BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2093
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 29, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 2093
(Steinorth) - As Introduced February 17, 2016
SUBJECT: DISABILITY ACCESS
KEY ISSUES:
1)SHOULD COMMERCIAL LANDLORDS BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN
INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS TO PROSPECTIVE TENANTS, PRIOR TO
EXECUTION OF A LEASE OR RENTAL AGREEMENT, ADDRESSING THE
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPERTY WITH CONSTRUCTION-RELATED
ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS?
2)SHOULD STATE LAW CREATE A PRESUMPTION THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR MAKING REPAIRS OR MODIFICATIONS TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
THAT ARE NECESSARY TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS OF
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS THAT ARE NOTED IN
A REPORT BY A CONSTRUCTION ACCESS SPECIALIST (CASp) ABOUT THE
PROPERTY ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
OWNER OR LESSOR, UNLESS A DIFFERENT AGREEMENT IS MUTUALLY
AGREED UPON BY THE OWNER OR LESSOR AND THE TENANT?
3)SHOULD THE STATE ARCHITECT AND THE COMMISSION ON DISABILITY
ACCESS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT HOW
TO LOCATE A CASp WHO PROVIDES SERVICES IN A SPECIFIC
AB 2093
Page 2
GEOGRAPHIC AREA?
SYNOPSIS
This bill deals with a difficult issue that has become quite
controversial in recent years: the compliance of places of
public accommodation (e.g., many places of lodging,
entertainment, recreation, restaurants, bars, theaters, stores,
health clubs, etc.) with the twenty-five year old federal
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits such
accommodations from discriminating on the basis of disability if
their operations affect interstate commerce. Unlike many prior
measures that have sought to reduce the rights of the disabled
to enforce their civil rights, however, this bill sensibly
attempts to facilitate compliance by public accommodations with
the law. Existing law requires owners or lessors of a
commercial property to notify a prospective tenant whether the
property has been inspected by a Certified Access Specialist
(CASp) and whether the property has been determined to meet all
applicable construction-related accessibility standards.
Current law does not require that the report be provided to the
prospective tenant, however. Nor does current law include any
guidance for commercial property owners, lessors, or prospective
tenants who should be responsible for the repairs which are
necessary to bring the property into compliance with the law.
These issues are crucial because both owners and tenants are
potentially liable for violations of construction-related
accessibility standards, depending on where those substandard
conditions are located and who created the condition.
Therefore, both commercial landlords and tenants have an
incentive to make sure the property is brought into compliance
and to ensure that information is shared. In order to
facilitate bringing properties into compliance, the State
Architect includes on his or her website information about the
CASp program, including the names and contact information for
individual CASps. The State Architect's website does not
include information about where those CASps offer their
AB 2093
Page 3
services, however.
This bill enacts a number of measures that are intended to
provide additional information to the public and prospective
tenants of commercial property and ultimately to promote
compliance with disability access laws. Specifically, this bill
would require owners and lessors of commercial property to do
the following: 1) State on every lease form or rental agreement
executed after January 1, 2017, whether or not the property
being leased has undergone inspection by a CASp; and 2) Provide
additional information to the tenant or lessor about the
condition of the rented or leased property, specifically the
following, depending on whether the property has been inspected
by a CASp, been certified to comply with current law, and been
altered since the inspection: (a) If the property has undergone
an inspection (and to the best of the commercial property
owner's knowledge, there have been no modifications or
alterations completed or commenced between the date of the
inspection and the date of the lease or rental agreement which
have impacted the property's compliance), the commercial
property owner shall provide a copy of any report prepared by
the CASp to the lessee or tenant; (b) If the property has been
issued a current disability access inspection certificate, the
commercial property owner shall provide a copy of the
certificate or any inspection report to the lessee or tenant
within seven days of the date of the execution of the lease form
or rental agreement; (c) If the property has not undergone an
inspection or been issued a current disability access inspection
certificate, the commercial property owner shall state on the
lease form or rental agreement that the property may not
necessarily meet all of the applicable construction-related
accessibility standards under state law. The bill also requires
the State Architect to list CASps according to the areas in the
state where they offer their services and requires the CCDA to
post a link to that information (on the State Architect's
website) on its own website.
