BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1521
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 12, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 1521
(Committee on Judiciary) - As Amended May 6, 2015
SUBJECT: DISABILITY ACCESS: CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACCESSIBILITY
CLAIMS
KEY ISSUE: SHOULD A BUSINESS OWNER WHO IS SUED FOR VIOLATING A
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD RECEIVE MORE
INFORMATION AND RESOURCES ABOUT OPTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO THE
LAWSUIT IN ORDER TO HELP REDUCE THE BUSINESS OWNER'S POTENTIAL
FINANCIAL LIABILITY FOR SUCH A VIOLATION AND TO ANSWER THE
LAWSUIT, IF NECESSARY, WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF AN ATTORNEY?
SYNOPSIS
Like other civil rights statutes that prohibit discrimination in
businesses open to the public, the statutory scheme for
enforcement of disability access laws rests on voluntary
compliance and individual legal actions. There is no
governmental entity charged with administrative or judicial
enforcement of these obligations. Under the 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
AB 1521
Page 2
commerce. Public accommodations in California are required to
comply with not only the ADA, but also with the state's Unruh
Act, which incorporates the ADA into its provisions and makes a
violation of the ADA punishable as a violation of Unruh. All
violations of Unruh are subject to statutory damages of at least
four thousand dollars per violation, except in some cases where
lower damages (a minimum of one thousand or two thousand
dollars, depending on the circumstances of the case) apply.
Current law requires an attorney, when serving a demand letter
or a complaint that alleges a construction-related accessibility
claim or noncompliance, to provide the defendant with a written
notice with each demand letter or complaint. The notice
includes 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, but does not include information
about how the defendant may be able to minimize his or her
financial exposure for an ADA/Unruh Act violation. Also, many
small business owners and unsophisticated defendants may want to
contest the allegations in the complaint, but may not have the
resources to hire an attorney or the tools or information to
respond to the complaint without hiring an attorney. This
non-controversial bill will update the mandatory notice provided
to defendants to provide more helpful information to the
defendant. It also requires the Judicial Council to develop a
new form allowing a defendant to answer a complaint alleging the
violation of a construction-related accessibility standard.
Assuming this bill passes this Committee, it will be referred to
the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SUMMARY: Provides additional information and legal resources to
small business owners who may not realize how to minimize their
liability for ADA violations or respond to a lawsuit filed
against them. Specifically, this bill:
AB 1521
Page 3
1)Revises the notice of rights and responsibilities that is
required by current law to be provided to a defendant
contemporaneously with service of a complaint or demand letter
to advise the defendant that "If you are found to be liable by
a court, you may be able to reduce the amount of money the
court orders you to pay in damages. If you are a small
business owner and correct all of the construction-related
violations that are the basis of the complaint against you
within 30 days of being served with the complaint, you may
qualify for reduced damages. If you believe you qualify for
reduced damages, you may wish to consult an attorney to obtain
legal advice, or contact the California Commission on
Disability Access (CCDA) for additional information about the
rights and obligations of business owners" and requires the
Judicial Council to revise the notice by July 1, 2016.
2)Revises the notice of rights and responsibilities that is
required by current law to be provided to a defendant
contemporaneously with service of a complaint or demand letter
to advise the defendant that "If you are a commercial tenant,
you may not be responsible for ensuring that some or all
portions of the premises you lease for your business
(including common areas, such as parking lots), are accessible
to the public because those areas may be the responsibility of
your landlord. You may want to refer to your lease agreement,
or consult with your landlord or an attorney, to determine if
your landlord is responsible under the terms of your lease for
maintaining and improving some or all of the areas you lease
to operate your business" and requires the Judicial Council to
revise the notice by July 1, 2016.
3)Requires the Judicial Council, by July 1, 2016, to develop a
form to answer the complaint which, among other things, is
required to satisfy the following requirements:
AB 1521
Page 4
a) Be written in plain language;
b) Allow the defendant to state any relevant information
affecting the defendant's liability or damages;
c) Allow the defendant to make specific denials of the
allegations in the complaint, including whether the
plaintiff has demonstrated that he or she was denied full
and equal access to the place of public accommodation on a
particular occasion pursuant to Section 55.56;
d) Allow the defendant to state potential affirmative
defenses.
