Archived Bills and Issues

---

ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2702

Purpose:

To Provide Remedies for Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities under the Unruh Civil Rights Act

Statement of Problem

The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code Sections 51 et. seq.) provides important protections for people with disabilities against discrimination, and against anyone who would interfere with the right of access to public accommodations. Unfortunately, there has been a serious and ongoing problem with enforcement of the law which needs to be addressed.

Existing Law

The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits, and provides remedies for, discrimination against a person by a business establishment based on, among other things, a person's disability.
The Act also:

1. prohibits denial or interference with the right of access of a disabled person to specified public accommodations, but provides that it shall not be construed to require any construction, alteration, repair or modification of any new or existing structure,
2. declares that a violation of the rights of any individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 shall also constitute a violation of the Act, and
3. provides civil damages for violations of the Act.

Existing law in Section 116.220 and 116.231 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies the type of action that can be heard in small claims court, and sets certain limits on the number of claims that can be brought by an individual.

Background

The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code Sections 51 et. seq.) has the potential to become an important vehicle for addressing discrimination and lack of accessibility for persons with disabilities. However, there are currently a number of technical issues which need to be resolved in order to make this option more consistently available.

One problem is that several provisions in the Unruh Act presently contain a sentence which is subject to misinterpretation. That sentence states:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any construction, alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever to any new or existing establishment, facility, building, improvement, or any other structure, or to augment, restrict, or alter in any way the authority of the State Architect to require construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the State Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to other provisions of the law."

Second, problems sometimes arise when persons with disabilities attempt to bring Unruh Act claims in small claims court. Frequently, the amount in controversy in an Unruh Act claim is so small that it cannot be heard in municipal or superior court, or the cost of the litigation in those arenas would far exceed the amounts in question. This is particularly true in the case of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). These cases frequently involve minor architectural features, such as lack of accessible parking, a too-heavy door, or a badly designed rest room fixture. While these issues are small, they may be repeated over and over in many different buildings. People with disabilities are interested in resolving these issues, which create a serious and ongoing impediment to their ability to move about freely. However, some small claims court judges have taken the position that such actions cannot be brought in their courts. Allowing Unruh Act claims to be brought in small claims court is beneficial to persons with disabilities and to businesses because it allows for prompt and inexpensive resolution of disputes.

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure Section 116.231 establishes a limit on the number of small claims actions exceeding $2,500 which can be brought in a single year. Because the minimum statutory damage award for violation of the Unruh Act is $1,000, any access problem which occurs or remains in place long enough to impede access on three separate occasions will automatically exceed this limit. Therefore, it is quite common to have claims of $3,000 to $5,000 for such problems. The present limit on small claims actions then has the effect of requiring the person with a disability to choose between filing a claim after the first or second violation or waiting until the number of violations has accumulated to the point where the claim merits litigation in municipal or superior court.

Effect of AB 2702

AB2702 would make the following changes to the Unruh Act (Civil Code Sections 51 et seq) and to the Code of Civil Procedure:

1. Clarify that while the Unruh Act itself does not require construction or alteration to any facility, building, etc., such construction or alteration may be required by other provisions of law.

2. Amend Section 116.220 of the Code of Civil Procedure to specifically state that the small claims court has jurisdiction for recovery of damages under Civil Code Sections 52 and 54.3 of the Unruh Act if the amount does not exceed $5,000.

3. Amend Section 116.231 of the Code of Civil Procedure to remove the limit on the number of filings in a year that are more than $2,500 but less than $5,000 for cases involving damages under Civil Code Sections 52 and 54.3 of the Unruh Act.

Return to Legislative Advocacy page