# ADA compliance bill heads to Gov. Brown's desk



## mark handler (May 6, 2016)

*ADA compliance bill heads to Gov. Brown's desk*

A bill aimed to protect small business owners in California from people taking advantage of Americans with Disability Laws is headed to Governor Jerry Brown's desk.

Senate Bill 269 unanimously passed through the State Senate last week. It gives businesses with under 50 employees about four months to make what is considered a "minor" change, including faded signs or paint. Attorneys say a handful of people have continuously targeted businesses for violations such faded paint or signs, claiming they are violations of ADA compliance and prohibit access. The violations can cost businesses up to $4,000 each. 

The Outdoorsman in Fresno has provided truck and trailer repair since the 1970s. Previous owner and current landlord Bob Lightfoot says in 2015, he noticed the businesses needed a facelift.

"The building is probably well over 60 years old and it was just time," Lightfoot said. 

Along with maintenance, Lightfoot had an inspection to ensure the property was ADA compliant. He made $30,000 worth of upgrades, including new signs, pavement, parking spots and an access aisle.

While making the changes, Lightfoot said he received a demand letter about ADA violations. Lightfoot explained, "...demanding money or they were going to sue me in federal court."

Since he was in the process of making changes, Lightfoot managed to stay out of court. His attorney Rachelle Golden says small business owners across the state are getting similar letters and dishing out tens of thousands of dollars on violations that are aesthetic and don't affect access.

"Language on the signage, handicap versus disabled or paint striping on parking lots or it's the wrong shade of blue," Golden explains. "These are all things that were being sued for in California for a minimum of $4,000." She says the complaints say these violations prohibit disabled access.

Golden says there are currently hundreds of businesses in the Valley facing litigation for similar complaints. 

According to the California Commission on Disability Access, in 2015, 40% of ADA complaints were filed by two law firms.

Last week, a bill unanimously passed the State Senate to protect small businesses from people threatening to sue over what are deemed minor violations like faded signs or parking lot striping.

Disability Rights California opposes the bill.

"California access laws and policies have been in effect for decades and businesses still fail to evaluate their properties to ensure people with disabilities have full and equal access," DRC Spokesperson Pat McConahay said. "If they would do this, they could avoid lawsuits."

Golden is in a wheelchair and says there's no excuse for businesses to be incompliant, but some are taking gaming the system.

"I understand the vital importance of access," McConahay said. "But the pendulum has swung so far into plaintiff's favor it does nothing to provide education on discrimination."

Governor Brown has 12 days to act on the bill. He vetoed a similar bill last year.


----------



## conarb (May 6, 2016)

I wonder why it's limited to businesses with fewer than 50 employees?  Larger businesses can be unaware of these requirements, this tells me that the extortionists will just target larger businesses for their extortion.  

The way I read it the AHJs will have to provide the CASps at cost, that should eliminate the extortion from the private CASps, do others read it that way? How are the AHJs going to calculate actual costs, what's to prevent them from inflating costs so they profit from these discriminatory laws?


----------



## mark handler (May 8, 2016)

Maybe-Finally-Relief for Lawsuits Against Small Business
http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2016/04/maybe-finally-relief-for-lawsuits-against-small-business/

It’s been a long time coming with much damage done to small business owners but legislators seem to be zeroing in on corrective measures to give business owners a chance to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) without facing destructive lawsuits.
Senator John Moorlach SB 1142, scheduled to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee today, “would provide that a defendant is not liable for statutory damages, costs, or plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for an alleged violation that is corrected within 120 days of service of a demand letter alleging the violation.”
SB 269 introduced by Democratic Senator Richard Roth and Republican Senator Andy Vidak would “establish a rebuttable presumption, for the purpose of an award of minimum statutory damages, that certain technical violations do not cause a plaintiff to experience difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment, if specified conditions are met.”
I remember an article posted on this page in 2014 declaring hope that help may be on the way for small businesses that are often victimized by lawsuits for minor infractions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Republican Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen and Democratic Assemblyman Adam Gray filed the bills. The authors signed onto each other’s bills.
That hope expressed in 2014 may finally arrive and although well past time, would be welcomed by the small business community.
Recently, the San Jose Mercury News ran a story under the headline: “Serial ADA Lawsuit Filer Striking Bay Area.” The article reported that attorney Scott Johnson had filed thousands of ADA lawsuits in Northern California, which brought in millions of dollars in settlement and attorney’s fees.
That type of story is a familiar one to small businesses victimized in Southern California, as well. A little over a decade ago a Beverly Hills law firm, The Trevor Law Group, was accused of extortion by threatening to sue thousands of businesses for violating provisions of the Business and Professions Code. Finally, the state bar recommended that members of the firm be disbarred.
The law on infractions to the disability act as it currently stands could cost business owners a $4,000 civil penalty and attorney’s fees if violations are claimed. If the case drags on, the legal fees grow, which is why businesses often pay a demanded settlement fee that usually runs five figures. Some business owners call it, plainly, “a shakedown.”
Most small business owners are willing to fix any problems if given the opportunity. Looking over their shoulders at every customer or attorney who sees a pot of gold at the end of the regulation rainbow should not be a worry when the small businessperson is trying to fairly conduct their business.
It is good to see Democratic and Republican lawmakers coming together to offer a solution to this small business angst. Let’s hope reforms get to the governor’s desk and he signs them.


----------



## conarb (May 8, 2016)

But why limit it to small businesses?  No business small or large should be victimized by these flakes.


----------



## ADAguy (May 11, 2016)

Because it is "now" the law, signed Monday!
CASp fees will have to be increased due to increased paperwork.
A CASp's records will require greater transparency and the State Architect will have to add staff.


