Bill would give businesses time to comply with ADA without penalty

[mark handler]

Bill would give businesses time to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act without penalty

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

June 03, 2015 -

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/7d0b006e85ed429a90254cda2e8a5140/CA--Disability-Rights

SACRAMENTO, California — California businesses would have time to fix violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act without facing penalties under a bill advancing in the Legislature.

SB251 is the latest effort to rein in what one senator called predatory attorneys who threaten lawsuits against non-complying businesses.

It would give businesses 15 days to fix signs and 90 days to fix other problems before ADA challenges could begin.

Sen. Richard Roth says his bill will also give businesses training and compliance assistance, including a tax credit up to $5,000 for improvements.

The Senate passed it unanimously Wednesday, sending it to the Assembly.

That chamber passed a bill a day earlier that would make state loans available to businesses to comply with ADA laws. AB1230 now heads to the Senate.

 

[Msradell]

I understand wanting to help businesses comply without having to pay huge legal fees but, as has been stated many times here they've already had over 20 years to comply. What makes you think they will comply if they get another 90 days?

 

[mark handler]

What makes you think they will comply if they get another 90 days?

 

[mark handler]

They won't. But it is the big excuse of the week

 

[mtlogcabin]

What makes you think they will comply if they get another 90 days?

It stays off the predators and and gives time for compliance without having to pay the blackmail demands. Better use of the funds.

As for the "they've already had over 20 years to comply" give it up. There are 1,000's of licensed practicing architects who can't get the accessibility requirements correct on their designs and you expect a business owner who has never read the ADA to be compliant.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

I understand wanting to help businesses comply without having to pay huge legal fees but, as has been stated many times here they've already had over 20 years to comply. What makes you think they will comply if they get another 90 days?

Number 1, once they get a warning, they become aware. Now they may have to prioritize, or if they can't afford it they can fulfill the wishes of a few sour stomachs on this forum and go out of business.

It removes the motivation of many of the "handicapped" a55holes and their attorneys to attack for a quick payday. I think that is glorious. So now if someone lodges a complaint we can assume the motivation is pure and not driven by some lowlife desire to make money or run a crusade. It is nothing but positive, and culls out the dipshlttery.

All ADA proponents should be behind this 100% and will simply lend new credibility to your "cause".

If you are against it you are exposed as a business hater.

Brent.

 

[ADAguy]

Won't work unless and intil the "word" gets out to all brick and mortar landlords, their management companies amd realtors on a regula basis and tie in issuance and renewal of business licenses to it.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Won't work unless and intil the "word" gets out to all brick and mortar landlords, their management companies amd realtors on a regula basis and tie in issuance and renewal of business licenses to it.

Let me understand.

To get a business license someone has to come inspect the premises and make sure it complies. Is that the building departent?

Or are you saying the owner must provide a certificate stating his facilities are compliant before a new license is released?

Since he probably is not qualified because ADA requirements are so arcane and in-depth, are you suggesting a certified casp must inspect the facility, generate a plan of compliance, wherein the owner must then affect the changes required? Since you technically as I understand it, are not required to affect changes past a certain amount, do you then have to aquire a financial assessment to then decide what you may be liable to do?

So when all this is going on, with building departments, Casp inspectors,financial assessors, attorneys representing an owner and leasors, as this shltstorm runs it course, and of course this whole debacle of course will run its convoluted way smoother than Charlise Theron's fine toned glistening body, in there you won't issue a business license?

What, pray tell, do you do to the guy that does not own the building and may have been established there for decades? He should just move, huh?

Nope, nope, effing no.

The above legislation is the most reasonable course of action to address this ADA retardation.

Brent.

 

[jdfruit]

We could all learn a lot from how a majority of States handle the issues and their legal framework. Does anyone have enough info or a source to get the info?

 

[mtlogcabin]

We could all learn a lot from how a majority of States handle the issues and their legal framework. Does anyone have enough info or a source to get the info?

