Disability access: statutory damages: small businesses: technical violations.
Summary
Existing law prohibits discrimination on the basis of various specified personal characteristics, including disability. Existing law imposes minimum statutory damages for construction-related accessibility claims if the violation of a construction-related accessibility standard denied the plaintiff full and equal access to the place of public accommodation on a particular occasion, including by causing difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment. Existing law, for claims filed on or after a specified date, presumes that certain technical violations do not cause a person difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment for these purposes where the defendant is a small business and has corrected all of the technical violations that are the basis of the claim within specified time periods. Under existing law, these technical violations include the order in which parking signs are placed or the exact location or wording of parking signs, provided that the parking signs are clearly visible and indicate the location of accessible parking and van-accessible parking. This bill would specify that the design of parking signs is a technical violation under this latter provision. The bill would also establish additional technical violations presumed under the same provision to not cause difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment, including the number of required accessible parking spaces, noncompliant van-accessible parking spaces or aisles in parking lots, and noncompliant or nonexistent curb ramps or entrance ramps. Existing law provides that a small business for these purposes is one that has employed 25 or fewer employees on average, and has average annual gross receipts of less than a specified amount, over the past 3 years, or for the years it has been in existence if less than 3 years. This bill would recast this provision and increase the average number of employees for a business to qualify as a small business for these purposes from 25 to 50.
Bill status
failed
1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2019
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 21, 2019
Last action Feb 3, 2020
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
6
Key actions
0
Committee
3
Feb 3, 2020
Assembly · Failed
From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
Jan 31, 2020
Assembly · Failed
Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.
Mar 21, 2019
Assembly · Reported by committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Mar 7, 2019
Assembly · Referred to committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
Feb 22, 2019
Assembly · Reported by committee
From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Jim Patterson
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 999
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 999. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline