# Bill would give businesses time to comply with ADA without penalty



## mark handler (Jun 3, 2015)

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 (Jun 4, 2015)

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 (Jun 4, 2015)

Msradell said:
			
		

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


----------



## mark handler (Jun 4, 2015)

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


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 5, 2015)

> 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 (Jun 5, 2015)

Msradell said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 5, 2015)

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 (Jun 5, 2015)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 5, 2015)

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 (Jun 5, 2015)

jdfruit said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 5, 2015)

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 (Jun 5, 2015)

> 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 (Jun 5, 2015)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Massachachutes is the most advanced *oppresive*state in this regard, dating back to 1967 with a governor supported program *unfortunately*still 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 (Jun 5, 2015)

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 (Jun 5, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 9, 2015)

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 (Jun 9, 2015)

> 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 (Jun 9, 2015)

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 (Jun 9, 2015)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 9, 2015)

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 (Jun 9, 2015)

That's just a scarecrow.

Brent.


----------



## conarb (Jun 9, 2015)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 9, 2015)

> 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 (Jun 10, 2015)

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


----------



## conarb (Jun 10, 2015)

\ said:
			
		

> 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.


They have a real point, many disability permits require exterior modifications, around here that can take years, Design Review and Planning Commission approvals can take years themselves.  The architects who do this kind of work are usually backed up as well.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jun 10, 2015)

You can fix that by inserting language that the process is underway.

Brent.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 10, 2015)

You have a problem with CASp's? Tell it to the judge of CASp's, the state architect.

Have you bothered to read the CASp regs? They address your concerns.

It is not a license, it is a "Voluntary Certification Program". A polilitical appeasement program created by former State Senator Sheila Kuhel.


----------



## ICE (Jun 10, 2015)

conarb said:
			
		

> Can I advise them to file a complaint with a state board?  If so which board?


Start with the parole board.  Once a crook, always a crook.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 10, 2015)

So, have you viewed the CASp regs? Your concerns (rants!) are addressed. Your complaint judge is the state architect. The program is a political apeasement of former Senator Sheila Kuhel.

It is not a license, it is a "Voluntary Certification Program".

Every permit issuing agency in the state is suppose to have one or contract with one. More agencies then presently certified CASp's.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 13, 2015)

Don't strip citizens of lawful recourse

http://www.pe.com/articles/business-770149-law-fine.html

PRESS-ENTERPRISE

Published: June 12, 2015 Updated: 3:34 p.m.

Re: “Americans with Disabilities Act tort reform needed” [Editorial, June 9]: The ADA reform bill, which severely limits the original intent signed into law by President Bush in 1991 by eliminating fines on businesses that fail to comply, is bad business for all Californians.

A responsible business owner would simply understand that as a cost of doing business you factor ADA in long before doors open for business.

The worst offense by business owners is limited parking for disabled customers. Many owners simply do not bother complying. Other owners, especially in high-density regions, know disabled parking spaces take away outdoor spaces used for things like furniture displays or automobile sellers to display their wares to the more able-bodied customer, because let’s face it, as a disabled person, my ability to shop often for those high margin items is limited in contrast to the able bodied.

The specious argument that a $4,000 fine is somehow so greatly onerous to business owners that a mass closing of noncompliant retail and doctor’s facilities will occur without passage of this poorly drafted legislation is illogical. It appeals to irrational fear mongering because a few people with tape measures have profited by this law. Would this law even come up if each code violation was submitted by an individual person? No.

This law is written under the guise of tort reform, another name for “loss of individual rights under the law.” A far better idea would be to simply cite and fine first-time offenders $100, fine second-time offenders $1,000 and fine $10,000 to those who are simply not interested in following the letter and intent of a law that provides equality of opportunity to the many who have physical disabilities that keep them from enjoying the many activities easily available to the able-bodied.

Would you eat at a restaurant with a “B” or “C” grade from the health department? How about one that cannot provide a restroom or proper doorknob for the disabled person?

What other ways are these businesses cutting costs that affect your public safety?

Be careful for each loss of lawful recourse the government offers by those whose agenda is destroying the public community.

John Phillip Doddridge

San Jacinto


----------



## conarb (Jun 13, 2015)

To begin with this is a letter to the editor by someone, we don't know who John Phillip Doddridge is.   His statement: "Be careful for each loss of lawful recourse the government offers by those whose agenda is destroying the public community." sounds like something out of a communist manifesto.  The question is "are we free individuals?" Or are we all serfs "subject to the common interest"?


