BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 251
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 7, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
SB
251 (Roth) - As Amended June 2, 2015
As Proposed to be Amended
SENATE VOTE: 40-0
SUBJECT: CIVIL RIGHTS: DISABILITY ACCESS
KEY ISSUE: Should existing state laws governing
construction-related accessibility claims be modified in a
manner that appropriately balances the rights of the disabled
community with the interests of small business owners, provides
financial relief to small businesses, and (most importantly)
encourages businesses to comply with twenty-five year old
construction-related accessibility standards so that disabled
consumers can exercise their civil rights to fully and equally
access all of the public accommodations in the state?
SYNOPSIS
There is no governmental entity charged with administrative or
judicial enforcement of construction-related accessibility
claims. 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
SB 251
Page 2
voluntary compliance and individual legal actions.
Unfortunately, a very small number of highly litigious
plaintiffs and attorneys is abusing the law by making a practice
of filing and quickly settling lawsuits from small businesses
without getting the underlying access issue corrected.
According to information from the California Commission on
Disability Access, more than half (54%) of construction-related
accessibility complaints filed between 2012 and 2014 were filed
by two law firms. Forty-six percent of all complaints were
filed by 14 parties. These figures indicate that the vast
majority of the construction-related accessibility lawsuits
filed in this state are filed by a very small number of
plaintiffs. As a result, small businesses are justifiably
fearful and angry about being sued, while disabled consumers,
who reasonably expect businesses to be compliant with 25
year-old access laws so they can exercise their civil rights,
are unfairly viewed by some businesses and policymakers with
blame or suspicion.
The Legislature has frequently heard and consistently rejected
the idea that people with disabilities should be required to
comply with special procedural barriers not faced by others who
endure discrimination before they can assert legal claims
against businesses that violate their rights, and has also
rejected the idea that a disabled consumer should be precluded
from recovering the minimum statutory damages to which he or she
is entitled if the business that has violated the disabled
person's rights, after being notified of the violation, corrects
the illegal condition at some point in the future.
According to the author, the bill, which is co-sponsored by the
Consumer Attorneys of California and the California Chamber of
Commerce, is necessary because many small businesses remain out
of compliance with longstanding state and federal disability
access laws, leaving them vulnerable to lawsuits. Some of these
SB 251
Page 3
suits, the author and supporters allege (and even some of the
opponents concede), are brought by plaintiffs for personal
financial benefit, not out of an desire to improve access for
disabled consumers and have access barriers removed, 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 as it is now in
print, but they agree with the supporters on a number of points,
including that many businesses are not in compliance with access
laws despite these laws' long-standing existence and that many
lawsuits are filed, some by plaintiffs seeking monetary
recovery, rather than improved access. Opponents to the bill in
print argue that they have supported prior legislation to
increase business awareness of access obligations, improve
voluntary compliance, and reward responsible behavior and that
those reforms should be furthered, not circumvented. Opponents
argue that this bill in print singles out people with
disabilities for unprecedented obstacles to the enforcement of
their civil rights, deprives them of a remedy for actual
violations, and will deter, rather than encourage, compliance
with disability discrimination laws. Moreover, opponents of the
bill in print 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 federal lawsuits against
which businesses seek protection.
The author of this bill (like the Committee, in AB 1521)
observes that additional tools are necessary to protect small
businesses from high-frequency litigants and encourage
compliance with the 25 year-old state and federal laws.
Therefore, the author proposes a number of changes to the law in
this bill that appropriately balance the rights of the disabled
community with the interests of small business owners, provide
financial relief to small businesses, and - most importantly -
encourage compliance with construction-related accessibility
standards so that disabled consumers can exercise their civil
rights to fully and equally access all of the public
SB 251
Page 4
accommodations in the state.
Specifically, in its most significant provision, this bill, as
proposed to be amended, protects a small business from liability
for minimum statutory damages in a construction-related
accessibility claim for the 120-day period after the business
has obtained an inspection of its premises by a CASp, allowing
the business to identify and correct violations during that
period, under certain conditions, including the following: 1)
The structure or area of the alleged violation was the subject
of an inspection report indicating "CASp determination pending"
or "Inspected by a CASp"; 2) The CASp inspection report is
provided to the defendant within 30 days of the inspection; 3)
The inspection predates the filing of the claim by, or receipt
of a demand letter; and 4) The defendant corrects, within 120
days of the date of the inspection, all construction-related
violations in the area or structure inspected by the CASp that
are the basis of the claim.
