Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.2 ADA Notice Requirement CITY CLERK File # Dl0l~[Q]-~[ð] AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 1, 2005 SUBJECT: Consideration of Support for Legislation Changes that would Amend the Americans with Disabilitics Act (ADA) to Require Notice Prior to Filing a Lawsuit Report Prepared by Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENT; I) Background Information on AB 2594 in 2003-2004 Session 2) HR 728 Bill Summary and Status for the 108'0 Congrcss 3) Spot Bill A8 20 Introduced by Assembly Member Leslie 4) Staff Report from the January 18,2005 Council Meeting RECOMMENDATION: Defer action on this itcm until the "spot bill" AB 20 is fully ~developed. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Non" DESCRIPTION: At the January 18,2005 City Council meeting, Staffpœsented for the City Council's consideration th" possibility of supporting legislative changes as presentcd by the City of Morro Bay to Amend thc Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to require notice prior to filing a lawsuit or supply additional diœction to Staff. City Council brought up several salient follow-up items before they could move forward with any decision on this matter. The k"y t')llow-up items and responses are as follows: How many other Cities did the City of Morro Bay contact for support? Response: The City of Morro Bay advised Staff th"y had sent letters to all the Califomia Cities, which are 478 Citi"s_ Of the Cities that were contacted, how many have passed resolutions supporting legislative changes? Response: Since sending out the letter of support back in the latter part of December 2004, the City of Morro Bay has received notifIcation that the following 9 (nine) Cities have passed a resolution which is less than 2% of the total Califomia Cities: IJ City of Arroyo Grand ~.M______________________________________________________________~~M______________________________________~~~ COPIES TO: ITEM NO.----LZ '1Jb?'" r!.-- IJ City of Buellton IJ City of Coalinga ¡:¡ City of Fortuna ¡:¡ City of Grover Beach ¡:¡ City ofPismo Beach ¡:¡ City of Redding ¡:¡ City of Santa Maria u City of Solvang The City of Paso Robles has advised the City of Morro Bay that they will support this req uest through a resolution in the near future. Full legislative bill summary and status on both bills AS 2594 and HR 728. ReSDOlJse: Attachcd are the Bill Summary and Status of both AB 2594 and HR 728. Attaehed also is a "spot bill" AB 20 which is a bill where the full language has not been developed that is being introduced by the same author of AB 2594, Assembly Member Leslie on the same topie of amending ADA. What was the League of California Cities position on the matter? ReSDonse: Staff contacted the League of California Cities and their position on the "spot bill" AB 20 by Assembly Member Leslie is that they have this item on a watch status until the full bill is developed. Based on the additional findings from the folIow-up items, Staff if recommending at this time to take the same approaeh as the League of Califomia Cities whieh is to wait until the biU is fulIy developed and then follow-up with the League of Califomia Cities on its position on the bilI and then bring this item back to the City Couneil for its eonsideration. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council defer action at this time until the "spot bill" AB 20 is fully developed. ~ iJb :J.. )fl¡ / 0Z7 ~3 .1Ia.L ....--."....-.... I want to ~_earch again. Documents associated with AB 2594 in the 2003-2004 Session Status _ 1210lf2004 1137 bytes Historv _ 1113012004 1385 bytes Bill Text In order to view the PDF version of the bill text documents, you may need a free viewer from Adobe. Amended - 04/2712004 HTML- 6961 bytes Introdueed - 02/20/2004 HTl\1L- 5911 bytes P12:E - 11189 bytes PDF- 9240 bytes Analyses ð,ssembly Committee - 05103/2004 - 26768 bytes .--.'''..-"....... http://www.leginfo.ca.gov...Ipostquery?bill_Dumber=ab _ 2594&sess=PRE\ 7, d- :)-1 ~oS- ATTACHMENT 1 ---~~~.J rage ! or 1 CURRENT BILL STATUS f}. ðf:, d. '3 MEASURE , AUTHOR(S) Toprc HOUSE +LAST A.B. No. 2594 Leslie. Public accommodations: LOCATrON ASM AMENDED DATE persona with disabilitieB. 04/27/2004 TYPE OF BrLL Inactive Non-Urgency Non-Appropriations Majority Vote Required Non~State-Mandated Local Program Non~Fiscal Non-Tax Levy LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 11/30/2004 LAST HIST. ACTION From committee without further action. TITLE An act to add Section 55.3 to the civil Code, relating to public accommodations. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_255l-2600/ab._2594_bill_20041201_status.htm] 1/1912005 COMPLETE BILL HISTORY 3 ~.?3 BILL NUMBER ,A.B. Woo 25~4 AUTHOR Leslie TOPIC : public accommodations: persons with disabilities. TYPE OF BILL : Inactive Non-Urgency won-Appropriations Majority Vote Required Non-State-Mandated Local Program Non-Fiscal Non-Tax Levy BILL HISTORY 2004 Nov. 30 May 4 Ap". 28 Apr. 27 Mar. 8 Feb. 22 Feb. 20 From committee without further action. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Re-referred to Com. on JUD. From committee chair, with author's amendments = Amend I and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended. Referred to Corn. On JUD. From printer. May be heard in committee Ma"ch 23. Read first time. To print. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab _2551-2600/ab _2594_bill_20041130 _history .html 1/19/2005 _~J . ~~~~~~~~~'J BILL NUMB~R: AB 2594 BrLL T~XT AMENDED AMENDED IN ASS~MBLY APRIL 27, 2004 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Leslie FEBRUARY 20, 2004 An act to add Section 55.3 to the civil code, relating to public accommodations. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AS 25941 as amended, Leslie. Public accommodations: persons with disabilities. (1) The federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1~~0 and the California Building Standards Code require that specified buildings, structures¡ and facilities be accessible to, and usable by, persona with disabilities. Existing law establishes in the Department of General Services the State Arçhitect with responsibilities relating to architectural services and state buildings. Existing law requires the State Architect to establish and publicize a program for voluntary certification by the state of any person who meets specified criteria as a certified access specialist. It also requires the State Architect to annually publish and make available to the public a list of certified access specialists and provide that this certification is effective for 3 years and renewable. This bill would entitle a person who hires a certified açcess specialist to review the design and construction of the person's premises to a Certificate of ADA Compliance if the certified access specialist deems the premises in compliance with the standards governing access to buildings for persön~ with disabilities. (2) Existing law ðu~hori=es any person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved by a violation of preacribed requirements relating to access to buildings by handicapped persons to bring a civil action to enjoin the violation. This bill would instead authorize a person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved by a violation of these prescribed requirements , except as specified, on premises subject to the certificate where the certificate is clearly visible to bring a civil action to enjoin the violation only after the person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved notifies the owner of the premises by certified mail of the violation and the owner of the premises hss had an opportunity to respond to the notice and, if the owner of the premises responds to the notice in a timely and appropriate manper/ has had an opportunity to address the allegations in the notice, as specified. Vote, majority. Appropriation, no. Fiscal committee, no. State-mandated local program: DO_ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS, SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Full Access, Fair Compliance Act of 2004." SEC. 2. Section 55.3 is added to the civil code, to read, 55.3. (a) A person who hires a certified access specialist listed pursuant to Section 4459_7 of the Government Code to review the design and construction of the person's premises shall receive a Certificate of ADA compliance if the certified access specialist deems the premises in compliance with the standards governing access to buildings for persons with disabilities. ~ ~?'3 http://www.leginfo.ea.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_25...Iab_2594_bill_20040427_amended~asm.htm1/1912005 (b) A person who receives a Certificate of ADA Compliance shall post the certificate in a clearly visible location on the premises subject to the certificate. (c) A person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved by a violation of Section 54 or 54.1, Chapter 7 (çommencing with Section 4450) of Division 5 of Title 1 of the GOvernment Çode, or Part 5.5 (commencing with Seçtion l~~SS) ot Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code on premises subject to the certificate where the ce'rtificate is. clearly visible may bring a. civil action to enjoin the violation only after the aggrieved or potentially aggrieved person ~otitiee the owner ot the premises by certified mail of the specifíc viola~ion and the owner has had an opportunity to respond to the notice and, if the owner reBponds tc the notioe in a timely and appropriate mannert has had an opportunity to address the allegations in the notice. (d) For purposes of subdivision (c), the owner has had an opportunity to respond to the notice if ~he owner is provided with 14 days after receipt of the notice to send, by certified mailt to the person aggrieved or potentially aggrieved a letter of intent to investigate the situation along with a copy of the Certificate of ADA Compliance. If the owner does not respond in this manner within this time period, the person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved may proceed with the civil action based upon conditions existing ât the end of the G5-day p~riod or thêreðfter (e) For purposes of subdivision (c), the owner has had an opportunity to address the allegations in the notice after the owner ot the premises is provided with 65 days after receipt of the. notice described in subdivision (c) to sendl by certified mail¡ a letter signed by the owner or a representative and the certified access specialist that the violation has been adequately addressed. After this letter is sent or the 65-day period has elapsed, whichever Occurs first¡ the aggrieved or potentially aggrieved person may proceed with the civil action_ (f) The requirements of this. section do not apply to any area within premises subject to a Certificate of ADA Compliance if the area is modified subsequent to the issuance of the certificate and the owner does not obtain a new Certificate of ADA Compliance for the modified area. Ig) The requirmnents of this section do not apply if anyone of the following occur: (1) There is an architectural barrier preventing access to the pr~mise.s _ (2) Actual bodily injury occurs. (3) Compliance in relation to the alleged violation was previously not readily achievable and has subsequently become readily achievable. Ih) Notwithstanding subdivision Id) of Section 54.1. the requirements of this section do not preempt an aggrievêd or potentially aggríeved person from seeking remêdies provided under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 142 a.s.ç. Sec. ~2l02) . (i) A cer~ificatiõn of complíance shall not be deemed prima facie evidence of compliance with eíther Title 24 of ~he California code of Regulations or the federal Amerícans wíth Disabilities Act of ~990 142 a.s.c. Sec. ~2~02), nor shall the absence of this certificate be used âs evidençe on noncompliance. 5" ;L3 ð?J http://www.leginfo,ea.gov/pub/03-04/bil1lasmlab_25...Iab _2594_ bill_ 20040427 _amended_asrn.htrn 1/1912005 AB 2594. J?age 1 Date of Hearing: May 4, 2004 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Ellen M. Corbett, Chair AB 2594 (Leslie) - As Amended, April 27, 2004 SUBJEÇT.. ,DISABILITY DISÇRIMINATION, RESTRIÇTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT K~X___"~SUES l)IF DISABILITY DISÇRIMINATION SUITS WERE SINGLED OUT FOR ADDITIONAL J?ROÇEDURAL AND LEGA~ HURD~ES, MIGHT IT NOT INADVERTENTLY MISLEAD BUSINESSES ABOUT THErR OBLIGATIONS OR DETER THEM FROM COMPLYING WITH STATE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY DISÇRIMINATION LAWS? 2)TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE MAY BE LEGITIMATE COMPLAINTS OF PERSISTENT FRIVOLOUS LAW surTS AGArNST SMALL BUSINESSES BY REPEAT LITIGANTS ALLEGING NOMINAL VIOLATIONS OF DrSABILITY AÇÇESS LAWS DESPITE THE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS OF THE BUSINESS TO COMJ?LY WITH THE LAW, WOULD IT NOT BE PREFERABLE TO ADPRESS THESE ISSUES IN THE ÇOMMITTEE'S PENDING BILL ON DISABILITY AÇÇESS ISSUES? SYNOPSIS Thie bill is the latest in a series of efforts in California and elsewhere to restrict suite seeking to enforce disability discrimination laws in businesses, housing accommodations and pUblic facilities. As with prior measures, this bill would . impose unprecedented procedural and legal barriers to liability that are inconsistent wi~h federal disability discrimination law and are not imposed On any other protected class under state or federal civil rights ¡aws. It is supported by a number of business groups and IItort reforml1 advocates who contend that businesses should have protection against liability until they are put on written notice of the specific violations alleged and provided additional time to comply with the law. Supporters contend that many California business ownera settle ADA access violation suits out of court because they feel they have no reasonable alternative, and that a substantial number of these actions are filed regarding relatively miner infractions, rathe~ than deliberate attempts to circumvent the law. The bill is opposed by dieability righte groupe and the Attorney General who contend that it creates unique¡ unwarranted and unworkable :J AB 2591 Page 2 _..___..__m.._...... hurdles to the enforcement of disability discrimination laws. SUMMAR"¥... Imposes additional procedur-al requirements and limitatione on persons with disabilities who seek to redress I.I2 c.v:1) http://www.leginfo.ea.gov/puh/03-04/bilJ/asm/a..Jab_2594_cfa_20040503_I05535._asm_eomm.html/19/2005 violations of state law regarding disability discrimination by businesses, housing accommodations and public facilities. specifically, this bill Î '!t/,"?J l)AuthorizèS certain persons to "certifyll that a place of business or housing accommodation complies with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, subject to specified limitations_ 2)Requirea persona with disabilities to provide 65 days advance notice in writing and by certified mail to the owner of premises covered by an ADA compliance certificate regarding all specific violations of disability access laws, and to provide the owner an opportunity to respond to the notice and address the allegations in the notice prior to suit. 3)Provides immunity from disability discrimination laws for persons who obtain such certificates fer violations that occur prior to the 65-day notice period if the owner addresses the allegations in the notice. EXrSTING LAW, -.