----------



## conarb (May 11, 2016)

ADAguy said:


> Because it is "now" the law, signed Monday!
> CASp fees will have to be increased due to increased paperwork.
> A CASp's records will require greater transparency and the State Architect will have to add staff.


Why is that if the AHJs have to provide CASp services for cost?


----------



## ADAguy (May 12, 2016)

Maybe because they (CALBO & Organization of Cities) didn't scream loud enough? and pay/reimburse their inspectors to be certified too.


----------



## mark handler (May 14, 2016)

Governor Brown Signs a Law to Help Small Businesses Defend Against State Disability Access Lawsuits
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/governor-brown-signs-a-law-to-help-18298/
On May 10, 2016 Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 269 (SB 269) which amends certain California statutes dealing with disability access in public accommodations and business establishments. SB 269 is not a new law, but rather, an effort by the Legislature and Governor Brown to amend existing law in order to address the significant financial hardship that “drive-by” and “technical non-compliance” lawsuits are having on small businesses in California. Both federal and state court dockets in California are inundated with lawsuits filed against small businesses by professional plaintiffs and their attorneys who have created a cottage industry by filing lawsuits for technical violations of federal and state disabled access standards.

California Disability Access Laws – Not the ADA – Allow for Damages.

In addition to Title III of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a disabled individual can bring a claim under California law for denial of full and equal access to a business’ establishment. Existing state law prohibits discrimination on the basis of various specified personal characteristics, including disability. California’s Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act establishes standards for making new construction and existing facilities accessible to persons with disabilities and provides for constructionrelated accessibility claims for violations of those standards. Existing law specifies that a violation of construction-related accessibility standards personally encountered by a plaintiff may be sufficient to cause a denial of full and equal access if the plaintiff experienced difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment because of the violation. Unlike under the ADA which permits the plaintiff to seek only injunctive relief, under California law, a defendant is liable for actual damages plus minimum statutory damages for each instance of discrimination relating to a construction-related accessibility standard. In addition to damages, a successful plaintiff can also recover reasonable attorney’s fees. It is often these statutory attorneys’ fees that are the “tail that wags the dog” and motivate plaintiff’s attorneys to file lawsuits over very technical non-compliance issues.

Please see full article below for more information.
file:///C:/Users/Mark%20H/Desktop/3dc844ee-119b-4e49-8350-eaaced63c3b6.pdf


----------



## ADAguy (May 16, 2016)

Which article are you speaking of?


----------



## conarb (May 16, 2016)

As I read the law all AHJs must employ CASPs and provide the services at cost.  The public should know this so they don't continue to get ripped off by private CASPs.  We also need a mechanism to be certain that the AHJs are providing the services at actual cost and don't try to profit from this.


----------



## ADAguy (May 16, 2016)

Clarify "ripped off" please?


----------



## mark handler (May 16, 2016)

ADAguy said:


> Which article are you speaking of?



Download from there

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/governor-brown-signs-a-law-to-help-18298/


----------



## conarb (May 16, 2016)

ADAguy said:


> Clarify "ripped off" please?


Sense AHJs have to provide the services at cost, maybe some nice CBOs will even  provide the services for free, so these CASps running around selling businesses blue placards that say nothing but "Inspected" are ripping people off.


----------



## ADAguy (May 19, 2016)

You miss the point, not all CASp's do city plan review work. CASp's "sell" "Blues" based on observing and reporting existence of barriers or not, and whether they have been corrected, or not. No one is forcing businesses to hire us. Most are buying time as mandated by the legislature to delay suits, but only if they proceed with barrier removal. The blue is like garlic to a vampire, it may or may not cause drive-bys to seek easier pickings.


----------



## conarb (May 19, 2016)

Since the law says AHJs have to provide CASp services at cost, why would any informed business hire a CASp who will profit off the service?  In fact, shouldn't a CASp, if called, inform the business that the service is free from the AHJ?


----------



## ADAguy (May 20, 2016)

Cities do not typically offer barrier identification services for existing facilities and will usually direct you to the state list of CASp's to select one.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 20, 2016)

conarb said:


> Since the law says AHJs have to provide CASp services at cost, ......  In fact, shouldn't a CASp, if called, inform the business that the service is free from the AHJ?


Why do you assume the jurisdiction will provide a service for free when the law says they can charge for their cost?
Usually private enterprise can do it cheaper since they do not have those excessive retirement plans they have to fund.


----------



## conarb (May 20, 2016)

mtlogcabin said:


> Why do you assume the jurisdiction will provide a service for free when the law says they can charge for their cost?
> Usually private enterprise can do it cheaper since they do not have those excessive retirement plans they have to fund.


While I agree private enterprise can should be able to do it cheaper the law the governor signed requires the AHJs to provide CASp services at cost, I guess an astute businessman should get bids from both their AHJ and a local CASp, from what I've seen so far around here is that the business that hire CASps are getting ripped off, one guy with 8 hot dog joints paid $7,000 for what appears to be nothing but blue placards stating that they had been inspected along with a standard  form checked off.


----------



## ADAguy (May 20, 2016)

There is an old saying conard (buyer beware).
Many service buyers don't know enough to read a CASp's website and even then many CASp's are good businessmen who put together very convincing websites to the unknowing.
Give the guy credit, isn't it similar to ADA plaintiffs who collect legally mandated bounties? In the case of CASp's the choice is the owners to hire you or not.
Your opinion appears to indicate no desire/need to participate as a CASp, only to criticize. Many of us do provide a value added service to our clients.


----------



## conarb (May 20, 2016)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Give the guy credit, isn't it similar to ADA plaintiffs who collect legally mandated bounties? I



So we have horribly written laws, both state and federal, allowing thieves to rip off businesses, and we have a cottage industry of thieves running around selling protection from the other thieves, sounds like a protection racket to me.


----------