----------



## ICE (Jun 13, 2015)

The ADA law has proven to be a failure.  The government and large corporations are the only entities that have shown an interest in complying with the law.  The rest of the businesses are like schooled fish ..... hoping that it's some other fish that gets eaten.  Crooked lawyers have used ADA as a feeding trough.  Come to think of it, it was lawyers that brought us the ADA laws to begin with.

The ADA proponents won't admit defeat.  They say that what we have is better than nothing.  When it comes to the thieving lawyers they say "The victim has had 20 years to comply so boohoo".  Applauding theft...is that a positive outcome?  Show me the success of ADA laws.  Has even five percent of the nation been converted?

In a few hundred years all of the built environment will have been built to ADA standards.  1/1000th of the urban areas will be covered in ramps.  And that's about the percentage of the population that ADA serves. (If you don't count skateboarders)   Crooked lawyers will have some other way to steal.


----------



## conarb (Jun 13, 2015)

It's worse than that Tiger, it's part of the United Nations *New World Order*, if you recall it was part of GHW Bush's agenda and who can forget his 1990





.


----------



## ICE (Sep 12, 2015)

Msradell said:
			
		

> they've already had over 20 years to comply.  What makes you think they will comply if they get another 90 days?


Nobody expects compliance.  It's like you said,"20 years to comply".  That should give a collective clue.  It didn't happen in 20 years and it will not happen in 20 more years.  It is futile to continue trying to ram a hot poker up the :butt of businesses that are a part of the lifeblood of our economy.  To force every existing business to comply with accessibility regulations is cruel. To force all new construction to comply is stupid.

Even the people responsible for creating ADA know what we know.  They understand that they caved in to a political lobby.  In doing it they left a big hole in the mechanism of enforcement, which is basically...no enforcement.  There is no bureaucracy that has been assembled to enforce ADA in any meaningful way.  Why is that?  I think that they understood that if they made a wholehearted effort to enforce the ADA law they would probably just get shot on sight.

Think about that for a moment...the government didn't create an Agency with teeth.  What they did give us is a paper tiger and called it a Board.  Board creation ....That's a legislators favorite thing to do.  They can hire their buddies and pay them a few hundred grand a year.  They can form committees...oh the fun is just getting started.  They can sojourn in Paris and study the French approach to ADA.  I wonder what that has cost over these twenty years of hand sitting.

There is another thread that mentions the U.S. Access Board.  From there it appears that a myriad of agencies are tasked with enforcing ADA law.  The justice dept., FAA, Dept of Transportation, and probably every other agency or commission or board that anyone can name...Right down to the California Auctioneers Commission.  As conarb pointed out there is some 160,000 pages of federal ADA regulations.  That hardly seems possible...what the heck can that be.  Well your guess is as good as mine and you'll need a CASp to know..and then you won't know but a tenth of it.

Giving this concept careful, pragmatic thought one can't escape the conclusion that ADA law is wrong.  It discriminates and discrimination is what it was supposed to eliminate.  It hasn't achieved much.  It is subverted by criminals for fun and profit.  It doesn't seem likely to succeed any time soon.  It benefits such a minute segment of society that it is amazing that it happened at all.  The environmental impact is considerable.  The financial impact is enormous.

So what's not to like?  If you disagree with me please say so.  Show me the tangible good things that have arisen as a result of ADA law.  But I don't want to hear about the pizza parlor that put in a ramp, the shopping center that put in preferential parking.  And that parking...most of it sits empty.  Why is it that a person on wheels has to be right up front..you know.... they are on wheels.  I have to use feet.  If I could get out of my truck and move on wheels I doubt I would bitch about the distance.  Okay you will tell me that it isn't just about the wheelchair, it includes people with a HC parking permit too.  That can be anything from a heart attack to migraines.  They probably need the exercise.

The parking stalls themselves are dumb.  They are all huge for the deployment of a wheelchair and bigger yet for the van.  So why does some obese guy get to park there?  It would make better sense to have regular size stalls and a few for wheelchairs.

I remember when an able bodied guy walked out of a HC bathroom stall.  There was a guy in a wheelchair waiting and he was angry because "his" toilet was being used by a walking man.  That attitude is hard to mask.  The less fortunate should accept the gift with humility...not entitlement.  The truth is that they are not entitled.

In the Bible it says that the poor will always be with us.  That is proof enough that the playing field of life will never be level.  To deny that, to endeavor to change that, goes against the will of God.

