a definition of "small business" from another code
section, Government Code Section 14837(d)(1), into the Unruh
Act. That Government Code definition, identifying those
businesses which are entitled to a bidding preference in state
contracting, defines "small business" as a California-based
business "which, together with affiliates, has 100 or fewer
employees, and average annual gross receipts of ten million
dollars ($10,000,000) or less over the previous three years, or
is a manufacturer . . with 100 or fewer employees [regardless of
its annual gross receipts]." Obviously, the type of business
that would fit in this category (but not within Section 55.56's
definition) could never be considered the type of "mom and pop"
business which deserves special protection from liability
because it could be put out of business by one lawsuit alleging
a construction-related accessibility violation, or as the author
puts it in his statement explaining the need for the bill, the
type of business that would "face a harsh financial decision
sometimes resulting in the closure of the businesses and often
costing the local community jobs and economic productivity." In
fact, a manufacturer with 100 employees and receipts of $100
million or more per year would qualify as a "small business"
under the bill.
The changes to the law would be unlikely to further reduce the
frequency of lawsuits being filed against small businesses and
could even increase the number of lawsuits which are filed. One
of the most significant and controversial aspects of SB 1186 in
2012 was the manner in which it reduced statutory damages for
violations of accessibility standards by certain businesses
AB 52
Page 22
because of their size, recently permitted and approved status,
or proactive efforts to comply with construction-related
accessibility laws (by hiring a CASp). The rationale for those
reductions was that very small businesses didn't have the
resources to fight lawsuits, and that all business owners should
be able to rely upon building inspectors to ensure that
permitted and approved recent construction projects complied
with Unruh and ADA accessibility requirements. But the
mechanism envisioned for imposing reduced damages was a court
determination of the defendant's eligibility for the reduction.
This bill likewise assumes that a court would determine whether
a defendant would be eligible for reduced damages. In addition,
it adds new determinations that would need to be made by courts.
Courts would not only need to determine whether the defendant
qualified as a "small business" under the bill's new definition,
but also whether a stay of the proceedings should be granted and
whether the corrections cited by the plaintiff in the original
complaint were corrected within 180 days.
All stakeholders agree that the vast majority of these cases
never get to the point where a court makes any determination of
damages. In fact, one of the few things about which all sides
agree is that the vast majority of these cases settle out of
court, and never even reach the stage of a settlement
conference. AB 52 won't change that. Unsophisticated business
owners will still settle, rather than litigate, as long as the
complaints against their businesses allege actual violations of
accessibility standards (which, as pointed out above, they do
according to the complaints filed with the Commission) and
businesses are uninformed about their legal rights and
responsibilities. The few unscrupulous attorneys in the state
who make a living off filing and settling serial complaints will
continue to do so. They may even be motivated to file more
complaints if each complaint were worth less money. Therefore,
the solution is not further reduction of statutory damages in
these cases. The only possible solution is to find ways to
increase compliance with accessibility standards, educate
business owners about their rights and responsibilities, and
give small businesses and pro per defendants additional legal
AB 52
Page 23
tools to protect themselves.
There are many ways, other than the approach taken in this bill,
to promote access to public accommodations, increase compliance
with construction-related accessibility standards, and educate
business owners that do not devalue the rights of disabled
Californians. Over the past few months, the Chair and staff of
this Committee have met with representatives of all of the major
stakeholders on this issue: CJAC, the California Chamber of
Commerce, Consumer Attorneys of California, the California
Restaurant Association, Business Property Owners Association,
California Lodging Industry Association, American Institute of
Architects, disability advocates and their attorneys, the
Commission (CCDA), the State Architect, CA Building Officials
Association, and the ACLU. The Committee collected information
and suggestions from those stakeholders about how existing law
could be changed and improved, including many suggestions that
would be supported by the disabled community and business
interests.
Based upon those extensive stakeholder meetings and discussions,
the Committee urged the author to pursue a different, more
productive, and more collaborative path. The Committee compiled
its suggestions into three separate legislation proposals that
were each at least one page in length:
(1) A pilot program in Stanislaus and Merced Counties that would
require new businesses to obtain CASp inspections prior to
obtaining a business license; increase the number of CASp
inspectors available in the county; provide CASp inspections
free of charge to small businesses; require landlords to ensure
that parking lots and common areas are in compliance with the
ADA prior to leasing commercial property; and implement a meet
and confer requirement for ADA litigants.