As amended, this bill also establishes a rebuttable presumption
that certain "technical violations" do not cause a person
difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment for the purpose of an
award of minimum statutory damages in a construction-related
accessibility claim, where the defendant is a small business,
the defendant has, within 15 days of the service of a summons
and complaint asserting a construction-related accessibility
claim or receipt of a written notice, whichever is earlier,
corrected all of the technical violations that are the basis of
the claim, and the claim is based on a number of specified
violations, such as the lack of exterior signs; the order in
which parking signs are placed or the exact location or wording
of parking signs; the color of parking signs; the color of
parking lot striping; faded, chipped, damaged or deteriorated
paint in otherwise fully compliant parking spaces and passenger
access aisles in parking lots; and the presence or condition of
detectable warning surfaces (also known as "truncated domes" on
ramps), except where the ramp is part of a pedestrian path of
SB 251
Page 5
travel that intersects with a vehicular lane or other hazardous
area.
The enactment of this bill, as proposed to be amended, is
contingent upon the enactment of AB 1521, authored by this
Committee, which is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
As recently amended, AB 1521 gives new tools to small businesses
and seeks to limit the practice by high-frequency litigants of
filing lawsuits to obtain quick settlements with business
owners, rather than to correct violations of
construction-related accessibility standards. It does so by,
among other things, requiring a "high-frequency litigant" (which
the bill defines as a plaintiff who has filed 15 or more
complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility
violation within a 12-month period) to comply with new, special
procedural requirements. The approach of these two bills -
providing additional relief and tools for small businesses to
avoid and resolve construction-related accessibility claims,
while addressing the small group of high-frequency litigants who
are responsible for a majority of the claims filed in the state
-- appears to be a comprehensive, fair, and sensible solution to
the problem that the author of this bill (and the Committee)
wishes to address.
As in print, this bill is supported by a large number of
business groups and opposed by a large number of civil rights
and disability advocacy organizations. It is unknown at this
time how the amendments to the bill, which are described in
detail in this analysis, will affect the positions of all
supporters and opponents. However, the ACLU is neutral on the
bill as proposed to be amended.
If this bill passes out of this Committee, it will be referred
to the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee where, because of
time constraints, the amendments that the author has agreed to
take in this Committee will be adopted.
SB 251
Page 6
SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to balance the rights of the
disabled community and business owners, provide financial relief
to small businesses, and encourage compliance with
construction-related accessibility standards so that disabled
consumers can exercise their rights to fully and equally access
public accommodations in the state. Specifically, this bill:
1)Extends until January 1, 2019 the following requirements,
scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2016:
a) For attorneys to send copies of demand letters regarding
violations of construction-related accessibility standards
to the State Bar of California.
b) For attorneys to send copies of complaints alleging
violations of construction-related accessibility standards
to the California Commission on Disability Access.
c) For the State Bar of California to report to the
Legislature various information about the complaints and
demand letters it receives from attorneys.
d) For the California Commission on Disability Access to
review and report on the demand letters and complaints it
receives from attorneys.