AB 2093
Page 4
This author-sponsored bill is supported by a number of business
and commercial property owner groups, as well as the Consumer
Attorneys of California. Disability Rights California supports
the bill, but has concerns with the bill, as currently in print.
In response to those concerns, the Committee has proposed a
number of amendments to the author. These amendments would also
do the following in order to promote fairness and ensure that
parties are informed about not only the condition of the
property, but also their responsibilities: 1) Create a
presumption that the responsibility for making any repairs or
modifications necessary to correct violations of
construction-related accessibility standards that are noted in a
CASp report is the responsibility of the commercial property
owner or lessor, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the
commercial property owner or lessor and the lessee or tenant;
and 2) Require that the prospective lessee or tenant shall have
the opportunity to review any CASp report prior to execution of
the lease or rental agreement and would specify that if the
report is not provided to the prospective lessee or tenant at
least 48 hours prior to execution of the lease or rental
agreement, the prospective lessee or tenant would have the right
to rescind the lease or rental agreement, based upon the
information contained in the report, for 72 hours after
execution of the agreement. It is unknown at the time of the
writing of this analysis, whether the author will accept the
Committee's amendments. This bill has no known opposition.
SUMMARY: Increases the information available to the public, and
to prospective tenants of commercial property, about the ADA and
compliance with construction-related accessibility standards.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires a commercial property owner to state on every lease
form or rental agreement executed after January 1, 2017,
whether or not the property being leased has undergone
inspection by a CASp.
AB 2093
Page 5
2)Requires a commercial property owner to provide additional
information to the tenant or lessor about the condition of the
rented or leased property.
a) If the property has undergone an inspection (and to the
best of the commercial property owner's knowledge, there
have been no modifications or alterations completed or
commenced between the date of the inspection and the date
of the lease or rental agreement which have impacted the
property's compliance), the commercial property owner shall
provide a copy of any report prepared by the CASp to the
lessee or tenant. If the property has been issued a
current disability access inspection certificate, the
commercial property owner shall provide a copy of the
certificate or any inspection report to the lessee or
tenant within seven days of the date of the execution of
the lease form or rental agreement.
b) If the property has not undergone an inspection or been
issued a current disability access inspection certificate,
the commercial property owner shall state on the lease form
or rental agreement that the property may not necessarily
meet all of the applicable construction-related
accessibility standards under State law.
3)Requires the commission to post a link to the Internet Web
site of the Division of the State Architect's CASp Program to
assist building owners and tenants in locating or hiring a
CASp.
4)Requires the commission to make its educational materials and
information available to other state agencies and local
building departments.
5)As proposed to be amended by the Committee, would create a
AB 2093
Page 6
presumption that the responsibility for making any repairs or
modifications necessary to correct violations of
construction-related accessibility standards that are noted in
a CASp report is the responsibility of the commercial property
owner or lessor, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the
commercial property owner or lessor and the lessee or tenant.
6)As proposed to be amended by the Committee, would require that
the prospective lessee or tenant shall have the opportunity to
review any CASp report prior to execution of the lease or
rental agreement and would specify that if the report is not
provided to the prospective lessee or tenant at least 48 hours
prior to execution of the lease or rental agreement, the
prospective lessee or tenant would have the right to rescind
the lease or rental agreement, based upon the information
contained in the report, for 72 hours after execution of the
agreement.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides for a California Commission on Disability Access, an
independent state agency composed of 17 members, with the
general responsibility for monitoring disability access
compliance in California, and the authority to hold hearings
and make recommendations to the Legislature for necessary
changes to existing state law in order to facilitate
implementation of state and federal laws on disability access.
(Gov. Code Sec. 8299 et seq. All further statutory
references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise
indicated.)
2)Requires the Commission to use its funding, as appropriate, to
provide information about preventing or minimizing compliance
problems among California businesses, and recommending
programs to enable persons with disabilities to obtain full
AB 2093
Page 7
and equal access to public facilities. (Section 8299.05.)
3)Makes it a priority for the Commission to provide educational
resources to promote and facilitate disability access
compliance. (Section 8299.06.)