-..--- l)providea under the federal ADA that no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges/ advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommQdation by any person who owns, leases, or leases to t or operates a place of public accommodation. (42 U. s. c. section 12181.) 2)Provides that individuala with disabilities or medical conditions have the same right as t:he general public to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics. and physicians' offices. public facilitiest and other public places. Further provides that a violation of the right of an individual under the ADA also constitutes a violation of state law. (Civil Code section 54. All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise noted.). o AE 2594 Page 3 3)provides t:hat: individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access to public accommodations, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation. and applicable alike to all persons. Further provides that individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access to all housing accommodations offered for rent or lease, subject: to the conditions and limitations established by law. (Section 54.1) 4)provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religiont ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommoda~ionsr advantages¡ facilitiest privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bi1l/asm/a..Jab_2594_efa_20040503_105535_asm_comm.html/19/2005 ....a..j,j> ........J..--.C""'I:.:f0.3'£11"r.. whatsoever. (Section 51.) 5)Does not require an individual with a disability, or any other person! to provide notice, wait a certain time period, or comply with any other procedural hurdles before bringing suit for discrimination or denial of equal acCess to public accommodations or other facilities, programs or services. (Section 52.) FIªCAk...!;;.!'l'ECL non-fiscal_ As currently in print, this bill is keyed .ÇOMMENT~_. According to the author, "significant frustration exists in both the disabled and small business communities regarding ADA compliance issues. Disabled individuals can feel that their unique needs are ignored, while business owners fear that certain disabled individuals have free reign to target them for lawsuits. AS :594 seeks tö address both of theae issues. Under current law, businesses have no way of knowing with certainty that their facility is ADA complian~. Therefore, even the most diligent compliance efforts afford no guarantees that a business has indeed met all compliance requirements. AB 2594 resolves this probleml establishing a framework that allows disabled individuals and businesses to work towards full complianoe in a manner that provides equity for all involved.!! ARGUMENT.~'--I!:L.f3UPPORT,.._ In support of the bill, the Civil Justice Association of California states þ IIAn increasing number of suits have been filed against California small businesses, such as '1 AB 2?~4 page 4 hotels and wineries¡ for alleged ADA violations. The alleged violations include the height of signs¡ ~be width of lines in walkways or parking lots, and the aize of door handles. Such minor violations are quickly, cheaply and easily corrected, yet the suits are costly for small businesses. Assembly Bill 25~4 would provide businesses with an opportunity to make a good faith effort to correct an alleged ADA violation before proceeding to costly litigation, 11 The California Apartment Association states, IILegislation enacted last year called upon the State Architect to create standards and education materials to certify individuals as IIAccess Specialists. II AB 2594 takes the nex.t logical and necessary step by authorizing Certified Access Specialists, who have been hired by a business to review their work site, to grant a 'Certificate of Compliancei (CaC) to the business once they deem it compliant with applicable standards. This facilitates the ability of a business that has paid for an inspection and received a COC to evidence a good faith effort in complia~ce and earns that business up to 65 days to remediate any future alleged violations before potential sanctions can be imposed. This recognition of good faith eftorts will go a long way towards encouraging voluntary and expedient compliance with applicable access sta:o.darda.11 Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of california (CELSüC) states that the measure IIpl"ovides an owner of property an opportunity to respond in a timely and appropriate manner to 2$ 9D ;2) http://www.legjnfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/a...Iab_2594_cfa_20040503_105535_asll1_comm.htm1/1912005 allegations of access violations and to address the allegations in the notice. Before