2)Establishes a presumption that certain "technical violations"
are presumed to not cause a person difficulty, discomfort or
embarrassment for the purpose of an award of minimum statutory
damages in a construction-related accessibility claim, where
the defendant is a small business, the defendant has
corrected, within 15 days of the service of a summons and
SB 251
Page 7
complaint asserting a construction-related accessibility claim
or receipt of a written notice, whichever is earlier, all of
the technical violations that are the basis of the claim, and
the claim is based on one or more of the following violations:
a) Interior signs, other than directional signs or signs
that identify the location of accessible elements,
facilities, or features, when all such elements, facilities
or features are accessible;
b) The lack of exterior signs, other than parking signs
and, directional signs (including, signs that indicate the
location of accessible pathways or entrance and exit doors
when not all pathways, entrance and exit doors are
accessible);
c) The order in which parking signs are placed or the exact
location or wording of parking signs, provided that the
parking sign is clearly visible and indicates the location
of accessible parking and van-accessible parking;
d) The color of parking signs, provided that the color of
the background contrasts with the color of the information
on the sign;
e) The color of parking lot striping, provided that it
exists and provides sufficient contrast with the surface
upon which it is applied is reasonably visible;
f) Faded, chipped, damaged or deteriorated paint in
SB 251
Page 8
otherwise fully compliant parking spaces and passenger
access aisles in parking lots, provided that it indicates
the required dimensions of a parking space or access aisle
in a manner that is reasonably visible; or
g) The presence or condition of detectable warning surfaces
on ramps, except where the ramp is part of a pedestrian
path of travel that intersects with a vehicular lane or
other hazardous area.
3)States that the above presumption affects the plaintiff's
burden of proof and is rebuttable by evidence showing, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the plaintiff did, in
fact, experience difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment on
the particular occasion as a result of one or more of the
technical violations listed in 2), above.
4)Protects a small business from liability for minimum statutory
damages in a construction-related accessibility claim made
during the 120 day period after the business obtains an
inspection of its premises by a CASp, allowing the business to
identify and correct violations during that period, under the
following conditions:
a) The defendant is a small business.
b) The structure or area of the alleged violation was the
subject of an inspection report indicating "CASp
determination pending" or "Inspected by a CASp."
c) The CASp inspection report was provided to the defendant
within 30 days of the inspection.
SB 251
Page 9
d) The inspection predates the filing of the claim by, or
receipt of a demand letter from, the plaintiff regarding
the alleged violation of a construction-related
accessibility standard, and the defendant was not on notice
of the alleged violation prior to the CASp inspection
whether because of a previous CASp inspection of the
premises, or other reasons.
e) Within seven days of the date of the inspection, the
defendant files a notice with the State Architect for
listing on the State Architect's Internet Web site, stating
that the defendant has obtained a CASp inspection, the date
of the filing, and the date of the inspection; and the
State Architect posts the information on a publically
accessible area of its website within seven (7) days of the
date of receiving the notice from the defendant.
f) The defendant posted the notice described in (e), above,
in a form prescribed by the State Architect, in a
conspicuous location within five feet of all public
entrances to the building on the date of the inspection and
kept it in place until the earlier of the following: 120
days after the date of the inspection, or the date when all
of the construction-related violations in the area or
structure inspected by the CASp are corrected.
g) The defendant has corrected, within 120 days of the date
of the inspection, all construction-related violations in
the area or structure inspected by the CASp that are the
basis of the claim.
5)Requires a CASp to provide, within 30 days of the date when it
is requested by a small business, a copy of a report prepared
pursuant to the provisions described in 4), above, to the
SB 251
Page 10
small business that requested it.
6)Provides that, notwithstanding any other law, a defendant who
claims the benefit of the reduction of minimum statutory
damages under this subdivision shall disclose the date and
findings of any CASp inspection to a plaintiff if relevant to
a claim or defense in an action.
7)Allows a defendant to assert the reduction of minimum
statutory damages under this subdivision only once for each
area or structure inspected by a CASp.
8)Provides that if the defendant fails to correct, within 120
days of the date of the inspection, all construction-related
violations in the area or structure inspected by the CASp, the
defendant shall not receive any reduction of minimum statutory
damages.
9)Requires the State Architect to do the following:
a) Publish and regularly update, on its existing Internet
Web site, an easily accessible list of small businesses
that have filed a notice that they have obtained a CASp
inspection.
b) Develop a process by which businesses may notify the
State Architect of an inspection by a certified access
specialist indicating "CASp determination pending" or
"Inspected by a CASp," which shall include the date of the
notification, the date of the inspection, and a description
of the structure or area inspected.
c) Develop a form for businesses to notify the public that
the business has obtained a CASp inspection, which shall
SB 251
Page 11
include the date of the notification, the date of the
inspection, and a description of the structure or area
inspected.