4)Requires a plaintiff's attorney to provide a defendant with a
copy of the answer form created by the Judicial Council when
serving the defendant with a complaint or demand letter (and
the notice of rights and responsibilities, as required by
existing law).
EXISTING LAW:
1)Pursuant to federal law, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), provides that no individual shall be discriminated
against on the basis of disability in the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations of any place of public
accommodation by any person who owns, leases, or leases to, or
operates a place of public accommodation. (42 U.S.C. 12182.)
2)Pursuant to the state Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh), provides
that all persons, regardless of sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability or medical condition,
AB 1521
Page 5
are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages,
facilities, privileges, or services in all business
establishments of every kind whatsoever. A violation of the
ADA also constitutes a violation of Unruh. (Civil Code
Section 51. All further statutory references are to the
California Civil Code, unless otherwise indicated.)
3)Provides that a violation of Unruh subjects a person to actual
damages incurred by an injured party, treble actual damages
but not less than $4,000, and any attorney's fees as the court
may determine to be proper. (Section 51 et seq.)
4)Provides that a violation of Unruh subjects a person to
injunctive and actual damages - plus treble actual damages but
not less than $1,000, and attorney's fees as the court deems
proper. (Section 54.3.)
5)Provides for a California Commission on Disability Access (the
Commission), an independent state agency composed of 19
members, with responsibility for monitoring disability access
compliance in California and authority to recommend necessary
changes to the Legislature in order to facilitate
implementation of state and federal laws on disability access.
(Government Code Section 8299 et seq.)
6)Requires an attorney, when serving a demand letter or a
complaint on a defendant alleging a construction-related
accessibility claim or noncompliance, to provide a written
advisory with each demand letter or complaint, as defined.
The written advisory shall include information about the
defendant's rights and obligations, including the right of a
qualified defendant to request a stay and an early evaluation
conference regarding the allegations in the complaint. The
written advisory is only required from any attorney, and not
from a pro per plaintiff. (Section 55.3.)
AB 1521
Page 6
7)Requires an attorney alleging the construction-related
accessibility claim or noncompliance to state facts sufficient
to allow the defendant to identify the basis for the claim.
(Section 55.31.)
8)Provides that upon being served with a complaint asserting a
construction-related accessibility claim, a defendant may move
for a court stay and early evaluation conference if the
defendant is any of the following: (A) Until January 1, 2018,
a defendant whose site had new construction or improvement
between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2016 and was approved
pursuant to the local building permit and inspection process;
(B) a defendant whose site had new construction or improvement
that was approved by a local public building department
inspector who is a certified access specialist (CASp); or (C)
a defendant who is a small business. The stay to the
construction-related accessibility claim, as provided, may be
provided for 90-days unless the plaintiff has obtained
temporary injunctive relief. (Section 55.54.)
9)Authorizes a defendant who does not qualify for an early
evaluation conference (EEC) pursuant to these provisions, or
who forgoes those provisions, to request a mandatory
evaluation conference, as specified, and authorizes a
plaintiff to make that request if the defendant does not make
that request. (Section 55.54.)
10)Specifies that a court shall lift the stay when the defendant
has failed to file and serve the CASp inspection report when
required and also did not produce the report at the EEC,
unless good cause for the failure is shown. (Section 55.54.)
11)Specifies that a court may lift the stay at the conclusion of
AB 1521
Page 7
the EEC upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff.
(Section 55.54.)
12)Specifies the court's authority to schedule additional
conferences or to extend the stay for no more than an
additional 90 days, upon a showing of good cause. (Section
55.54.)
13)Provides that the stay and early evaluation conference shall
not be deemed to make any inspection report or opinion of a
CASp binding on the court or to abrogate the court's authority
to make appropriate findings of fact and law. (Section
55.54.)
14)Provides that the stay and early evaluation conference shall
not be construed to invalidate or limit any California
construction-related accessibility standard that provides
greater or equal protection for the rights of persons with
disabilities than is afforded by the ADA and the federal
regulations adopted pursuant to that act. (Section 55.54.)
