SB 747 (Corbett) Disabled persons: equal access rights.
Track Progress of SB 747 http://ct2k2.capitoltrack.com/BillInfo.asp?measure=sb%20747
Print Petition Demanding REAL ADA REFORM and send to Legislators
The Recorder, By Cheryl Miller June 6, 2007
Happy Medium Sought on Access Suits
SACRAMENTO - State Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, may have drafted the
ultimate solution to a long-standing battle over disability-access litigation.
Her amended Senate Bill 747 is supported by two groups who rarely
see eye-to-eye: the Consumer Attorneys of California and the California
Chamber of Commerce. The California Hotel and Lodging Association likes it,
too. And the bill recently sailed out of the state Senate with almost
unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans.
The only real flaw with SB 747 is that it doesn't really say anything - not
yet anyway.
The bill's 71 words simply express the Legislature's "intent" to promote
business compliance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and
related state laws and to discourage "litigation that seeks attorney's fees
and damages without facilitating compliance with those laws."
How will lawmakers accomplish this lofty goal? The bill doesn't say. But
state senators seem willing to pass SB 747 to the state Assembly with the
hope that Corbett and others can eventually come up with language that
addresses a historically divisive legal issue.
Corbett wasn't available to talk about SB 747 on Tuesday, her office said.
But the bill appears tied to a truce negotiated last year between business
groups and trial lawyers after the two sides threatened each other with
dueling ballot measures. The California Restaurant Association and the
California Building Industry Association had proposed an initiative to curb
disability-access lawsuits. The Consumer Attorneys of California retaliated
with three of their own initiatives targeting homebuilders.
The three groups dropped their initiative campaigns after lawmakers agreed
to address their concerns in the Legislature.
No one is saying much publicly about SB 747. In letters to Corbett and the
state Senate, however, the Chamber of Commerce and Consumer Attorneys make
some mild concessions about disability-access laws.
"Businesses have a responsibility to comply with access laws," a
<http://ct2k2.capitoltrack.com/viewdoc.asp?docid=5136> chamber letter dated
May 10 said, "but California's laws should facilitate and acknowledge the
efforts of businesses who desire to comply and take steps accordingly."
The Consumer Attorneys wrote that "while most suits brought under the
California disability protection laws seek better compliance for people with
disabilities and should be encouraged, there are some suits that don't
appear to have compliance as a primary goal."
A Senate committee analysis of the bill suggests that Corbett, a former
trial lawyer, is trying to walk a fine legislative line by reducing
businesses' exposure to access lawsuits while ensuring the rights of
disabled patrons to sue over violations.
The analysis, written by staff of the Judiciary Committee that Corbett
chairs, says that business groups, disability advocates and "other
interested parties" are negotiating a three-pronged approach.
First, they're proposing increased training in access laws for architects,
engineers and other design professionals, perhaps including building
inspectors. Second, they've discussed a greater role for the Certified
Access Specialist Program, a project in the state architect's office
designed to help businesses with compliance issues. Created in 2003, the
program is not expected to be operational until next year.
Finally - and most vaguely - the analysis says negotiators are trying to
provide some kind of legal protection for businesses trying "in good faith"
to follow access laws.
"Starting from the premise that the civil rights of persons with
disabilities cannot and will not be curtailed by placing any bar to
litigation ... stakeholders and the authors are discussing several
alternative mechanisms to provide some type of relief for businesses that
are in compliance or are in the process of complying with the ADA in good
faith and are confronted with potential litigation," the committee report
said.
The analysis does not say what those "alternative mechanisms" are.
SB 747 is now awaiting a committee assignment in the state Assembly.
