Disability access: construction-related accessibility claims: statutory damages: attorney’s fees and costs.
The proposed legislation seeks to modify the existing legal framework that governs accessibility claims, providing smaller businesses with additional protections and opportunities to rectify alleged violations before incurring potential penalties. This could significantly reduce the financial burden on small employers facing accessibility claims, aligning with broader efforts to encourage compliance with state accessibility laws without undermining the rights of individuals with disabilities. The bill intends to strike a balance between ensuring accessibility and supporting small businesses, which are often more vulnerable to legal claims.
Senate Bill 585, introduced by Senator Niello, aims to amend California's Civil Code by introducing specific provisions related to construction-related accessibility claims. This bill establishes that individuals or entities that employ 50 or fewer people may not face legal claims for statutory damages due to access violations until they have been formally notified of these claims via a demand letter. It further stipulates that they have a grace period of 120 days to remedy any reported violations before facing liability for statutory damages, attorneys' fees, or costs.
The reception of SB 585 has been mixed, with support from various business groups who argue that the bill is necessary to prevent small business owners from being overwhelmed by claims, while those advocating for disability rights express concern that it could inadvertently lower the standards for accessibility enforcement. Proponents of the bill highlight its potential to foster a more cooperative approach to compliance, whereas critics fear it could lead to delays in addressing serious accessibility issues, ultimately impacting individuals with disabilities negatively.
Notable points of contention revolve around the requirements for filing claims and the stipulated grace period for businesses to correct violations. Critics argue that the 120-day period may allow ongoing discrimination against individuals with disabilities and could complicate the path to justice for plaintiffs. Additionally, the bill includes provisions aimed at ensuring that attempts to circumvent the notice and opportunity to correct components by claiming general discrimination damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 are explicitly prohibited. This raises questions about the balance between aiding business compliance and upholding the rights of individuals requiring accessible environments.