15)Provides that notwithstanding the requirement that offers of
compromise are privileged and protected under Evidence Code
Section 1152, the court may consider, along with other
relevant information, settlement offers made and rejected by
the parties, in determining an award of reasonable attorney's
fees and recoverable costs in any construction-related
accessibility claim. (Section 55.55.)
16)Provides that statutory damages may be recovered in a
construction-related accessibility claim only if a violation
or violations of one or more construction-related
accessibility standards denied the plaintiff full and equal
access to the place of public accommodation on a particular
AB 1521
Page 8
occasion. Existing law specifies that a plaintiff is denied
full and equal access only if he or she personally encountered
the violation on a particular occasion or was deterred from
accessing the public accommodation on a particular occasion.
(Section 55.56.)
17)Requires the court, in assessing liability in any action
alleging multiple claims for the same construction-related
accessibility violation on different particular occasions, to
consider the reasonableness of the plaintiff's conduct in
light of the plaintiff's obligation, if any, to mitigate
damages. (Section 55.56.)
18)Reduces a defendant's minimum liability for statutory damages
in a construction-related accessibility claim against a place
of public accommodation in the following circumstances:
a) To a minimum of $1,000 for each unintentional offense if
(i) the defendant has corrected all construction-related
violations that are the basis of the claim within 60 days
of being served with the complaint, and (ii) the structure
was either CASp -inspected, or was new construction
approved in the building and permitting process, prior to
the complaint being filed.
b) To a minimum of $2,000 for each unintentional offense if
(i) the defendant has corrected all construction-related
violations that are the basis of the claim within 30 days
of being served with the complaint and (ii) the defendant
is a small business that has 25 or fewer employees and
annual gross receipts of less than three million five
hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000) averaged over the
past three years. (Section 55.56.)
1)Separately defines "small business" for purposes of state
contracting as an independently owned and operated business
AB 1521
Page 9
that is not dominant in its field of operation, the principal
office of which is located in California, the officers of
which are domiciled in California, and which, together with
affiliates, has 100 or fewer employees, and average annual
gross receipts of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) or less
over the previous three years, or is a manufacturer, as
defined in subdivision (c), with 100 or fewer employees (and
regardless of income). (Government Code Section 14837(d)(1).)
2)Defines "qualified defendant" as "a defendant in an action
that includes a construction-related accessibility claim that
is asserted against a place of public accommodation that met
the requirements of "meets applicable standards" or "inspected
by a CASp" prior to the date the defendant was served with the
summons and complaint in that action." (Section 55.52(a)(8).)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS: Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), a business that constitutes a place of public
accommodation (e.g., many places of lodging, entertainment,
recreation, restaurants, bars, theaters, stores, health clubs,
etc.) is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of
disability if its operations affect interstate commerce.
Prohibited discrimination can take a number of forms - e.g.,
denial of participation in the facility, or a service, benefit,
or good of the business; denial of equal participation in a
good, service, or facility; or provision of a different or
separate facility, service or good (unless necessary to provide
services and the like that are as effective as that provided to
others). Government facilities are also covered by the access
obligations of the ADA.
Public accommodations in California are required to comply with
not only the ADA, but also with the state's Unruh Act, which
incorporates the ADA into its provisions and makes a violation
of the ADA punishable as a violation of Unruh. (Section 51.)
AB 1521
Page 10
All violations of Unruh are subject to statutory damages of at
least four thousand dollars per violation, except some cases
where the violation is based on a construction-related
accessibility claim, in which case lower damages (a minimum of
one thousand or two thousand dollars, depending on the
circumstances of the case) apply.
This bill furthers recent bipartisan disability access reform
legislation that was the result of negotiated collaboration and
compromise which provided pre-litigation relief to small
businesses. In response to complaints that small businesses
were the victims of predatory lawsuits alleging ADA violations,
a bipartisan and bicameral effort with disability rights
organizations and business advocates over a period of years
ultimately lead to the adoption of SB 1608 (Corbett and Harman)
in 2008. It was the product of extended and careful
consideration by thoughtful legislators and input and support
from members of the disability and business communities
including Disability Rights California, the California Chamber
of Commerce, the California Foundation for Independent Living
Centers, California Restaurant Association, Business Properties
Association, California Hotel Association, and several others.