4)Provides for the certification process in which an applicant
may become a certified-access specialist. Further provides
that the Division of the State Architect shall require each
applicant to pay fees that are reasonably necessary to
implement the certified access specialist program, including
processing, registration, and publishing a list of certified
access specialists. (Section 4459.8.)
5)Requires a commercial property owner to state on a lease form
or rental agreement executed on or after July 1, 2013, if the
property being leased or rented has undergone inspection by a
certified access specialist. If the property has undergone an
inspection, the commercial property owner shall state whether
the property has or has not been determined to meet all
applicable construction-related accessibility standards.
(Civil Code Section 1938.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS: Under the twenty-five year old federal Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), a business that constitutes a place of
public accommodation (e.g., many places of lodging,
entertainment, 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
AB 2093
Page 8
- 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 are as effective as that provided to others).
Government facilities are also covered by the access obligations
of the ADA.
According to the California Supreme Court, "In 1992, shortly
after passage of the ADA, the Legislature amended the state's
disability protections 'to strengthen California law in areas
where it is weaker than the [ADA] and to retain California law
when it provides more protection for individuals with
disabilities than the [ADA].' Two overlapping laws, the Unruh
Civil Rights Act (§ 51) and the Disabled Persons Act (§§
54-55.3), are the principal sources of state disability access
protection." (Jankey v. Lee (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1038, 1044
[Citation to internal quotation deleted].) As a result of
incorporating the ADA into the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act, a
plaintiff who prevails in a construction-related accessibility
claim, like all plaintiffs in other civil rights cases, is
entitled to minimum statutory damages of $4,000 per violation
(although later amendments to Unruh, affecting only disabled
plaintiffs in only construction-related disability claims,
reduced the minimum statutory damages to only $1,000 in some
cases, such as when a small business previously obtained a CASp
inspection).
Therefore, since 1992, public accommodations in California have
been 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 $4,000 per violation,
except some cases where the violation is based on a
construction-related accessibility claim, in which case lower
damages (a minimum of $1,000, or $2,000, depending on the
AB 2093
Page 9
circumstances of the case) apply.
ADA Litigation Affecting Public Accommodations, Specifically
Small Businesses, in California. There has been widespread
media coverage about the problem of what has been described as
"serial ADA litigation." For example, last summer, the Modesto
Bee and the Merced Sun-Star reported a series of articles,
describing "how the Americans with Disabilities Act has been
misused to create profit centers for opportunistic lawyers.
These attorneys recruit people - some with minor disabilities,
some with criminal records, some here illegally - to visit small
businesses in hopes of spotting the most minute ADA violations.
The lawyers then demand $4,000 for each violation."
It is certainly true that a handful of highly litigious
plaintiffs have targeted small businesses, especially those
without the financial resources and sophistication to challenge
such lawsuits on their merits. According to data compiled by
the California Commission on Disability Access, more than half
(54 percent) of the construction-related accessibility
complaints filed between 2012 and 2014 were filed by two law
firms; and 46 percent of all complaints were filed by just 14
parties. These figures indicate that the vast majority of all
construction-related accessibility claims filed in this state
are initiated by a very small number of plaintiffs (and their
attorneys). As a result, small businesses are justifiably
fearful and angry about being sued, while disabled consumers are
viewed with blame or suspicion, even though they have a right to
full and equal access and should be able to expect all public
accommodations to comply with the 25-year old requirements of
the Americans with Disability Act. Disabled consumers just want
to go about their daily lives without difficulty, discomfort, or
embarrassment, and with the basic dignity that comes from being
able to go to the same places and have the same access to
services as non-disabled persons. The vast majority would only
resort to the extreme measure of filing a lawsuit in response to
the most egregious, humiliating, and pervasive violations of
AB 2093
Page 10
their rights. It is unfair for business owners or policymakers
to assume that disabled persons are somehow trying to "game the
system" or take advantage of small businesses when they expect
compliance with the ADA. Compliance should be something they
can count on as they go about their daily lives.
But it is also important to put these figures into perspective.
