BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1406
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1406
(Mendoza) - As Amended June 23, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Judiciary |Vote:|10 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill:
1)Requires an attorney, when serving a prelitigation letter or a
SB 1406
Page 2
complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility claim
or noncompliance by an education entity, to submit a copy of
the demand letter and complaint to the California Commission
on Disability Access (CCDA) within five business days and in a
standard format specified by the commission.
2)Requires the attorney to also notify and provide specified
information to the CCDA within five business days of judgment,
settlement, or dismissal of the claim or claims alleged in the
complaint.
3)Requires the CCDA to review and report on the demand letters,
complaints, and notifications of case outcomes it receives in
the same manner as it does, under current law, for
construction-related accessibility claims against places of
public accommodation.
FISCAL EFFECT:
This bill mirrors similar duties already imposed on the CCDA and
will likely involve a relatively small number of notifications,
as there is a much smaller universe of potential defendants that
could receive such claims. Any costs directly related to this
bill should therefore be minor. (See #3 below regarding the
CCDA's apparent budget challenges.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was
signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H.W.
Bush. As part of the 1992 reformation of state disability law,
the Legislature amended the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act to
incorporate by reference the ADA, making violations of the ADA
SB 1406
Page 3
also violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Title III of
the ADA is therefore applicable via the Unruh Civil Rights Act
because it applies to businesses and nonprofit service
providers that are public accommodations, such as restaurants,
retail stores, hotels, movie theatres, private schools,
convention centers, doctors' offices, and recreation
facilities.
Claims against government services, programs and activities,
or "Title II cases," which are governed by different rules,
regulations, and enforcement mechanisms than the Title III
cases involving private businesses, are the subject of this
bill. Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the
basis of disability in all services, programs, and activities
provided to the public by state and local governments, and is
expressly incorporated into state law pursuant to the
California Disabled Persons Act (DPA). A violation of the DPA
is punishable by "up to a maximum of three times the amount of
actual damages but in no case less than $1,000, and attorney's
fees as may be determined by the court.
2)Purpose. According to the author, this bill is necessary to
address a recent rise in the number of lawsuits filed against
educational institutions, specifically community colleges. The
author notes that, "These types of lawsuits can result in
facility modifications and upgrades that are not in alignment
with existing facilities transition plans, ignore the
availability of funding for repairs, and instead put a strain
on a district's general fund, thereby affecting programs and
services offered to students. In addition to the cost
associated with the repairs, community colleges have incurred
significant costs from the legal fees associated with these
lawsuits."
There is currently a lack of statewide data, however,
regarding the frequency of such claims. In order to obtain
SB 1406
Page 4
such data, this bill is modeled after current law, which
requires attorneys who send demand letters or complaints to
business owners regarding violations of construction-related
accessibility claims in places of public accommodation to
provide specific notifications and information to the CCDA.
1)CCDA Workload and Budget.
3)In 2015, the CCDA received approximately 3,000 demand letters
and complaints alleging construction-related accessibility
violations against places of public accommodation. As a
result of AB 1521 (Committee on Judiciary), Chapter 755,
Statutes of 2015, the commission has also begun receiving
notifications of judgments, settlements, and dismissals; it
received 124,171, and 243 notices in October, November, and
December of 2015, respectively. Commission workload has been
impacted by the passage of AB 1521, as the CCDA is required to
do additional research and analysis to match resolution
notices with original alleged violations, and compile and
report the collective data. In the recently enacted 2016-17
Budget Act, the CCDA received a $100,000 budget augmentation
for one position to manage the increased workload associated
with AB 1521.
The commission asserts that SB 1406 would further increase
workload and drive additional automation costs to move from a
manual data processing to a digital capture format. The CCDA
also believes it would require at least one additional staff
position plus administrative support, at a cost of
approximately $150,000, and may need two positions plus
part-time legal staff assistance, if the Legislature intends
the Commission to be a true research and analysis operation,
SB 1406
Page 5
rather than performing simple data reporting functions. Much
of the CCDA's current work is performed with the assistance of
volunteer support for its projects, which is neither reliable
nor sustainable. Finally, the commission indicates that the
bill creates cost pressures to move to a larger office space,
at estimated additional costs of $80,000 (one-time) to move
and $160,000 ongoing for increased rent.
As discussed above, given the relatively small additional
workload associated with this bill, especially in relation to
the commission's existing responsibilities, the costs
described above appear to reflect possible deficiencies in the
commission's existing budget.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081