That last one takes some kind of nerve huh!  Oh well sometimes I go over the top and start believing my own bullshlt.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 12, 2015)

If you would visit and "read" the info on the CASp website you would know that the State Architect is responsible for this program.

Have a complaint? I "dare" you to get in his face or attend a CCDA meeting and "speak up".

If a scam then how is it that the Atty. Gen'ls office and the courts have "bought" into it?


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 12, 2015)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> If a scam then how is it that the Atty. Gen'ls office and the courts have "bought" into it?


Do you want to retract that and think it over before I respond?

And I'm just an avarage dude. Let Conarb and and his dirty lawyer license go to work on it.

Brent


----------



## conarb (Sep 12, 2015)

Well thought-out post Tiger.  Bottom line it's a way to redistribute wealth not only to disabled people suing but to the disability industry like architects, note that the AIA has been a big supporter.  Much like this recycling, I had to go to a plastering supply house in a bad part of East Oakland, there were several old trucks full of metals dripping oil all over the streets, behind the gates I could see lots of poor people sorting through junk probably at minimum wage.  Just look at the problems it's caused with people stealing catalytic converters from cars at night, people tearing copper wires out of lamp poles, etc., is it worth it?


----------



## ICE (Sep 12, 2015)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> If you would visit and "read" the info on the CASp website you would know that the State Architect is responsible for this program. Have a complaint? I "dare" you to get in his face or attend a CCDA meeting and "speak up".
> 
> If a scam then how is it that the Atty. Gen'ls office and the courts have "bought" into it?


I don't see what the State Architect's involvement with the CASp program has to do with this.  If that is held out to be a seal of approval I am not impressed.  Instead of putting another layer of frosting on his turd cake the State Architect should have tossed out most of chapter 11 from the CBC.

The Attorney General and the courts bought into it because to them there is no such thing as bad law.  They enforce whatever they are handed.

And please don't call ADA law a scam.  That would indicate that the lawmakers set out to screw us.  Oh they screwed us alright but I don't think that they understood the full impact.  The fact that the enforcement is left to the crooked lawyers tells me that the lawmakers wanted to back out of the deal halfway into it but couldn't find an exit strategy.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 14, 2015)

Victory for small businesses plagued by ADA lawsuits

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/law-682150-business-owners.html

Sept. 14, 2015

Business owners and the disability community scored a notable victory last week. The California Assembly approved Senate Bill 251 Thursday, expanding protections of small business owners from frivolous lawsuits and providing greater opportunities for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

“I am pleased the Assembly approved my commonsense measure to increase compliance with the ADA law,” said the bill’s author, state Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside, in a statement. “SB251 gives businesses the tools, resources and education necessary to comply with the law and increase access for all Californians.”

When the ADA was signed into law, the purpose was to expand access for millions of Americans to public and private spaces. Setting aside any reservations about federal mandates on private property owners, the law is well intended and has contributed significantly to enhancing the quality of life for many.

Unfortunately, 25 years after its passage, compliance with the ADA has been inconsistent. Many business owners simply seem unaware of the many requirements of the law, which governs everything from the dimensions of doorways and doorknobs to the height of sinks off the floor.

Given all the challenges just to get a business started, it is no surprise so many businesses technically are out of compliance.

In states like California, this has prompted an entire industry of unscrupulous serial plaintiffs seeking minute violations and cashing in.

That’s because the Golden State pairs the federal ADA with the state’s own Unruh Civil Rights Act, resulting in any violation of the ADA being considered a civil rights violation, thus allowing large sums to be awarded to plaintiffs.

“The law was never intended to be abused by greedy plaintiffs and trial lawyers – who manipulate members of the disabled community, who manipulate small business owners – for reasons that have nothing to do with increasing access,” said Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, on the Assembly floor.

SB251, approved unanimously by the state Senate in June, creates the presumption that certain technical violations, like improper signage, don’t “cause a person difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment” if the business is a small business and all technical violations noted in a complaint are corrected within 15 days.

Further, businesses with less than 100 employees are protected from liability for minimum statutory damages for 120 days after seeking an inspection by a Certified Access Specialist, allowing businesses the opportunity to identify and fix violations. The bill is a reasonable step in the right direction, and we hope Gov. Jerry Brown signs it into law.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 14, 2015)

Ice, Mass asked for someone to complain to, thereby indicating he hadn't read the law (written by the Senate), rules and regulations governing CASp (drafted by DSA based on the law and approved by the Sec of State). The state architect is identified as the responsible party to receive, evaluate and resolve complaints.

Got a beef, take it up with him (smiling).


----------