SB 1608 enacted several reforms to increase voluntary compliance
with state and federal laws requiring access to the disabled in
any place of public accommodation. It established incentives
for compliance and protection from litigation by responsible
businesses, including a process by which businesses, if sued for
violation of accessibility standards, could obtain a temporary
stay of any litigation along with an in-person early evaluation
conference with the court, attended by persons with authority to
resolve the dispute between the parties, for the purpose of
deterring frivolous cases and evaluating prospects for early
settlement. Moreover, it clarified the standards for awarding
damages and attorney's fees with respect to a claim alleging a
violation of construction-related accessibility standards. It
also required an attorney, when serving a written demand for
AB 1521
Page 11
money or a complaint on a defendant, to include a written
advisory to the defendant of the defendant's rights and
obligations. In addition, the bill required architects to
complete coursework regarding disability access requirements and
imposed continuing education requirements on local building
officials relating to disability access requirements.
Importantly, SB 1608 also established the California Commission
on Disability Access (Commission) "to develop[] recommendations
that will enable persons with disabilities to exercise their
right to full and equal access to public facilities, and that
will facilitate business compliance with the laws and
regulations to avoid unnecessary litigation." (Government Code
section 8299.) Among other things, the Commission was required
to conduct studies and make reports to the Legislature. The
Commission is responsible for monitoring compliance, reporting
and making recommendations to the Legislature. Despite initial
funding difficulties and delays, the Commission now has staff,
has been meeting regularly, and is carrying out its
responsibilities.
Four years after SB 1608 was signed into law, Senate Bill 1186
enacted a number of additional reforms to the laws governing
construction-related accessibility claims. According to the
Senate Judiciary Committee's analysis of SB 1186, Senator and
President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, who was the joint
author of the bill, described it as follows [emphasis added]:
SB 1186 is a compromise that applies a common sense
approach to resolve difficult issues. It maintains the
hard-fought civil rights of the disabled community while
helping to protect California businesses from predatory
demand for money letters and lawsuits. Support for
important laws like the Unruh Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act are weakened when those laws are abused
for personal gain. This measure bans the unscrupulous
AB 1521
Page 12
practice of 'demand for money' letters, stops the stacking
of claims based on alleged repeat violations to force a
business into a quick settlement, while encouraging
businesses to fix their violations to comply with the law.
Thus, SB 1186 provides some relief to businesses who show
good faith in trying to follow the law and are willing to
correct the violation, which ultimately promotes compliance
and brings greater access to the disabled community.
Senator Dutton, the Senate Minority Leader and joint author of
SB 1186, described the bill as:
. . . the culmination of months of hard work with staff and
all the various stakeholders in the community. [The bill]
will not only provide a reasonable amount of time for small
businesses to fix minor infractions, but will also help
expand the California Access Specialist Program in
California and provide any more tools for businesses to
comply with this vital civil rights law.
The policy goal of SB 1186, according to the authors, was "to
incentivize property owners to correct their violations, as
opposed to settling the case and doing nothing, by reducing the
minimum statutory damages and potential attorney's fees award to
the plaintiff when they correct the violation."
Finally, SB 1186 gave defendants the option to request an early
evaluation conference (EEC) and an immediate and mandatory stay
of the proceedings, similar to the litigation protections now
given to a qualified defendant who hired a CASp to inspect the
property and issue a report on its compliance status. A
mandatory stay would freeze the litigation at the point of the
court order, which arguably freezes the plaintiff's attorney's
fees at that point. An EEC could be useful to end a case at an
early stage, particularly when the defendant has corrected the
AB 1521
Page 13
alleged violation.
