• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Bipartisan Bills to Reduce ADA Lawsuit Abuse Introduced in California Legislature

mark handler

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,893
Location
So. CA
Bipartisan Bills to Reduce ADA Lawsuit Abuse Introduced in California Legislature

By Tom Scott

Executive Director, California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2014/12/bipartisan-bills-reduce-ada-lawsuit-abuse-introduced-california-legislature/

Will 2015 be the year we see substantial reforms to stop lawsuit abuse associated with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? We are off to a good start with the introduction of AB 54 by Republican Assemblywoman Kristen Olsen and AB 52 by Democrat Assemblyman Adam Gray.

Both bills already have bipartisan co-authors, and both bills would establish incentives for fixing alleged violations without lawsuits. AB 54 would give businesses 60 days to update facilities once a violation is spotted before a lawsuit could proceed, and AB 52 would significantly reduce damages awarded in a lawsuit if alleged violations are corrected within 180 days.

While we have seen variations of these bills in the past, I am hopeful that the California Legislature and Governor Brown can see that well-intentioned laws are being blatantly abused by self-serving trial lawyers. We all want to promote disability access in California. The bottom line is that the ADA is a very complicated law and it is absurd to assume that all of California’s 3.5 million small businesses can understand its provisions.

Instead of using trial lawyers as the enforcement mechanism and allowing them to profit from shakedown lawsuits against businesses, we should all work together to increase accessibility without incentivizing the kind of lawsuit abuse that hasdestroyed businesses and jobs in our state. When a business closes due to a lawsuit, no one benefits. Everyone will have one fewer business from which to buy goods and services, jobs will be lost, and employment and property taxes will vanish.

While many of these trial lawyers file their lawsuits in federal court, AB 52 and AB 54 will get the state on the right path toward stopping this abuse. The bipartisan support behind both bills demonstrates that lawsuit abuse hurts us all regardless of our political affiliation, and will be vital in helping these bills move through the legislative process in Sacramento.

Congrats to Assemblymembers Olsen and Gray for leading the charge for ADA lawsuit abuse reform. CALA applauds you and will support your efforts, and hopes these bills will succeed and set the stage for a federal solution.
 
4th term in office for Brown, what makes this bill differ from those of past. The lawyers write the laws and don't they also enforce them by lawsuit.

Retorical questions no need to answer.
 
Funny as hell you have to create a law to protect your rights from a law to "protect" your rights.

Lunacy all around.

Brent
 
Mass, "that" is one of your "best" comments to date. Thank you.

Now if only Tom Scott would see that more legislation is not the answer, "notification" is.

If every city clerks in California would include a letter in the business license renewal letter that goes out each year and require proof of compliance and the same when a new business is licensed, City Code Enforcement could followup and be riembursed for their time by the penalities for failure to correct that they are allowed to collect. Program would be self-funded and create jobs too.
 
In California's case less legislation would be the answer. From the way it appears on this board they have "enhanced" the ADA laws. If they would adopt the DOJ 2010 ADA as is and get rid of the financial profiteering by aggrieved parties, their lawsuit problem would be pretty much solved.
 
Not so, the legislation you refer to is the Unrhu Act of 1959, long before the ADA and even ANSI (which lacked definitive directives for access).

Follow on legislation creating the Certified Access Specialist program and SB1186 have only served to limit damages and require clarification of claim content, not to eliminate Unrhu (a civil rights act).

The suits are the unintended consequences brought on by compliance with the ADA which lacks adequate staffing to police its implementation.

As written, the ADA limits cost recovery to attorneys (suprise?) and no bounty to those who step forward with complaints.

The DOJ requires the individual states to impliment the ADA in their laws but many do not adequately "chose" to implement and enforce the ADA with state laws requiring it and provide no "incentitives" for individuals to do so.

Make it a "code enforcement" issue and you may see improved results.
 
I agree that DOJ does require states to enforce ADA requirements but it seems California must go beyond the minimum enforcement requirements of 1) new building meeting ADA standards and 2) an additional 20% of the cost of a remodel must be directed to ADA mitigation on existing buildings. How is it that existing businesses are being sued for not meeting ADA standards?
 
The enforcement of state codes is the responsibility of state or local officials – usually through plan reviews and building inspections. The ADA relies on the traditional method of civil rights enforcement through litigation in federal courts. Local officials do not have the authority to enforce the ADA on behalf of the federal government.



http://www.ada.gov/certcode.htm

Maybe you are thinking of the following

In an effort both to facilitate compliance with all applicable laws and to mitigate the tension between federal and state enforcement processes, the ADA authorizes the Department of Justice, upon request of state or local officials, to certify that state or local accessibility laws meet or exceed the requirements of the ADA. Certification bridges the gap between the federal and state enforcement processes. The certification process neither delegates ADA enforcement authority to the states nor eliminates an individual's right to seek relief through the federal courts. However, effective enforcement of a certified code can mitigate the need for federal enforcement by ensuring that new or altered buildings are accessible. This process gives building owners and design professionals some assurance in advance of construction that the ADA requirements will be satisfied. And, if a lawsuit is filed, compliance with a certified code may be offered as rebuttable evidence of compliance with the ADA.

 
MT, in CA the dodge in the past has been the AHJ's contention, supported by the AG's office that they don't inspect for the ADA, only code.

2013CBC provides AHJ's with the grounds to inspect for code (smiling) which now mirrors to a much closer degree the 2010 ADA Standards.

As to projects permitted before 2013 CBC, the jury remains out as to Code Enforcement inspecting for non-compliance as CBC is not retroactive, unlike the ADA.

This leaves Unrhu as the only recourse other than the Feds, to file actions alledging non-compliance.

Unlike many other "minority" groups, those with limited abilities have not yet chosen to "stage" high profile demonstrations to achieve access as mandated by the ADA.
 
It is not a "dodge" it is the correct and legal way to operate a building department

We have always looked at accessibility from the building code stand point (ANSI)

Nowhere does the building code require "barrier removal" on existing buildings

You have to be remodeling or a change of use before accessibility codes will be required and then some of those cost could be limited to a maximum 20%
 
mtlogcabin said:
nowhere does the building code require "barrier removal" on existing buildings
Click to expand...
Under certain circumstances; yes it does, See section 3411 accessibility for existing buildings
 
mark handler said:
Under certain circumstances; yes it does, See section 3411 accessibility for existing buildings
Click to expand...
Mark, I think that is what MT was referring to with his "20%"....3409.6 (in 2003) for accessible upgrades, Change of use is alot tougher...He was just saying that if no work is done, nothing in the building code drives an upgrade, unlike ADA...I caution all of my building owners and designers....They usually do not listen.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top