According to data compiled by the Commission, from January 2014
until January 2015, there were 3,468 demand letters and
complaints sent or filed in the state. In contrast, according
to the Judicial Council of California, a total of 800,091
lawsuits were filed in the state in 2013 (the most recent year
available). Meanwhile, California has approximately 3.3 million
small businesses. These figures mean that less than one percent
of small businesses (and a far smaller percentage of all
businesses) were sued in 2014 for access violations; and the
3,468 demand letters or complaints regarding accessibility
violations represent less than one-half of one percent (.43%) of
the total number of lawsuits filed in the state. And the actual
percentage is even smaller, because the Commission figure
includes demand letters that are not complaints.
In response to this problem - both real and perceived - the
Legislature has considered a number of proposals that have
attempted to reduce litigation and increase compliance with the
ADA and state construction-related accessibility standards. For
example, last year, despite the objections of many advocates for
the disabled community that it applied to too many businesses
that were large enough (100 or fewer employees) to have the
resources to ensure that they were in compliance with the law,
this Committee passed SB 251 (Roth), which among other things,
would have established a list of "technical violations" that are
presumed to not cause a person difficulty, discomfort or
embarrassment for the purpose of awarding the plaintiff minimum
statutory damages, and protected a business from liability for
minimum statutory damages for violations of construction-related
accessibility standards during the 120 day period after the
AB 2093
Page 11
business obtained a CASp inspection of the business and
corrected violations noted in the inspection. This Committee
also authored AB 1521, which addressed the problem of
high-frequency ADA litigation by establishing new pre-filing
procedures for "high-frequency litigants" and providing new
tools for businesses to use when they are served with complaints
alleging violations of construction-related accessibility
claims, which was signed into law (Chapter 755, Statutes of
2015.) Significantly, this Committee also approved a number of
measures (including AB 54 (Olsen), SB 251 (Roth), AB 1342
(Steinorth), AB 1230 (Gomez)) that provided financial resources
to bring their premises into compliance with the law. All of
those latter measures, except for AB 1230 (Chapter 787, Statutes
of 2015), which established the California Americans With
Disabilities Act Small Business Capital Access Loan Program
within the California Capital Access Loan Program, were either
amended to remove those provisions, or vetoed by the governor.
Disabled advocates rightfully feel that they have cooperated
with the authors of many of these measures and begrudgingly gone
along with incremental erosion of their rights with the hope of
seeing greater compliance with the ADA, partially facilitated by
tax credits and other financial incentives to small businesses.
So far, no significant financial resources have been provided to
small businesses. It is hoped that this measure, though it does
not include a tax credit or other specific financial benefit to
business owners, will nevertheless improve compliance by
commercial establishments with the law for the benefit of both
the businesses, as well as their disabled customers.
Similarity to Last Year's AB 1342 by the Same Author. Last
year's AB 1342, by the same author, was very similar to this
current bill in that it would have required a commercial
property owner to state on every lease form or rental agreement
executed after July 1, 2016, whether or not the property being
leased has undergone inspection by a CASp, and would have
required a commercial property owner to provide additional
information to the tenant or lessor about the condition of the
rented or leased property. One significant difference, however,
AB 2093
Page 12
is that whereas AB 1342 would have provided additional revenue
to the California Commission on Disability Access, this bill
does not. AB 1342 was vetoed by the Governor with the following
message:
This bill would require a commercial property owner to
include in lease forms or rental agreements a statement
disclosing if the premises had been inspected by a
certified access specialist.
I support the idea of providing owners and tenants the
opportunity to address accessibility problems. This bill,
however, also establishes two permanent positions funded
from the General Fund, something more appropriately
addressed in the annual budget process.
Additional Responsibilities of the Commission and State
Architect. The California Commission on Disability Access is an
independent state agency composed of 17 members. It has the
general responsibility for monitoring disability access
compliance in California, and the authority to hold hearings and
make recommendations to the Legislature for necessary changes to
existing state law in order to facilitate implementation of
state and federal laws on disability access. (Section 8299 et
seq.) The Commission is required to use its funding, as
appropriate, to provide information about preventing or
minimizing compliance problems among California businesses, and
recommending programs to enable persons with disabilities to
obtain full and equal access to public facilities. (Section
8299.05.) It is a priority for the Commission to provide
educational resources to promote and facilitate disability
access compliance. (Section 8299.06.)