This bill, like these earlier bipartisan measures, seeks to
encourage small business owners to bring their properties into
compliance with the ADA and Unruh. Specifically, it provides
business owners with information about the benefits of obtaining
CASp inspections, including their ability to request a stay of
proceedings in order to obtain a CASp inspection and reduce the
damages to which they are exposed.
Recent and objective evidence about the magnitude of ADA/Unruh
litigation. California has approximately 3.3 million small
businesses. According to data compiled by the Commission, from
January 2014 until January 2015, 3,468 demand letters and
complaints were filed in the state. This means that less than
one percent of small businesses (and a far smaller percentage of
all businesses) were sued in 2014 for violations of
construction-related accessibility standards.
Nevertheless, some of the information reported to the Commission
is alarming in terms of the number and frequency of
construction-related accessibility lawsuits being filed by a
small number of law firms in California. According to the
Commission, between September 2012 and October 2014, 5,392
complaints (including demand letters) were filed (in both state
and federal courts). More than half (54%) of the complaints
were filed by just two law firms. Forty-six percent of all
complaints were filed by just 14 parties.
However, data from the Commission shows that more attorneys are
choosing to file lawsuits in federal court, perhaps to avoid
complying with California-specific requirements, such as sending
demand letters to the Commission and the State Bar.
Interestingly, the Commission reports that the state's total
share of complaints and demand letters has gone down. Between
AB 1521
Page 14
September 2012 and December 2013, state complaints/demand
letters represented 68% of all the complaints/demand letters
that the Commission received. However, between January 2014 and
October 2014, state complaints/demand letters represented only
46% of all complaints/demand letters that the Commission
received.
What can be done or should be done about (the small number of)
attorneys who file large numbers of Unruh Act-ADA lawsuits? The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Molski v.
Evergreen Dynasty Corp. (9th Cir. 2008) 521 F.3d 1215. Molski
was paralyzed from the chest down, needed a wheelchair to get
around, and filed about 400 lawsuits in the federal courts
within the districts in California. (Id. at p. 1051.) Upon
motion of the defendant businesses (including the named
defendant, a restaurant) the district court declared Molski a
vexatious litigant and granted the defendants' request for a
pre-filing order (requiring court approval before Molski could
file additional lawsuits). (Ibid.) The Ninth Circuit
acknowledged that "pre-filing orders are an extreme remedy that
should rarely be used" and that courts "should not enter
pre-filing orders with undue haste because such sanctions can
tread on a litigant's due process right of access to the
courts." (Id. at p. 1057.) Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit
upheld the order, finding that it was within the district
court's power, "In light of the district court's finding that
Molski did not suffer the injuries he claimed . . . to conclude
that the large number of complaints filed by Molski containing
false or exaggerated allegations of injury were vexatious" and
the pre-filing requirement could be issued. (Id. at p. 1059.)
Also, there is no evidence that these lawsuits are "frivolous."
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "frivolous" as "of little
weight or importance," or "having no sound basis (as in fact or
law) ." In other words, a lawsuit alleging
a violation of the Unruh Act because of a denial of access would
only be "frivolous" if it had no basis in the law (i.e. it did
AB 1521
Page 15
not state an actual violation). In fact, there is no evidence
that the complaints which are filed are without merit.
According to data collected by the California Commission on
Disability Access, most complaints identify multiple access
violations. For example, of the cases filed in July 2014, most
complaints identified multiple or significant single violations,
such as missing grab bars. Only two out of 201 complaints
identified a single issue, such as a soap or seat cover
dispenser being too high. Also, the most commonly cited
violations involve parking spaces, areas over which commercial
landlords have responsibility.
Taken together, the information about the high number of
complaints being filed by a very small number of plaintiffs AND
the fact that courts now have the power and authority to limit
the ability of vexatious litigants to file serial Unruh-ADA
complaints, it seems clear that the rights of the vulnerable
should not be sacrificed because of the despicable conduct of a
few bad actors. Also, courts clearly have tools to limit
vexatious litigation, but they will never be able to use those
tools as long as businesses settle, rather than litigate,
complaints.