10)Provides that the "area or structure inspected" by a CASp
means either the interior of the premises, the exterior of the
premises, or the interior and exterior of the premises.
11)Makes the enactment of this bill contingent upon the
enactment of AB 1521 (Assembly Judiciary Committee), which
gives new tools to small businesses and seeks to limit the
practice by high-frequency litigants of filing lawsuits to
obtain quick settlements with business owners, rather than to
correct violations of construction-related accessibility
standards.
EXISTING LAW: 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. Section
12182.)
1)Pursuant to the 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. A violation of
this section 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 may determine to
SB 251
Page 12
be proper. (Civil Code Section 51 et seq. All further
statutory references are to the California Civil Code, unless
otherwise indicated.)
2)Provides that individuals with disabilities or medical
conditions have the same right as the general public to the
full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks,
walkways, public buildings, medical facilities, including
hospitals, clinics and physicians' offices, public facilities
and other public places. It also provides that a violation of
an individual's rights under the ADA constitutes a violation
of state law. (Section 54.)
3)Provides that individuals with disabilities shall be entitled
to full and equal access to public accommodations, subject
only to the conditions and limitations established by law, or
state or federal regulation, and applicable alike to all
persons. It further provides that individuals with
disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access to all
housing accommodations offered for rent or lease, subject to
conditions and limitations established by law. (Section
54.1.)
4)Provides that a violation of the ADA also constitutes a
violation of Section 54.1. A violation of Section 54.1
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 55.)
5)Provides the California Commission on Disability Access
(Commission), an independent state agency composed of 19
members, with general responsibility for monitoring disability
access compliance in California, and with authority to make
recommendations to the Legislature for necessary changes in
order to facilitate implementation of state and federal laws
SB 251
Page 13
on disability access. (Gov. 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)Prohibits such a demand letter from including a request or
demand for money or an offer or agreement to accept money,
unless the claim involves a physical injury or special
damages. After receiving a duly-provided demand letter, a
building owner, tenant, authorized agent or employee may
request a settlement figure or specification of damages. Upon
such a request, an attorney may present a settlement figure or
specification of damages. (Section 55.31.)
9)Requires, until January 1, 2016, an attorney to submit a copy
of the complaint to the Commission and the State Bar, and
subjects the attorney to disciplinary action for violation.
(Section 55.31.)
10)Requires the Commission to review and report on the demand
letters and complaints it receives until January 1, 2016.
SB 251
Page 14
Also requires the State Bar, commencing July 31, 2013, and
annually each July 31 thereafter, to report specified
information to the Legislature regarding the demand letters
that it receives. (Section 55.31)
11)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: (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 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 CASp; or (C) a defendant who is a small business, as
described. The stay to the construction-related accessibility
claim, as provided, may be for 90-days unless the plaintiff
has obtained temporary injunctive relief. (Section 55.54.)
12)Authorizes a defendant who does not qualify for an early
evaluation conference 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.)
13)Requires a local planning agency to employ or retain at least
one building inspector who is a CASp a local building
department to employ or retain a sufficient number of building
inspectors who are CASps. (Section 55.53.)
14)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
SB 251
Page 15
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.)
15)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.)
16)Reduces a defendant's minimum liability for statutory damages
in a construction-related accessibility claim against a place
of public accommodation to $1,000 for each unintentional
offense if 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
other specified conditions apply, and reduces that minimum
liability to $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, as
specified. (Section 55.56.)
17)Requires the Department of General Services to make a
biannual adjustment to financial criteria defining a small
business for these purposes, and to post those adjusted
amounts on its Internet Web site. (Section 55.56.)
18)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
SB 251
Page 16
CASp. (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
- 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, 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
SB 251
Page 17
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
circumstances of the case) apply.
Media coverage and objective data give different perspectives
about the magnitude of the problem sought to be addressed by
this bill. 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
SB 251
Page 18
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
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.
What can be done or should be done about (the small number of)
SB 251
Page 19
plaintiffs and 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. 2007) 500
F.3d 1047. Molski, the plaintiff, 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 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.)
