However, one nonprofit disability advocacy group is discontent with the legislation, indicating that the civil rights of those with disabilities are still being neglected, even 26 years after the ADA was signed into law.
Senate Bill 269, which 31st District State Sen. Richard Roth (D—Riverside) introduced, is a modified version of last year’s Senate Bill 251, which Roth also authored but that the governor vetoed.
According to Roth’s office, SB 269 removes the tax credit that was the focus of Brown’s veto, reduces the employee ceiling for qualifying businesses from 100 to 50 employees and makes other clarifying changes.
Roth referred to SB 269 as the first significant reform to the State’s disability-access regulations since 2012.
A statement from his office described it as “a narrowly crafted provision to provide businesses with much needed disability-access education, resources and training, and allows small businesses that have been proactive in identifying access issues a reasonable amount of time to fix any problems identified before a lawsuit arises.”
“This is a major victory for all Californians,” Roth said. “SB 269 is a bipartisan, common-sense solution that will guarantee access for disabled Californians by providing small businesses with the tools and resources necessary to comply with state and federal disability-access regulations. I am glad the governor agrees with the critical need for this reform, and I am proud to have delivered this victory for California’s small businesses and disability community.”
CALA is a nonpartisan grassroots movement of concerned citizens and businesses who are fighting against lawsuit abuse in California, according to the organization’s website. Ken Barnes, executive director of CALA, issued a statement last week thanking Brown for signing the bill.
“This legislation, which CALA supported, is a good first step in addressing the issue of ADA lawsuit abuse,” Barnes wrote. “CALA applauds Senator Roth for sponsoring the bill but calls on the Legislature to continue taking actions to solve the entire issue, not just pieces of it. We need a total solution in order to protect small-business owners from ADA lawsuit abuse. CALA is always supportive of legislation that will improve the business climate and keep our small-business economy strong. We need more reforms, like SB 269, to address this ongoing issue and provide real solutions for the people of California.”
SB 269, which Sen. Andy Vidak (R-Hanford) co-authored, yielded widespread bipartisan support and did not receive a single “no” vote throughout the legislative process, Roth said.
The State Legislature has tried to reform ADA access laws and regulations in previous years, with the most recent and substantial measure being SB 1186 in 2012 by former Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and former Sen. Robert Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga). Although SB 1186 created policies regarding certified access specialists (CASps) and compliance notification, barriers to ensuring small businesses have resources to maintain compliance with state and federal disability access laws still exist. Consequently, many California businesses have ended up being out of compliance with state and federal disability-access laws.
During a luncheon in Long Beach that CALA hosted last October, Maryann Marino, the organization’s Southern California regional director, said that each year more than 1 million lawsuits are filed in the state but that number does not account for the demand letters that business owners receive without an actual lawsuit that forces them to spend thousands of dollars on issues of technical non-compliance.
“I know you may have experienced or may have heard of the abuse of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), where business owners might not have the right parking-lot sign, the bathroom mirror might be too high, the toilet might be too low,” Marino said. “But do they get a notification that they have to get a parking-lot sign? Are they given a chance to fix the bathroom? Of course not. They’re outright sued for almost $4,000 for every issue of technical non-compliance— $12,000 just to make it go away.”
Disability Rights California (DRC), a nonprofit advocacy organization that advances and protects the rights of Californians with disabilities, views the problem with such lawsuits differently and, therefore, proposes other types of solutions.
In a Jan. 15, 2016 letter to Roth, DRC wrote that SB 269 establishes a rebuttable presumption to be overcome by the plaintiff, that certain “technical violations” do not cause a person difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment for the purpose of awarding minimum civil-rights damages, also known as statutory damages.
“The defendant has no liability for civil rights damages for technical violations if it corrects all of them within 15 days of notice of the violations,” the letter states. “SB 269 protects a business with up to 50 employees— over 96 percent of businesses in California— from liability for minimum statutory damages for other access claim violations for 120 days if the business obtained a certified access specialist inspection. Additionally, if a building permit is required for repairs, which cannot be completed within 120 days, and the business is in the process of correcting the violations, the business gets up to 180 days to make repairs with no liability.”
As a result, DRC claims, the bill treats those with disabilities differently than other protected classes.
“This bill treats people with disabilities as second-class citizens by denying them civil-rights damages for access violations they encounter during a 120-day period following the date of a business-obtained CASp report, and in certain circumstances, 180 days,” the letter continues. “No other protected class’s civil rights are denied statutory damages for a violation of their civil rights. This is a policy the State of California should not endorse or promote.”
The DRC letter goes on to identify other problems the organization sees with SB 269, including: going too far and extending protections from civil-rights damages to over 96 percent of California’s businesses; extending time lines for correcting access violations; that people with disabilities already made significant compromises in recent years; and that access laws have been in effect for decades and California should provide incentives to promote compliance rather than promoting a “wait and see if I get caught” policy.
Additionally, DRC supports the tax-credit provisions that had been part of SB 251 and believes they should be included in the bill. “We believe tax-credit provisions are critical so businesses are incentivized to comply with access laws,” the letter states.
This week, the Signal Tribune contacted DRC for comment on the passing of SB 269. Pat McConahay, communications director for the organization, said people with disabilities should not have enforcement of their civil rights limited or delayed because of the actions of a few, especially when procedures already exist to deal with so-called frivolous lawsuits.
“The California Commission on Disability Access found that only one percent of all lawsuits in California involve access issues for people with disabilities,” she said. “And, if you look at the data, it is rare that a suit is only filed over an insignificant problem like faded paint on a parking space. It’s time we worked together to come up with meaningful programs that help everyone.”
