mark handler
SAWHORSE
DISABILITIES ACT Amended bill seeks to limit lawsuits for violations
Posted on | August 24, 2012
There would be new limits on lawsuits for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act under a bipartisan bill advancing in the Legislature.
http://blog.pe.com/political-empire/2012/08/24/disabilities-act-planned-amendments-would-limit-damages-for-some-violations/
Amendments to Senate Bill 1186 by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and state Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, would make significant changes to the state’s rules on ADA lawsuits.
They would reduce the minimum statutory damages for some businesses, prohibit attorneys from sending pre-lawsuit “demand letters” seeking money, and impose a $1 fee on business licenses to increase the state’s supply of disabled-access experts, among other changes.
Dutton and others said the goal is to encourage businesses to fix disabled-access problems, instead of settling lawsuits for minor ADA violations and fixing nothing.
“We’ve got some people out there who are taking advantage of a well-intended act and they’re taking advantage of it for personal gain,” Dutton said Thursday. The session ends Aug. 31.
Businesses complain that existing state law on ADA violations forces them to spend thousands of dollars to settle lawsuits for minor violations of the act, without having an opportunity to first correct the problem.
Their cause got an influential ally earlier this year when U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein called on legislative leaders to limit the litigation.
In a March letter to Steinberg, Feinstein cited the cases of 22 Redlands businesses that were sued by the same attorney because they did not post signs near their disabled parking spots warning that ineligible vehicles would be towed. The businesses paid from $5,000 to $14,000 to settle the cases.
“I believe that these lawsuits can place a significant financial burden on small businesses and may ultimately jeopardize their ability to survive, contribute to the local economy, and provide services to the disabled and non-disabled alike,” Feinstein wrote.
Disabled-rights advocates call building access a civil-rights issue. Along with the Legislature’s majority Democrats, they have opposed “right-to-cure” legislation that would give businesses time to fix violations, with no damages or attorney’s fees.
Friday’s amendments to the Steinberg/Dutton bill would maintain damages and attorney’s fees for ADA violations. But the bill would reduce the minimum statutory damages for violating the ADA, from $4,000 to $1,000 per offense, in cases where the defendant had hired a “certified access specialist” or had new construction or tenant improvements approved by a local building department after Jan. 1, 2008.
In addition, a business with 25 or fewer employees and no more than $3.5 million in gross revenue would face a minimum penalty of $2,000, down from $4,000, if it corrects the problem within 30 days.
And the bill seeks to deter “stacked” claims, in which a plaintiff alleges multiple instances of the same violation, such as visiting the same restaurant 30 times. The bill would plaintiffs to specify each visit and explain why they kept going there.
The revised bill is expected to be heard in committee no earlier than Tuesday.
By: Jim Miller
Posted on | August 24, 2012
There would be new limits on lawsuits for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act under a bipartisan bill advancing in the Legislature.
http://blog.pe.com/political-empire/2012/08/24/disabilities-act-planned-amendments-would-limit-damages-for-some-violations/
Amendments to Senate Bill 1186 by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and state Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, would make significant changes to the state’s rules on ADA lawsuits.
They would reduce the minimum statutory damages for some businesses, prohibit attorneys from sending pre-lawsuit “demand letters” seeking money, and impose a $1 fee on business licenses to increase the state’s supply of disabled-access experts, among other changes.
Dutton and others said the goal is to encourage businesses to fix disabled-access problems, instead of settling lawsuits for minor ADA violations and fixing nothing.
“We’ve got some people out there who are taking advantage of a well-intended act and they’re taking advantage of it for personal gain,” Dutton said Thursday. The session ends Aug. 31.
Businesses complain that existing state law on ADA violations forces them to spend thousands of dollars to settle lawsuits for minor violations of the act, without having an opportunity to first correct the problem.
Their cause got an influential ally earlier this year when U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein called on legislative leaders to limit the litigation.
In a March letter to Steinberg, Feinstein cited the cases of 22 Redlands businesses that were sued by the same attorney because they did not post signs near their disabled parking spots warning that ineligible vehicles would be towed. The businesses paid from $5,000 to $14,000 to settle the cases.
“I believe that these lawsuits can place a significant financial burden on small businesses and may ultimately jeopardize their ability to survive, contribute to the local economy, and provide services to the disabled and non-disabled alike,” Feinstein wrote.
Disabled-rights advocates call building access a civil-rights issue. Along with the Legislature’s majority Democrats, they have opposed “right-to-cure” legislation that would give businesses time to fix violations, with no damages or attorney’s fees.
Friday’s amendments to the Steinberg/Dutton bill would maintain damages and attorney’s fees for ADA violations. But the bill would reduce the minimum statutory damages for violating the ADA, from $4,000 to $1,000 per offense, in cases where the defendant had hired a “certified access specialist” or had new construction or tenant improvements approved by a local building department after Jan. 1, 2008.
In addition, a business with 25 or fewer employees and no more than $3.5 million in gross revenue would face a minimum penalty of $2,000, down from $4,000, if it corrects the problem within 30 days.
And the bill seeks to deter “stacked” claims, in which a plaintiff alleges multiple instances of the same violation, such as visiting the same restaurant 30 times. The bill would plaintiffs to specify each visit and explain why they kept going there.
The revised bill is expected to be heard in committee no earlier than Tuesday.
By: Jim Miller