(2) Landlord-tenant proposals to ensure that landlords meet
their responsibilities to commercial tenants.
(3) CASp-related proposals to increase the supply of CASp's in
AB 52
Page 24
the state and encourage business owners to obtain CASp
inspections.
The Committee offered to draft the language for the author and
work with the author and stakeholders on refining the language.
The author's office has indicated that the author is not
interested in any of these three alternatives because they
either do not solve the problem in his district, or in the case
of the district proposal, do not have statewide impact.
Recommended Committee amendments. It is clear that the problem
which the author wishes to address with this bill involves a
very small number of law firms filing a very large and
disproportionate share of Unruh-ADA lawsuits in California. At
the same time, courts have tools to discourage vexatious
litigation and recent reforms have not been given adequate time
to be tested. The Legislature should not further sacrifice the
rights of the disabled to deal with this problem, the best
course of action would appear to be public policy proposals that
do more of the following: (1) increase compliance by public
accommodations with construction-related accessibility
standards; and (2) increase information about rights and
responsibilities that businesses have under Unruh; (3)
discourage settlements by businesses of cases that either do not
have merit or involve vexatious litigants; and (4) encourage
defendants to seek court orders against vexatious litigants like
the one issued against Molski.
In light of the availability of alternative approaches and the
need to educate business owners and provide them with additional
legal tools to exercise their rights and responsibilities, the
Committee proposes the following amendments to this bill.
1. On Page 2 starting at line 1, through Page 6 at line 2:
strike out all text (the current text of the bill).
AB 52
Page 25
2. Insert an amended version of Civil Code Section 55.53:
Civil Code 55.3.
(a) For purposes of this section, the following shall apply:
(1) "Complaint" means a civil complaint that is filed or is to
be filed with a court and is sent to or served upon a
defendant on the basis of one or more construction-related
accessibility claims, as defined in this section.
(2) "Construction-related accessibility claim" means any claim
of a violation of any construction-related accessibility
standard, as defined by paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of
Section 55.52, with respect to a place of public
accommodation. "Construction-related accessibility claim" does
not include a claim of interference with housing within the
meaning of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1,
or any claim of interference caused by something other than
the construction-related accessibility condition of the
property, including, but not limited to, the conduct of any
person.
(3) "Demand for money" means a prelitigation written document
or oral statement that is provided or issued to a building
owner or tenant, or the owner's or tenant's agent or employee,
that does all of the following:
(A) Alleges that the site is in violation of one or more
construction-related accessibility standards, as defined in
paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 55.52, or alleges
one or more construction-related accessibility claims, as
defined in paragraph (2).
(B) Contains or makes a request or demand for money or an
offer or agreement to accept money.
(C) Is provided or issued whether or not the attorney intends
to file a complaint, or eventually files a complaint, in state
or federal court.
(4) "Demand letter" means a prelitigation written document
AB 52
Page 26
that is provided to a building owner or tenant, or the owner's
or tenant's agent or employee, that alleges the site is in
violation of one or more construction-related accessibility
standards, as defined in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of
Section 55.52, or alleges one or more construction-related
accessibility claims, as defined in paragraph (2), and is
provided whether or not the attorney intends to file a
complaint, or eventually files a complaint, in state or
federal court.
(b) An attorney shall provide the following items to a
defendant, contemporaneous to serving the defendant with a
demand letter or complaint alleging a construction-related
accessibility claim:
(1) a written advisory on the form described in subdivision
(c), or, until that form is available, on a separate page or
pages that are clearly distinguishable from the demand letter
or complaint, with each demand letter or complaint sent to or
served upon a defendant or potential defendant. The advisory
shall not be required in subsequent communications following
the initial demand letter or initial complaint unless a new
construction-related accessibility claim is asserted in the
subsequent demand letter or amended complaint. The advisory
shall state as follows:
STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU GET THIS IMPORTANT ADVISORY
INFORMATION FOR BUILDING OWNERS AND TENANTS
This information is available in English, Spanish, Chinese,
Vietnamese, and Korean through the Judicial Council of
California. Persons with visual impairments can get assistance
in viewing this form through the Judicial Council Internet Web
site at www.courts.ca.gov.
California law requires that you receive this information
because the demand letter or court complaint you received with
this document claims that your building or property does not
comply with one or more existing construction-related
accessibility laws or regulations protecting the civil rights
of persons with disabilities to access public places.