At the same time, there is no evidence that lawsuits filed by
high-frequency litigants, such as Molski, 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 Commission, 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 reviewed identified a single
SB 251
Page 20
violation, such as a soap or seat cover dispenser being too
high.
While the Molski case shows that existing law provides
businesses with a way to deal with a vexatious litigant, the
process is difficult. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
observed in Molski, obtaining a "pre-filing order" is an
"extreme remedy that should rarely be used." (Molski v.
Evergreen Dynasty Corp., supra, at p. 1059.) The author of this
bill (like the Committee, in AB 1521) observes that other tools
are necessary to protect small businesses from high-frequency
litigants and encourage compliance with the 25 year-old state
and federal laws. Therefore, the author proposes a number of
changes to the law in this bill, as it is amended, that
appropriately balance the rights of the disabled community and
the interests of business owners, provide financial relief to
small businesses, and encourage compliance with
construction-related accessibility standards so that disabled
consumers can exercise their rights to fully and equally access
public accommodations in the state.
Rebuttable presumption that certain "technical violations" do
not cause a person difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment for
the purpose of an award of minimum statutory damages in a
construction-related accessibility claim. This bill establishes
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 all
three of the following conditions precedent are satisfied: (1)
the defendant is a small business, (2) the defendant has
corrected, within 15 days of the service of a summons and
complaint asserting a construction-related accessibility claim
or receipt of a written notice, whichever is earlier, all of the
technical violations that are the basis of the claim, and (3)
the claim is based on one or more of the following violations:
SB 251
Page 21
a)Interior signs, other than directional signs or signs that
identify the location of accessible elements, facilities, or
features, when all such elements, facilities or features are
accessible.
b)The lack of exterior signs, other than parking signs and,
directional signs (including, signs that indicate the location
of accessible pathways or entrance and exit doors when not all
pathways, entrance and exit doors are accessible).
c)The order in which parking signs are placed or the exact
location or wording of parking signs, provided that the
parking sign is clearly visible and indicates the location of
accessible parking and van-accessible parking.
d)The color of parking signs, provided that the color of the
background contrasts with the color of the information on the
sign.
e)The color of parking lot striping, provided that it exists and
provides sufficient contrast with the surface upon which it is
applied to be reasonably visible.
f)Faded, chipped, damaged or deteriorated paint in otherwise
fully compliant parking spaces and passenger access aisles in
parking lots, provided that it indicates the required
dimensions of a parking space or access aisle in a manner that
is reasonably visible.
g)The presence or condition of detectable warning surfaces on
ramps, except where the ramp is part of a pedestrian path of
travel that intersects with a vehicular lane or other
hazardous area.
SB 251
Page 22
The presumption affects the plaintiff's burden of proof. This
is appropriate because a "presumption affecting the burden of
proof is a presumption established to implement some public
policy other than to facilitate the determination of the
particular action in which the presumption is applied."
(Evidence Code Section 605.) As a practical matter, the
presumption means that the plaintiff will recover no minimum
statutory damages for these specific violations. However, the
presumption is rebuttable, rather than conclusive. This is also
appropriate because some of these conditions could, in some
circumstances, cause a person difficulty, discomfort or
embarrassment for the purpose of awarding the plaintiff minimum
statutory damages. Therefore, it is appropriate to allow a
plaintiff to overcome the presumption with evidence showing, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she did, in fact,
experience difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment on the
particular occasion as a result of one or more of the technical
violations listed above.
There are aspects of this provision that are troubling to the
Committee. First, it could be interpreted by some that these
"technical violations" are not real violations of the ADA, when
they clearly are. Even if a business met the conditions
precedent and qualified for this presumption by correcting these
violations within 15 days, the business could still be sued in
federal court during that 15-day period. Second, this provision
establishes some precedent that a business is not liable for
violations about which the business is notified and has an
opportunity to cure. This Committee has consistently rejected
such proposals. Finally, this provision opens the door to the
possibility that the Legislature may expand the list of
"technical violations" in the future to the point that they are
no longer technical and are substantial.