It is only a state issue if the states such as CA have made it their issue through adopting laws.

ADA is a federal law and therefore a federal issue

 

[ADAguy]

Massachachutes is the most advanced state in this regard, dating back to 1967 with a governor supported program still in place that created committees of citizen volunteers to inspect businesses pre-ADA.

Works quite well.

Though ADA is a Federal law, it remains for the individaul ststes to choose (or not) to incorporate it into their state laws so that enforcement can become a state matter.

Think, if this had been followed back in 67' how much farther along we would be? The political process can be/is very cumbersom.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Though ADA is a Federal law, it remains for the individaul ststes to choose (or not) to incorporate it into their state laws so that enforcement can become a state matter.Think, if this had been followed back in 67' how much farther along we would be?

We probably would not have an immigration problem if the feds would let the states enforce the federal laws.

If a state wants to address accessibility as a civil right in addition to building codes that is the individual state right. Not every state wants to make accessibility a civil right and are content to leave it as a federal issue.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Massachachutes is the most advanced oppresivestate in this regard, dating back to 1967 with a governor supported program unfortunatelystill in place that created committees of citizen busybodiesvolunteerscrusaders to inspect businesses pre-ADA.Works quite well.

Though ADA is a Federal law, it remains for the individaul ststes to choose (or not) to incorporate it into their state laws so that enforcement can become a state matter.

Think, if this had been followed back in 67' how much farther more screwed upalong we would be? The political process can be/is very cumbersom.

Hehehehe.

Brent.

 

[conarb]

Picture posted to illustrate Keynesian economics at work:

Comments under the picture just to give you an idea of what the public thinks:

There's a pre-planing committee that's currently advising the post construction committee to talk to the contractors to establish a time-line to obtain the building permits from the city counsel and public recreation division. The extra stair probably won't be added though, the environmental impact committee will probably have an issue with the possibility that a squirrel might fall and hurt themselves which means a kickback will have to be added. With the kick back, the spending advisory committee will probably note the budget shortfall. This is all conditional on what all the legal teams say of course after a definition of practice and a gap analysis is done. Keynesian practice in a nutshell. 400 people to accomplish nothing.

lol, and I think of all the money spent on sidewalk curbs for the handicap that NEVER venture out, unless they are at walmart blocking the aisle

Wait just a fvcking minute! That thing is NOT ADA compliant! Somebody call a lawyer...

View attachment 1196

View attachment 1196

/monthly_2015_06/CBHXBbZWkAEgHVb.jpg.905d391fc150646f5ac09770fc3b65ea.jpg

 

[jar546]

We probably would not have an immigration problem if the feds would let the states enforce the federal laws.If a state wants to address accessibility as a civil right in addition to building codes that is the individual state right. Not every state wants to make accessibility a civil right and are content to leave it as a federal issue.

There is no money in enforcing either at the state level. With out of control spending the way it is most states are unwilling to start any new programs that will grow government. Fines and penalties are no guarantee that expenses will be covered.

 

[mark handler]

EDITORIAL: Americans with Disabilities Act tort reform needed

http://www.pe.com/articles/bill-769474-business-owners.html

THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE EDITORIAL

Published: June 8, 2015 Updated: 3:25 p.m.

Americans care about helping the disabled. The 1990 federal Americans With Disabilities Act made discrimination against the disabled illegal. After that, California made violating the ADA also a violation of the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, with damages no less than $4,000 per violation.

Unfortunately, some lawyers have abused the ADA by filing frivolous lawsuits. To curb such abuses while still protecting the disabled, last week the California Senate unanimously approved Senate Bill 251. If passed in the Assembly and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, it significantly will protect small business owners from costly and pointless ADA lawsuits.

State Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside, proposed the bill after significant ADA lawsuit abuses in the Riverside area. We urge passage of the bill to curb such misuses of the law and the court system.

Sen. Roth’s bill would exempt small business owners from liability if they correct such violations within 15 days of receiving a complaint. Further, the bill would protect business owners from liability if their businesses are inspected by a certified access specialist and any identified violations are corrected within 90 days.

