Unruh Civil Rights Act: high-frequency litigants.
The proposed changes in AB 539 seek to address the perceived abuse of the litigation process surrounding accessibility claims. By redefining the criteria for high-frequency litigants and limiting their recovery, the bill attempts to curb the influx of lawsuits that some argue exploit businesses and create a negative environment for genuine complaints. This legislative move may significantly influence how accessibility claims are processed in California, potentially reducing litigation while still allowing valid claims to be heard. However, opponents argue it may undermine essential protections previously afforded to individuals with disabilities.
Assembly Bill 539, introduced by Assembly Member Stephanie Nguyen, seeks to amend provisions concerning accessibility claims and high-frequency litigants under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The bill specifically aims to establish stricter guidelines and limitations on the ability of high-frequency litigants—individuals who frequently file accessibility-related lawsuits—to bring claims against businesses. This includes a requirement that plaintiffs prove they had a bona fide intent to engage with the business for which they are claiming violations, as well as limiting the amount recoverable for damages to $1,000 per violation, among other stipulations.
The sentiment surrounding AB 539 is mixed, reflecting a divide between those advocating for the protection of businesses from perceived frivolous lawsuits and those concerned about the reduction of legal recourse for individuals with disabilities. Supporters of the bill argue that it is necessary to prevent exploitation of the law, while critics contend that it could diminish access to justice for disabled individuals who rely on these legal protections to ensure their rights are upheld and maintained.
Key points of contention regarding AB 539 include the implications it has for the balance between preventing litigation abuse and safeguarding the rights of individuals with disabilities. Critics fear that imposing additional barriers could dissuade genuine claims and impede progress towards achieving equal access in public accommodations. On the other hand, proponents believe that the changes will foster a more equitable legal landscape that holds accountable those who misuse the legal system.