According to the author, this provision seeks to address the
SB 251
Page 23
problem of high-frequency litigants who file
construction-related accessibility lawsuits based upon
conditions usually present on the exterior of premises, such as
signs that are posted in an incorrect manner, faded or chipped
striping of parking spaces, and signs that are the wrong color.
As now in print, this provision is vague and could be
interpreted to mean, for example, that striping to indicate
disabled parking spaces could be completely absent and still
constitute a "technical violation." As amended, the bill now
provides specificity and guidance about the specific types of
minor violations that are considered "technical." Furthermore,
unlike the version of the bill that is now in print, the
amendments allow a plaintiff to prove that one or more of these
"technical violations" did, in fact, cause difficulty,
discomfort or embarrassment for the purpose of awarding the
plaintiff minimum statutory damages. Because of the revised and
more specific language in the amendments, this provision appears
to be sufficiently limited that it will help small businesses
avoid paying minimum statutory damages to high-frequency
litigants who sue them for truly trivial and inconsequential
matters without violating the access rights of disabled
consumers.
Protection for a small business that obtains a CASp inspection
against liability for violations of accessibility standards that
occur in the 120 day period after the inspection. This bill
protects a small business from liability for minimum statutory
damages for violations of construction-related accessibility
standards during the 120 day period after the businesses obtains
a CASp inspection of the interior, the exterior, or the entirety
of the premises. The 120-day protection period only exists if
all of the following conditions are satisfied:
a)The defendant is a small business.
b)The structure or area of the alleged violation was the subject
of an inspection report indicating "CASp determination
pending" or "Inspected by a CASp."
SB 251
Page 24
c)The CASp inspection report was provided to the defendant
within 30 days of the inspection.
d)The inspection predates the filing of the claim by, or receipt
of a demand letter from, the plaintiff regarding the alleged
violation of a construction-related accessibility standard,
and the defendant was not on notice of the alleged violation
prior to the CASp inspection because of a previous CASp
inspection of the premises, or other reasons.
e)Within seven days of the date of the inspection, the defendant
files a notice with the State Architect for listing on the
State Architect's Internet Web site, stating that the
defendant has obtained a CASp inspection, the date of the
filing, and the date of the inspection; and the State
Architect posts the information on a publically accessible
area of its website within seven days of the date of receiving
the notice from the defendant.
f)The defendant posted a notice, in a form prescribed by the
State Architect, in a conspicuous location within five feet of
all public entrances to the building on the date of the
inspection and kept it in place until the earlier of the
following: 120 days after the date of the inspection, or the
date when all of the construction-related violations in the
area or structure inspected by the CASp are corrected.
g)The defendant has corrected, within 120 days of the date of
the inspection, all construction-related violations in the
area or structure inspected by the CASp that are the basis of
the claim.
SB 251
Page 25
This provision allows the business to identify and correct
violations during that 120-day period. It does not preclude a
lawsuit by a plaintiff who suffers actual damages (i.e. from an
injury) on the premises of the business during the 120-day
period. The provision would not impact such a plaintiff's
ability to recover those damages. Furthermore, it does not
protect a business that does not correct violations on the
premises during the 120-day period, providing that if the
defendant fails to correct, within 120 days of the date of the
inspection, all construction-related violations in the area or
structure inspected by the CASp, the defendant shall not receive
any reduction of minimum statutory damages. Also, a defendant
is allowed to assert the reduction of minimum statutory damages
set forth here only once for each area or structure inspected by
a CASp.
Enactment of this bill is contingent upon enactment of AB 1521,
authored by this Committee. The enactment of this bill is
contingent upon the enactment of AB 1521, authored by this
Committee, which is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
As recently amended, AB 1521 seeks to give new tools to small
businesses for responding to construction-related accessibility
claims and to limit the practice of high-volume lawsuits
motivated by the goal of obtaining quick settlements with
business owners, rather than correcting violations of
construction-related accessibility standards. It accomplishes
the former goal by providing notice to the defendant and a form
answer to the business, setting forth the ways the business may
be able to reduce its exposure to minimum statutory damages as a
result of the claim. It accomplishes the latter goal by, among
other things, requiring a "high-frequency litigant" (which the
bill defines as a plaintiff who has filed 15 or more complaints
alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within
the 12-month period) to comply with new, special procedural
requirements, including the following:
Comply with special pleading requirements to include the
SB 251
Page 26
following with a complaint: (1) The number of complaints
alleging a construction-related accessibility claim that the
high-frequency litigant has filed during the 12 months prior
to filing the complaint; (2) The reason the individual was in
the geographic area of the defendant's business; (3) The
reason why the individual desired to access the defendant's
business, including the specific commercial, business,
personal, social, leisure, recreational, or other purpose.
