This measure would recognize the month of April 2016 as Citrus Strong Month for the purpose of celebrating California's vibrant citrus industry and the benefits it provides to the state's environment, economy, and people, and to affirm that California is citrus strong.
This measure would recognize the month of April 2016 as Aviation Awareness Month.
(1) Existing law prohibits discrimination on the basis of various specified personal characteristics, including disability. The Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act establishes standards for making new construction and existing facilities accessible to persons with disabilities and provides for construction-related accessibility claims for violations of those standards. Existing law specifies that a violation of construction-related accessibility standards personally encountered by a plaintiff may be sufficient to cause a denial of full and equal access if the plaintiff experienced difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment because of the violation. Under existing law, a defendant is liable for actual damages plus minimum statutory damages for each instance of discrimination relating to a construction-related accessibility standard. This bill would, for claims filed on and after its effective date, establish a rebuttable presumption, for the purpose of an award of minimum statutory damages, that certain technical violations do not cause a plaintiff to experience difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment, if specified conditions are met. This bill would also exempt a defendant from liability for minimum statutory damages with respect to a structure or area inspected by a certified access specialist for a period of 120 days if specified conditions are met. The bill would require a defendant who claims the benefit of this exemption to disclose the date and findings of any certified access specialist (CASp) inspection to the plaintiff. (2) Existing law requires the State Architect to establish and publicize a program for the voluntary certification by the state of any person who meets specified criteria as a CASp. Existing law requires the State Architect to annually publish a list of CASps. Existing law requires each applicant for CASp certification or renewal to pay certain fees, and requires the State Architect to periodically review those fees, as specified. Existing law provides for the deposit of those fees into the Certified Access Specialist Fund, which is continuously appropriated for use by the State Architect to implement the CASp program. This bill would additionally require the State Architect to publish, and regularly update, easily accessible lists of businesses that file prescribed notices of inspection, and businesses which have been inspected by a CASp on or after January 1, 2017, including the date of the inspection. The bill would require the State Architect to develop a process by which a small business may notify the State Architect that a structure or area has had a CASp inspection and to develop a form for businesses to notify the public that the business has obtained a CASp inspection. The bill would also require applicants for CASp certification or renewal to additionally provide to the State Architect the name of the city, county, or city and county in which the applicant intends to provide or has provided services, and would require the Division of the State Architect to post that information on its Internet Web site. (3) Existing law establishes the California Commission on Disability Access for purposes of developing recommendations to enable persons with disabilities to exercise their right to full and equal access to public facilities and facilitating business compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. Existing law sets forth the powers and duties of the commission, including developing educational materials and information for businesses, building owners, tenants, and building officials, posting that information on the commission's Internet Web site, and coordinating with other state agencies and local building departments to ensure that information provided to the public on disability access requirements is uniform and complete. This bill would additionally require the commission to provide a link on its Internet Web site to the Internet Web site of the Division of the State Architect's CASp certification program, and make the commission's educational materials and information available to other state agencies and local building departments. (4) The Permit Streamlining Act establishes procedures for the application, and review of an application, for a development project. Existing law requires a public agency to notify applicants for development permits of specified information, including the time limits established for the review and approval of development permits. This bill would additionally require local agencies to develop and provide to applicants materials relating to the requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or to instead provide similar materials developed by the California Commission on Disability Access. The bill would require a local agency to notify an applicant that approval of a permit does not signify that the applicant has complied with that act. The bill would also require local agencies to expedite review of projects for which the applicant provides a copy of a disability access certificate, demonstrates that the project is necessary to address an alleged violation of a construction-related access standard or a violation noted in a CASp report, and, if project plans are necessary for approval, has had a CASp review the project plans for compliance with all applicable construction-related accessibility standards. The bill would declare that these provisions constitute a matter of statewide concern and would apply to charter cities and charter counties. (5) By imposing additional duties on local agencies with respect to the receipt and review of applications for development project permits, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
This measure would designate the month of April 2016 as Autism Awareness Month and would encourage residents to show support for autism awareness by lighting their homes, businesses, schools, and places of worship with blue light bulbs.
This measure would commemorate March 30, 2016, as the 85th anniversary of the historic ruling in the case of Roberto Alvarez v. Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District, which invalidated that district's attempt to restrict its pupils of Mexican heritage to an inferior, segregated educational experience.
This measure would proclaim February 29, 2016, as Rare Disease Day in California and would provide for the recognition of Rare Disease Day in California in subsequent years, as specified.
The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 authorizes an aggrieved employee to bring a civil action to recover specified civil penalties that would otherwise be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees for the violation of certain provisions affecting employees. The act requires the employee to follow specified procedures before bringing an action. This bill would limit the violations for which an aggrieved employee is authorized to bring a civil action under the act and would require the employee to follow specified procedures before bringing an action.
This measure would recognize the week of April 11 to April 17, 2016, inclusive, as Cambodian Genocide Memorial Week.
Existing law provides that every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily harm, and from injury to his or her personal relations. Existing law authorizes the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board to compensate a victim of a crime from the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, for pecuniary loss incurred as a direct result of the crime, when the board determines it will best aid the person seeking compensation. This bill would authorize a person who is injured by an act of terrorism, as defined, to bring an action to recover damages against a person or entity who committed the act of terrorism, aided the person or entity to commit the act or terrorism, or coerced, induced, or solicited the person or entity to commit the act of terrorism. The bill would provide that the amount awarded may be up to 3 times the damages actually incurred, but in no event less than $10,000. The bill would permit a civil action or proceeding under this section to be commenced at any time within 5 years after the injury caused by the act of terrorism is suffered, as specified.
The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 authorizes an aggrieved employee to bring a civil action to recover specified civil penalties, that would otherwise be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees for the violation of certain provisions affecting employees. The act authorizes a court to exercise the same discretion to assess a civil penalty as the agency, subject to the same limitations and conditions. The act also authorizes a court, in any action by an aggrieved employee seeking recovery of a civil penalty, to award a lesser amount than the maximum civil penalty amount specified by the act if, based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, to do otherwise would result in an award that is unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory. This bill would authorize a court to dismiss an action as to an aggrieved employee seeking recovery of a civil penalty, if, after notice and hearing, the court finds that the aggrieved employee suffered no appreciable physical or economic harm.