AB 52
Page 27
YOU HAVE IMPORTANT LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. Compliance with
disability access laws is a serious and significant
responsibility that applies to all California building owners
and tenants with buildings open for business to the public.
You may obtain information about your legal obligations and
how to comply with disability access laws through the Division
of the State Architect at www.dgs.ca.gov. Information is also
available from the California Commission on Disability Access
at www.ccda.ca.gov/guide.htm.
YOU HAVE IMPORTANT LEGAL RIGHTS. The allegations made in the
accompanying demand letter or court complaint do not mean that
you are required to pay any money unless and until a court
finds you liable. Moreover, RECEIPT OF A DEMAND LETTER OR
COURT COMPLAINT AND THIS ADVISORY DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN
YOU WILL BE FOUND LIABLE FOR ANYTHING. You will have the right
if you are later sued to fully present your explanation why
you believe you have not in fact violated disability access
laws or have corrected the violation or violations giving rise
to the claim.
You have the right to seek assistance or advice about this
demand letter or court complaint from any person of your
choice. If you have insurance, you may also wish to contact
your insurance provider. Your best interest may be served by
seeking legal advice or representation from an attorney, but
you may also represent yourself and file the necessary court
papers to protect your interests if you are served with a
court complaint. If you have hired an attorney to represent
you, you should immediately notify your attorney.
If a court complaint has been served on you, you will get a
separate advisory notice with the complaint advising you of
special options and procedures available to you under certain
conditions.
ADDITIONAL THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW:
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT. Except for limited circumstances, State
law generally requires that a pre-litigation demand letter
from an attorney MAY NOT REQUEST MONEY OR MAKE A DEMAND FOR
AB 52
Page 28
MONEY OR AN OFFER OR AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT MONEY. Moreover, a
demand letter from an attorney MUST INCLUDE THE ATTORNEY'S
STATE BAR LICENSE NUMBER.
If you believe the attorney who provided you with this notice
and a pre-litigation demand letter is not complying with State
law, you may send a copy of the demand letter you received
from the attorney to the State Bar by facsimile transmission
to 1-415-538-2171, or by mail to the State Bar of California,
180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105, Attention:
Professional Competence.
REDUCING YOUR DAMAGES. Even if you are found to be liable by
a court, you may be able to reduce the amount of money the
court orders you to pay in damages. If you are a small
business owner and correct all of the construction-related
violations that are the basis of the complaint against you
within 30 days of being served with the complaint, you may
qualify for reduced damages. If you believe you qualify for
reduced damages, you may wish to consult an attorney to obtain
legal advice, or contact the California Commission on
Disability Access (CCDA) for additional information about the
rights and obligations of business owners.
COMMERCIAL TENANT. If you are a commercial tenant, you may
not be responsible for ensuring that some or all portions of
the premises you lease for your business (including common
areas, such as parking lots), are accessible to the public
because those areas may be the responsibility of your
landlord. You may want to refer to your lease agreement, or
consult with your landlord or an attorney, to determine if
your landlord is responsible under the terms of your lease for
maintaining and improving some or all of the areas you lease
to operate your business.
(2) A form, developed by the Judicial Council, allowing the
defendant to respond to the demand letter or complaint.
(A) The form shall be written in plain language and allow the
defendant to indicate any relevant information affecting the
defendant's liability or damages, including but not limited to
the following:
(i) A general denial, as well as specific denials of the
AB 52
Page 29
allegations in the complaint, including the failure of the
plaintiff to meet the standing requirements in Section 55.56.
(ii) Any information that the defendant qualifies for reduced
damages pursuant to paragraphs (1) or (2) of subdivision (f)
of Section 55.56.
(iii) Any information that the defendant has made a written
settlement offer that has been rejected by the plaintiff, or
met with the plaintiff in a good faith effort to negotiate a
settlement of the complaint, both of which may be relevant to
the court's determination of an award of reasonable attorney's
fees and recoverable costs pursuant to Section 55.55.
(iv) Any information about the defendant's landlord if the
defendant believes the landlord is responsible for ensuring
that some or all of the property leased by the defendant,
including but not limited to common areas, such as parking
lots, are accessible to the public, including the landlord's
name and contact information.
(B) The form shall give the defendant the option of using the
form as either a formal Answer to the plaintiff's complaint,
or as an informal response to the plaintiff in for use in a
negotiated settlement. The form shall also provide general
instructions to the defendant about how to file the form as a
formal Answer to the complaint.