This bill will help combat the problem of serial Unruh-ADA
litigation in two ways. First of all, early and easy settlement
by business owners is a problem because it fuels the unethical
attorneys whose business model is easy settlement. Business
owners, especially small businesses that are tenants in larger
shopping centers, may not be liable for the damages they think
they are exposed to. Landlords are responsible for maintaining
parking lots in these complexes and are more likely to have the
resources and wherewithal to litigate or settle claims and to
bring the property into compliance. Second, the availability of
a new answer form will allow the business owner to respond to
the lawsuit and, in cases where it's necessary or appropriate,
to do so without hiring an attorney.
AB 1521
Page 16
This bill would improve information available to businesses
about how and why they may qualify for the reduced statutory
damages and may not be responsible for ensuring that common
areas are accessible. Current law provides reduced damages (a
minimum of $2,000 for each unintentional offense) if the
defendant has corrected all construction-related violations that
are the basis of the claim within 30 days of being served with
the complaint and the defendant is a small business that has 25
or fewer employees and annual gross receipts of less than three
million five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000) averaged over
the past three years. (Section 55.56.)
All stakeholders agree that the vast majority of these cases
never get to the point where a court makes any determination of
damages. In fact, one of the few things about which all sides
agree is that the vast majority of these cases settle out of
court and never even reach the stage of a settlement conference.
The only possible solution is to find ways to increase
compliance with accessibility standards, educate business owners
about their rights and responsibilities, and give small
businesses and pro per defendants additional legal tools to
protect themselves. This bill provides business owners with a
new legal tool and additional information about their rights.
This bill may slow the rate and number of lawsuits filed by the
small number of attorneys who file large numbers of Unruh
Act-ADA lawsuits. It is clear that a very small number of law
firms files a very large and disproportionate share of Unruh-ADA
lawsuits in California. At the same time, courts have tools to
discourage vexatious litigation and recent reforms have not been
given adequate time to be tested. The Legislature should not
further sacrifice the rights of the disabled to deal with this
problem, the best course of action would appear to be public
policy proposals that do more of the following: (1) increase
compliance by public accommodations with construction-related
accessibility standards; (2) increase information about rights
and responsibilities that businesses have under Unruh; (3)
discourage settlements by businesses of cases that either do not
AB 1521
Page 17
have merit or involve vexatious litigants; and (4) encourage
defendants to seek court orders against vexatious litigants like
the one issued against Molski.
This bill will further several of these goals. An updated
notice will provide defendants with more information about their
rights and responsibilities. The new answer form will
discourage quick settlement of inflated claims and exaggerated
settlement offers by giving the defendant business not only a
way to respond to the complaint (and engage in effective
negotiations with the plaintiff), but also information about how
to limit his or her liability. This new form will be especially
helpful to small businesses with limited financial resources
because those businesses may not be able to afford to hire an
attorney.
Similar pending legislation. AB 54 (Olsen) - provides a tax
credit under the Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax
Law to any taxpayer who obtains a certified access specialist
inspection. This bill is currently in Assembly Revenue and
Taxation.
AB 1230 (Gomez) - establishes, among other things, the
California Americans with Disabilities Act Small Business
Compliance Finance Act, which would provide loans, funded in
part by bond issuances, to assist small businesses finance the
costs of projects that alter or retrofit existing small business
facilities to comply with the federal American with Disabilities
Act. This bill is currently in Assembly Appropriations.
AB 1342 (Steinorth) - provides, among other things, additional
revenue to the California Commission on Disability Access. This
bill is currently in Assembly Appropriations.
AB 1521
Page 18
AB 1468 (Baker) - provides, among other things, that a public
entity's possession of a close out letter from the State
Architect certifying that the buildings, facilities, and other
places meet the applicable construction-related accessibility
standards of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, serves
as presumptive evidence of compliance with the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act. This bill is currently in this Committee
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.
SB 251 (Roth) - among other things, provides that a business is
not liable for violating a construction-related liability
standard if the business is an inspected CASp site and the
violation is corrected within 90 days of receiving the
above-described written inspection report from a CASp. This
bill is currently in Senate Judiciary.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California
AB 1521
Page 19
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc.
Consumer Attorneys of California
Disability Rights California
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334