Under this bill, the Commission will be required to undertake
new duties to improve the availability of information to the
AB 2093
Page 13
public about disability access compliance. Specifically, the
Commission would be required to do the following: (1) To the
extent feasible, coordinate with state agencies and local
building departments to make educational materials and
information available to those agencies; and (2) Post on its
website a link to the website of the Division of the State
Architect's CASp program to assist building owners and tenants
in locating or hiring a CASp.
Under current law, the Division of the State Architect (State
Architect) certifies applicants to become CASps. The State
Architect publishes a list of all the CASps in the State on its
website. Currently, there are over 575 CASps throughout the
state. However, despite the large number of CASps, it may be
difficult to find a CASp who is available in a given area.
Currently, the State Architect's website does not consistently
provide the location in which a CASp provides his or her
services. This lack of information makes it difficult for a
business property owner or tenant to locate or hire a CASp in a
specific region.
Under this bill, an applicant for CASp certification or renewal
will be required to provide the State Architect the location
where the applicant will provide CASp services; specifically,
the city, county, or city and county. Additionally, the bill
requires the State Architect to publish this locational
information.
A Commercial Property Owner's Responsibilities to a Prospective
Tenant Relative to Disability Access Laws. Under current law, a
commercial property owner is required to state on every lease
form or rental agreement whether the property has been inspected
by a CASp. If the property has undergone a CASP inspection, the
lease or rental agreement must state whether the property meets
all applicable construction-related accessibility standards.
However, because the property owner may not know whether the
AB 2093
Page 14
property has met all applicable-related accessibility standards,
the current law may unintentionally create a disincentive for a
business property owner to obtain CASp services.
This bill seeks to increase the amount of information that
tenants get about commercial property that they may rent or
lease, ultimately promoting compliance of commercial property
with the ADA and state construction-related accessibility
standards. Specifically, this bill would require owners and
lessors of commercial property to do the following: 1) State on
every lease form or rental agreement executed after January 1,
2017, whether or not the property being leased has undergone
inspection by a CASp; and 2) Provide additional information to
the tenant or lessor about the condition of the rented or leased
property, specifically the following, depending on whether the
property has been inspected by a CASp, been certified to comply
with current law, and been altered since the inspection: (a) If
the property has undergone an inspection (and to the best of the
commercial property owner's knowledge, there have been no
modifications or alterations completed or commenced between the
date of the inspection and the date of the lease or rental
agreement which have impacted the property's compliance), the
commercial property owner shall provide a copy of any report
prepared by the CASp to the lessee or tenant; (b) If the
property has been issued a current disability access inspection
certificate, the commercial property owner shall provide a copy
of the certificate or any inspection report to the lessee or
tenant within seven days of the date of the execution of the
lease form or rental agreement; (c) If the property has not
undergone an inspection or been issued a current disability
access inspection certificate, the commercial property owner
shall state on the lease form or rental agreement that the
property may not necessarily meet all of the applicable
construction-related accessibility standards under state law.
This additional information allows commercial tenants to better
understand the state of the leased property, and allows the
AB 2093
Page 15
commercial property owner or tenant to take proactive steps in
reaching compliance with disability access laws by promoting
communication between the commercial parties.
Concerns Expressed by Disability Rights California. Disability
Rights California, explaining its position on this bill, writes
as follows:
While DRC agrees that steps should be taken to ensure
access and that educational resources be made available, we
disagree with the provisions in the bill that shift
responsibility for inspection and repair onto the tenant.
The commercial property owner/landlord should be
responsible to make sure that the business is CASp
inspected and that necessary repairs are made, unless the
tenant is responsible for the lack of access. Commercial
owners and landlords have more resources than tenants and
are in a better position to ensure access compliance.
Amendments Proposed by the Committee. In response to the
concerns expressed by Disability Rights California, the
Committee has proposed a number of amendments to the author.