(c) On or before July 1, 2013 2016, the Judicial Council shall
update the form that may be used by attorneys to comply with
the requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). The form
shall be in substantially the same format and include all of
the text set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). The
form shall be available in English, Spanish, Chinese,
Vietnamese, and Korean, and shall include a statement that the
form is available in additional languages, and the Judicial
Council Internet Web site address where the different versions
of the form may be located. The form shall include Internet
Web site information for the Division of the State Architect
and the California Commission on Disability Access.
(d) Subdivision Paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) shall apply
only to a demand letter or complaint made by an attorney.
Nothing in this section is intended to affect the right to
file a civil complaint under any other law or regulation
protecting the physical access rights of persons with
AB 52
Page 30
disabilities. Additionally, nothing in this section requires a
party to provide or send a demand letter to another party
before proceeding against that party with a civil complaint.
(e) This section shall not apply to any action brought by the
Attorney General, or by any district attorney, city attorney,
or county counsel.
These amendments will update the notice which is now required to
be served on defendant businesses by plaintiffs pursuant to
Section 55.53. The amendments will also require the plaintiff
to provide, contemporaneously with the notice, the defendant
with a new response and information form that is to be drafted
by the Judicial Council. The new form will give the defendant
business not only a way to respond to the complaint (and engage
in effective negotiations with the plaintiff), but will also
information about how to limit his or her liability. This new
form will be especially helpful to small businesses with limited
financial resources that may not be able to hire an attorney,
the very businesses which the author says he hoped to help by
introducing this bill.
Similar pending legislation. AB 54 (Olsen) - requires a
plaintiff who has been denied access to a public accommodation
because of a construction-related accessibility violation of a
standard which has changed in the past three years to give
notice to the defendant 60 days before filing a complaint and an
opportunity to cure the violation, with no statutory damages
payable to the plaintiff; and provides a tax credit under the
Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law to any
taxpayer who obtains a certified access specialist inspection.
This bill is currently in this Committee.
AB 1230 (Gomez) - establishes, among other things, the
California Americans with Disabilities Act Small Business
Compliance Finance Act, which would provide loans, funded in
part by bond issuances, to assist small businesses finance the
costs of projects that alter or retrofit existing small business
facilities to comply with the federal American with Disabilities
Act. This bill is currently in Assembly Banking and Finance.
AB 52
Page 31
AB 1342 (Steinorth) - provides, among other things, additional
revenue to the California Commission on Disability Access. This
bill is currently in this Committee.
AB 1468 (Baker) -provides, among other things, that a public
entity's possession of a close out letter from the State
Architect certifying that the buildings, facilities, and other
places meet the applicable construction-related accessibility
standards of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, serves
as presumptive evidence of compliance with the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act. This bill is currently in this
Committee.
SB 67 (Galgiani) - among other things, exempts a small business
from statutory damage liability in connection with a
construction-related accessibility claim and extends the period
for correcting construction-related violations that are the
basis of a claim from 60 days to 120 days of being served with
the complaint, for purposes of reducing a defendant's minimum
statutory damage liability to $1,000. This bill is currently in
Senate Judiciary.
SB 251 (Roth) - relating to civil rights and disability access,
is currently in Senate Rules.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Apartment Association, California Southern Cities
Apartment Association of Orange County
Building Owners and Managers Association California
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
AB 52
Page 32
California Business Properties Association
Camarillo Chamber of Commerce
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
California Chamber of Commerce
California Restaurant Association
Civil Justice Association of California
County of San Diego
East Bay Rental Housing Association
Fairfield-Suisun City Chamber of Commerce
Fullerton Chamber of Commerce
Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce
International Council of Shopping Centers
La Raza Roundtable
Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce
Lodi Chamber of Commerce
NAIOP - Commercial Real Estate Development Association
Nor Cal Rental Property Association
North Valley Property Owners Association
North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce
Oxnard Chamber of Commerce
Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce
Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau
San Diego County Apartment Association
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
Southwest California Legislative Council
The Chamber of Commerce Mountain View
The Chamber of the Santa Barbara Region
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc.
Consumer Attorneys of California
Disability Rights California
(Numerous individuals)
AB 52
Page 33
Analysis Prepared
by: Alison Merrilees/JUD./(916) 319-2334