BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1406|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1406
Author: Mendoza (D)
Amended: 6/23/16
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/19/16
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning,
Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/27/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen
SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 5/31/16
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block,
Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall,
Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson,
Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning,
Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Stone,
Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/11/16 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Construction-related accessibility: education
entities
SOURCE: Rancho Santiago Community College District
DIGEST: This bill requires an attorney who provides a
prelitigation letter or sends or serves a complaint alleging a
construction-related accessibility claim, as defined, against an
education entity, as defined, to send a copy of the
SB 1406
Page 2
prelitigation letter or complaint to the California Commission
on Disability Access (CCDA) within five business days, and
requires the attorney to additionally submit information about
the complaint, and further requires the attorney to submit the
notification of judgment, settlement, or dismissal to the CCDA.
This bill subjects an attorney who fails to comply with these
requirements to discipline.
Assembly Amendments limit the provisions of the bill to
education entities, replace "demand letter" with "prelitigation
letter," add provisions related to attorney discipline, and
clarifies the duties of the CCDA with regard to the information
this bill requires to be collected.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
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. Sec. 12182.)
2)Declares, under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, 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, and entitles persons to $4000 minimum
statutory damages for violations of Unruh. (Civ. Code Sec. 51
et seq.)
3)Provides that individuals with disabilities or medical
SB 1406
Page 3
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. (Civ. Code Secs. 54, 54.1.)
4)Provides that a violation of the ADA also constitutes a
violation of Sections 54 or 54.1, and entitles a prevailing
party to recover reasonable attorney's fees. (Civ. Code Sec.
55.)
5)Prohibits 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 and special damages, and
provides that a violation of this provision constitutes cause
for attorney discipline. (Civ. Code Sec. 55.31.)
6)Requires, until January 1, 2019, an attorney to submit a copy
of any demand letter to the Commission and the State Bar, and
to submit a copy of a complaint to the Commission, and
subjects the attorney to possible disciplinary action for
violations of this requirement. (Civ. Code Sec. 55.32.)
This bill:
1)Requires an attorney, when serving a prelitigation letter or a
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 CCDA within five
business days and in a standard format specified by the CCDA.
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
SB 1406
Page 4
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.
4)Provides that a violation of the provisions above shall
constitute cause for the imposition of discipline of an
attorney, as specified.
Background
Since 1969, persons with disabilities have enjoyed protection
under Civil Code Sections 54 and 54.1, which entitle individuals
with disabilities and medical conditions to full and free access
to and use of roadways, sidewalks, buildings and facilities open
to the public, hospitals and medical facilities, and housing.
After Congress enacted the ADA in 1990, the state made a
violation of the ADA also constitute a violation of Section 54
or 54.1 and of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, either of
which subject a person to actual damages incurred by an injured
party, plus treble actual damages, but in no event less than
$4,000.
The California Legislature has taken further steps to ensure
disability access laws are complied with. SB 262 (Kuehl,
Chapter 872, Statutes of 2003) established in the Division of
the State Architect, a voluntary "access specialist
certification program" in order to assist business and property
owners in complying with ADA and state access laws. Since that
time, several bills have been introduced that would have
precluded an action for damages for a de minimus violation,
SB 1406
Page 5
allowing only injunctive relief and attorney's fees. All of
those bills failed passage in the Judiciary Committees of their
respective houses.
In 2012, Senators Steinberg and Dutton authored SB 1186 (Chapter
383, Statutes of 2012) which sought to comprehensively address
continued issues with disability litigation. SB 1186 created a
number of protections for small businesses and defendants who
had, prior to a claim being filed, sought out a Certified Access
Specialist inspection. These protections included reduced
minimum statutory damages, early evaluation conferences, and
mandatory stays of court proceedings while the violations were
corrected. That bill also prevented the stacking of multiple
claims to increase damages, banned pre-litigation demands for
money, and increased data collection regarding alleged access
violations. SB 1406, seeking to better understand the number and
type of construction-related accessibility claims that are being
brought against public schools, requires that an attorney who
sends a prelitigation letter to an education entity must include
specified information and send a copy to the CCDA.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, 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.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/12/16)
Rancho Santiago Community College District (source)
Civil Justice Association of California
Coast Community College District
Community College League of California
Foothill-De Anza Community College District
Kings Canyon Unified School District
SB 1406
Page 6
Los Rios Community College District
Orange County Community College Legislative Task Force
Riverside Community College District
San Diego Community College District
San Joaquin Delta College
San Mateo Community College District
South Orange Community College District
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/12/16)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Rancho Santiago Community College
District, sponsor, argues that "public entities, such as RSCCD,
receive funding from the State, local tax revenue, and fees paid
by the students. Therefore, the cost [of these law suits] is
ultimately burdened by the classroom, students, and day-to-day
teaching necessities."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/11/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,
Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth
Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto,
Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper,
Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine,
Linder, Lopez, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Roger Hernández, Low
Prepared by:Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
8/15/16 10:02:14
SB 1406
Page 7
**** END ****