If the litigant is represented by an attorney, the attorney
must sign the complaint, certifying, among other things, that
(1) the complaint is not being presented primarily for an
improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary
delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the
claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for
the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or
the establishment of new law; and (3) the allegations and
other factual contentions have evidentiary support.
Significantly, AB 1521 also requires a "high frequency litigant"
to seek and obtain approval of the court with respect to any
settlement of a construction-related accessibility claim against
a small business to determine that the proposed settlement is
lawful, reasonable, and non-collusive. When combined with the
provisions of this bill (as required by contingent enactment),
these changes in the law, if they become law, are likely to
significantly reduce the incidence of lawsuits by high-frequency
litigants, while increasing compliance with accessibility
standards by small businesses in California.
Proposed amendment regarding leases of commercial property and
the requirement for landlords to notify tenants when they are
responsible for the leased or rented property's compliance with
construction-related accessibility standards. As currently in
print, the bill would require the following:
SB 251
Page 27
A commercial property owner or lessor shall state on every
lease form or rental agreement executed on or after January 1,
2016, that, pursuant to Section 36.201 of Title 28 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, the owner or lessor and the tenant are
both responsible for compliance with the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.)
and that responsibility for compliance may be allocated
between the parties by the terms of the lease or other
contract.
According to the author, his admirable goal is to give tenants
notice that they could be liable for the property's compliance
with all applicable construction-related accessibility
standards, so they should be cautious about renting the property
and, presumably, may want to verify that the property does, in
fact, comply with all applicable accessibility standards.
However, the current wording of the lease provision may result
in a consequence unintended by the author by encouraging
landlords to unfairly skirt responsibility for compliance with
accessibility standards in all areas of their property to their
tenants. Therefore, the author has agreed to remove the lease
provision from this bill.
Fortunately, two other pending bills address this important
issue in a manner that is consistent with the author's goal. AB
1342 (Steinorth), which this Committee previously heard and
unanimously passed, enacts a number of provisions related to the
lease and rental of commercial property and, among other things,
requires landlords to disclose whether or not the property being
leased or rented has been inspected by a CASp; to provide a copy
of a CASp inspection report and a CASp inspection certificate
under certain circumstances; and require the lease form or
rental agreement to state the following:
SB 251
Page 28
A Certified Access Specialist (CASp) can inspect the
subject premises and determine whether the subject premises
comply with all of the applicable construction-related
accessibility standards under state law. Although state law
does not require a CASp inspection of the subject premises,
the commercial property owner or lessor may permit the
lessee or tenant to obtain a CASp inspection of the subject
premises for the occupancy or potential occupancy of the
lessee or tenant, at the lessee's or tenant's expense, if
requested by the lessee or tenant. The parties shall
mutually agree on the arrangements for the time and manner
of the CASp inspection.
Furthermore, AB 1521, with which this bill is joined, requires
landlords to reimburse a tenant that qualifies as a
"microbusiness" for the tenant's cost of correcting
construction-related accessibility violations in specified
limited circumstances, specifically in cases where the following
two conditions are satisfied: (1) The construction-related
barrier existed prior to the initiation, renewal, or extension
of the lease which is the basis of the microbusiness tenant's
liability; and (2) The construction-related barrier was created
by parties other than the microbusiness tenant after the
initiation, renewal, or extension of the lease which is the
basis of the microbusiness tenant's liability.