These amendments would also do the following in order to promote
fairness and ensure that parties are informed about not only the
condition of the property, but also their responsibilities: 1)
Create a presumption that the responsibility for making any
repairs or modifications necessary to correct violations of
construction-related accessibility standards that are noted in a
CASp report is the responsibility of the commercial property
owner or lessor, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the
commercial property owner or lessor and the lessee or tenant;
and 2) Require that the prospective lessee or tenant shall have
the opportunity to review any CASp report prior to execution of
the lease or rental agreement and would specify that if the
report is not provided to the prospective lessee or tenant at
least 48 hours prior to execution of the lease or rental
AB 2093
Page 16
agreement, the prospective lessee or tenant would have the right
to rescind the lease or rental agreement, based upon the
information contained in the report, for 72 hours after
execution of the agreement.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Consumer Attorneys of California write
the following in support of the bill:
CAOC has grappled to find a solution that both enhances
disability access compliance, yet stops the abusive
practices of some attorneys who are suing small businesses
for fees, not compliance. We think the practices of these
few attorneys who seek fees and not correction are wrong
and are an affront to people with disabilities and the laws
this state has enacted to protect the civil rights of those
with disabilities. We also believe that there is a serious
problem with buildings being non-compliant. It is
unacceptable for a building to be open to the public and
not be in compliance with basic structural access issues
such as bathrooms, doorways, etc. We agree that an
important part of any solution includes providing
businesses with information regarding Certified Access
Specialists in their area.
Similar Pending or Recent Legislation. AB 52 (Gray) - provides,
among other things, that the defendant's maximum liability for
statutory damages in a construction-related accessibility claim
against a place of public accommodation is $1,000 for each
offense if the defendant has corrected all construction-related
violations within 180 days of being served with the complaint.
This bill died without a hearing in this Committee.
AB 54 (Olsen) - requires, in the latest of its many versions,
that a copy of the demand letter and the complaint sent to the
California Commission on Disability Access be submitted to the
AB 2093
Page 17
commission in a standard format specified by the commission.
This bill is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
AB 1230 (Gomez), Chapter 787, Statutes of 2015, establishes the
California Americans With Disabilities Act Small Business
Capital Access Loan Program within the California Capital Access
Loan Program in order to create a self-sustaining program to
provide loans to assist small businesses in financing the costs
of projects that alter or retrofit existing small business
facilities according to certain criteria, to comply with the
ADA.
AB 1342 (Steinorth) would have provided additional revenue to
the California Commission on Disability Access. In addition,
the bill would have required a commercial property owner to
state on every lease form or rental agreement executed after
July 1, 2016, whether or not the property being leased has
undergone inspection by a CASp, and would have required a
commercial property owner to provide additional information to
the tenant or lessor about the condition of the rented or leased
property. AB 1342 was vetoed by the Governor.
AB 1468 (Baker) would have, among other things, provided 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 ADA, serves as presumptive evidence of
compliance with the ADA. This bill died without a hearing in
this Committee.
AB 1521 (Assembly Committee on the Judiciary), Chapter 755,
Statutes of 2015, establishes new pre-filing procedures for
"high-frequency litigants" and provides new tools for businesses
to use when they are served with complaints alleging violations
of construction-related accessibility claims.
AB 2093
Page 18
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 died without a
hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SB 251 (Roth), among other things, would have established a list
of "technical violations" that are presumed to not cause a
person difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment for the purpose
of awarding the plaintiff minimum statutory damages, where
certain conditions are satisfied. This would have protected a
business from liability for minimum statutory damages for
violations of construction-related accessibility standards
during the 120 day period after the business obtains a CASp
inspection of the interior, the exterior, or the entirety of the
premises, provided that all violations were corrected within the
120 period and other conditions were satisfied. The bill also
would have provided a tax credit for eligible expenditures to
increase accessibility. SB 251 was vetoed by the Governor.
SB 269 (Roth) is virtually identical to SB 251, above, except
for the following: (1) The protection of a business from
liability for minimum statutory damages for violations of
construction-related accessibility standards during the 120 day
period after the business obtains a CASp inspection of the
property applies to businesses with 50 or fewer employees,
rather than 100 or fewer employees, as provided by SB 251; (2)
The bill does not provide a tax credit for eligible expenditures
to increase accessibility; and (3) The bill has an urgency
clause so that it takes effect immediately upon being signed.
This bill is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 2093
Page 19
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Institute of Architects California Council
Building Owners and Managers Association of California
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Commercial Real Estate Development Association, NAIOP of
California
Consumer Attorneys of California
Disability Rights California (if amended)
International Council of Shopping Centers
National Federation of Independent Businesses
AB 2093
Page 20
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334