“SB251 is a critical step in guaranteeing access for disabled Californians by providing small businesses with the tools and resources necessary to comply with often changing and at times complex disability access laws,” said Sen. Roth in a statement.

In a statement opposing the bill, Disability Rights California argued, “Even if notice is properly provided, and the barriers are removed within the specified time frames, the aggrieved party is not entitled to statutory damages for the harm encountered. …This is a policy the state of California should not endorse or promote.”

It is true that legislation giving business owners some time to bring their property to compliance with the ADA will limit opportunities for lawsuits.

Certainly, more must be done to educate business and property owners about their responsibilities to follow the ADA. There must also be an understanding that those standards constantly change and professional litigants are out there with an eye for the most insignificant of violations.

Mr. Roth’s bill isn’t perfect. But it certainly is better than allowing more business owners to be victimized by litigants draping themselves in the cloak of civil rights protection.

 

[conarb]

In a statement opposing the bill, Disability Rights California argued, “Even if notice is properly provided, and the barriers are removed within the specified time frames, the aggrieved party is not entitled to statutory damages for the harm encountered. …This is a policy the state of California should not endorse or promote.”

Which means: "How are the disabled going to make a living if they can't sue others?"

 

[ADAguy]

Nah! Nah! the number of disabled who have sued and been paid is less than 500 statewide. Then again, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, no?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Nah! Nah! the number of disabled who have sued and been paid is less than 500 statewide. Then again, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, no?

And what is the number that just accepted the demand letter payment amount and never sued. Those are the bad apples within the accessible community

 

[conarb]

Okay, so what are these, I see them all over the place, my understanding is that these criminals calling themselves CASps are running around charging business anywhere from several hundred to a couple of thousands of dollars for these, the victims of this extortion think they are buying protection from the rolling blackmailers, they don't read that way to me, I think they are being ripped off, what can be done about this? I told the employees of this business to just read what you bought, it specifically states that it doesn't protect you, why do people fall for these scams? Doesn't the state license these crooks? Can I advise them to file a complaint with a state board? If so which board?

View attachment 1197

View attachment 1197

/monthly_2015_06/access.jpg.8609aeeea44cb725ae3b58b7988ead23.jpg

 

[MASSDRIVER]

That's just a scarecrow.

Brent.

 

[conarb]

That's just a scarecrow. Brent.

Yeah, but we've created a cottage industry of extortionists running around blackmailing people, and he's got the imprimatur of the Great State of California plastered on his fraudulent notice, more make work policies for useless people.

 

[mtlogcabin]

we've created a cottage industry

Conarb

Don't include yourself in that

Obama is correct YOU did not create the mess someone else did.

 

[mark handler]

ADA Tort reform a step backward

THE PRESS-ENTERPRISEPublished: June 9, 2015 Updated: 10:13 p.m.Re: “Americans with Disabilities Act tort reform needed” [Editorial, June 9]: Sen. Richard Roth’s Senate Bill 251 does nothing to truly help stop the small business owner from being sued by lawyers and their hired help going around California just to find businesses to sue.What is needed is a change in the building code to include all the things required like wider doors, signs and other things these lawyers sue for.More importantly, stop requiring the small guy to fix those issues. What about the property owner who should be responsible for such flaws in the building? The small business owner rents the store, so why is it his problem and not the owner of the building/property?Worst is the short time frame – ever try getting bids from contractors willing to take on small jobs? And when one is willing, it is months away before he can start. And that does not take into account the time to get permits and other needed things. Back-ordered merchandise or illness can also be an issue in delaying the upgrades.All SB251 does is give more reasons for those crooked lawyers to sue. What about judges seeing those lawsuits for what they are and throwing them out?Sen. Roth seems to be working for those crooked attorneys with SB251.It’s such a shame.Jon FleischerHemet http://www.pe.com/articles/small-769747-owner-save.html