AB 1521 allows the parties to modify this requirement through a
written agreement that may be included as a separate rider to
the lease agreement, setting forth the terms under which the
microbusiness tenant is accepting some or all of the potential
liability for construction-related claims, including, but not
limited to, a grant of the authority for the microbusiness
tenant to modify the structure in order to comply with this
part, and a process for determining the owner's share of the
costs of those modifications. Considering the provisions in AB
1521 (and AB 1342), it appears that the author's intent to
provide tenants with more information about their rights and
SB 251
Page 29
responsibilities can be achieved, despite the removal of the
lease provision from this bill.
Other miscellaneous changes to the law. In addition to the main
provisions of the bill, discussed above, the bill also makes the
following minor changes that are consistent with the author's
intent:
Requires that information about complaints and demand letters
which is required by current law to be submitted by attorneys
to the Commission is submitted in a "standard format specified
by the [Commission]" so that data about accessibility claims
can be more effectively compiled by the Commission and
provided to the Legislature.
Requires the State Architect to publish and regularly update a
list of businesses that have filed a notice with the State
Architect stating that the business has obtained a CASp
inspection and will correct any violations of accessibility
standards within 120 days of the date of the inspection.
Requires a CASp to note, on his or her inspection report, the
date of the inspection.
Extends until January 1, 2019 the following requirements,
scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2016:
For attorneys to send copies of demand letters
regarding violations of construction-related
accessibility standards to the State Bar of California.
For attorneys to send copies of complaints alleging
SB 251
Page 30
violations of construction-related accessibility
standards to the Commission.
For the State Bar of California to report to the
Legislature various information about the complaints and
demand letters it receives from attorneys.
For the Commission to review and report on the
demand letters and complaints it receives from attorneys.
Similar pending 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
is currently in this Committee as a two-year bill.
AB 54 (Olsen) as introduced, provided that statutory damages
recovered in a construction-related accessibility claim based
upon a violation of a construction-related accessibility
standard which has changed within the past three years can only
be recovered by that plaintiff under certain conditions and
allows business owners who spend money to bring a place of
public accommodation into compliance with construction-related
accessibility standards a tax credit of up to $250. This bill
is currently a two-year bill in the Assembly Revenue and
Taxation Committee.
AB 1230 (Gomez) 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
SB 251
Page 31
or retrofit existing small business facilities according to
certain criteria, to comply with the ADA. This bill is
currently in the Senate Business & Professions Committee.
AB 1342 (Steinorth) - provides additional revenue to the
California Commission on Disability Access; requires 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
requires a commercial property owner to provide additional
information to the tenant or lessor about the condition of the
rented or leased property. This bill is currently in the Senate
Governmental Organization 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 ADA, serves as presumptive evidence of
compliance with the ADA. This bill is currently in this
Committee as a two-year bill.
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 as a two-year bill.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
SB 251
Page 32
Support (to the bill in print)
California Chamber of Commerce (co-sponsor)
Consumer Attorneys of California (co-sponsor)
Apartment Association of Orange County
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
CalAsian Chamber of Commerce
California Ambulance Association
California Association of Bed and Breakfast Inns
California Business Properties Association
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
California Grocers Association
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
SB 251
Page 33
California Retailers Association
Camarillo Chamber of Commerce
Chamber of Commerce Alliance of Ventura and Santa Barbara
Counties
Chamber of Commerce Mountain View
Civil Justice Association of California
Coachella Chamber of Commerce
Culver City Chamber of Commerce
East Bay Rental Housing Association
Fairfield-Suisun Chamber of Commerce
Family Business Association
Fullerton Chamber of Commerce
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
Indio Chamber of Commerce
SB 251
Page 34
La Quinta Chamber of Commerce
Moreno Valley Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Theatre Owners of California/Nevada
National Federation of Independent Business
Nor Cal Rental Housing Association
North Valley Property Owners Association
Orange County Business Council
Oxnard Chamber of Commerce
Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce Visitors and Convention
Bureau
SB 251
Page 35
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau
South Bay Association of Chamber of Commerce
South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce
Southwest California Legislative Council
State Farm Automobile Insurance Company
Neutral (as proposed to be amended)
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Opposition (to the bill in print)
California Council for the Blind
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers
Californians for Disability Rights
Disability Rights California
SB 251
Page 36
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
United African-Asian Abilities Club
Analysis Prepared by:Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916)
319-2334