being subject to a lawsuit." CELSOC argues that the bill strikes "an equitable balance of protecting business' owners who have made reasonable efforts to. make their property accessible to disabled members of the public while maintaining the rights of persons to. sue for compliance with ADA. II Pri9~· ..Unsuccessful Effo~ts To Imocse ..!iJ-ºJ:ic~_._B_~qµJreme~ts, ~nd _Oth~x__J?rQç:edural H:,µrd:lJ:~,~__.T9_. Enfo:ç:,~em~nt of Disabilitv Access .. ~aw-ª-=-- This bill is the moat recent in a line of unsuccessful efforts over several years to establish unique procedural requirements and limitations On the ability of private persons to obtain enforcement of disability access laws, including the author's AB 209, which failed passage in this Committee earlier this session. u AIl 2594 Page 5 ----.--,. .._"---,,.._- The ADA prohibita Busineases F:ç,QHL,Discriminat~_~g. .~gªi:r:;U¡;t Persons .__With Disªbilities. Under the federal ADA, a business that constitutes a place of public accommodation (e.g., many places of lodging, entertainment, recreation, restaurants, bars, theaters, stores, health clubs, etc.) is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of disability if its operations affect interstate commerce. prohibited discrimination oan take a number of forms - e.g., denial of participation in the facility, or a service, benefit, or good of the business; denial of equal participation in a good} service, facility, etc; or provision of a different or separate facility, service} good, etc. (unless necessary to provide services and the like that are as effective as that provided to others.) Non-Com'Oliance with The ADA IS"..~_~I:i,..eved To Be Wid,~,~.:Q~,~_a~__ As the author has previously noted, it is generally believed that widespread violations of the act a,re still common~ Inde.ed, the author I s premise has been that businesses are in fact violat,ing the ÞJJ.A - albeit in ways they may sometimes be unaware of - and the cost of fighting these violations in a lawsuit may be financially ruinous because of the damages that may be recovered by a victim. Aa a reeult, the author has complained, businesses are settling cases out of court. As diBcu5eed below, opponents of the bill agree that non-compliance with the ADA is all too commonpla.ce. State Law Makes violation of t.h~...ADA a Violation ..of .__~j;j'te La,,!.._.AS Well, ....."'.nª Provides Comp,!.rable Penalties. A violation of the ADA by a business¡ housing aocommodation or governmental facilìty also constitutes a per se violation of state disability die crimination law under two provisions of the Civil Code. Yet, wholly apart from the ADA, conduct that violates the ADA may also offend the separate obligations of state law. For the purposes of this bill, the only relevant difference between state aDd federal law in the consequences of an ADA violatìon is with respect to money damages. Under the ADA. a victim may obtain equitable relief and attorneyls fees in a private action. If the U_S. Attorney General sues to enforce the ADA¡ the court may award equitable relief, monetary damages and a civil penalty up to $100,000. State law for an ADA violation is much the ,. .....0.... ......... '-" q U6~3 http://www.lcginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/a...lab_2594_efa_20040503_105535_asm_eomm.html/19/2005 ~ L........ .L............ ..I. io..:!.:!1..o1.LIVJ) LlJU - LJJ.l1 ruJ.dJYi:ll~ same¡ except that the viçtim may recover actual damages, the COurt may award up to treble actual damages in ita discretion, and there is a statutory minimum damage recovery of either $1000 or $4000 depending On which provision of the Civil Code is invoked. I] . AB_2594 pase 6 ....---....- ..-.--...-. Sþ.9.ulçi.. State ",La~._Provide ~....:Qefe.J].ae for .MA...ViolatiQ.ns .~hat the ADA Itse)f Does Not Allow? This bill might immunize many ADA violations as a matter of state law. But the ADA itself imposes none of the requirements of this bill. Of course, state legislation cannot affect liability under federal law. and acts that violate the ADA would therefore still be actionable in state and federal court. Thus, businesses that violate the ADA would continue to be subject to costly litigation, including money damages, civil penalties and attorney's fees, irrespective of this bill. Although this bill envisions "ADA compliance certifica.tes!! that would protect a busi~ess from suit. these certificates might simply mislead buainesses into believing they have immunity that the state cannot actually provide. ~GUMENTS ¡N OPPOS¡.TIO}i!-'---- Among the many letters of opposition was a representative letter from the Coalition of Disability Access Professionals (CODAJ?), asserting that the bill "directly contravenes California's long established pUblic policy of strengthening civil rights and eliminating historical discrimination against persons with disabilities, and becaupe the purchase of a 'Certificate of ADA compliance! discourages meaningful compliance and corrupts the Division of the State Architects 'certified specialists! program. II CODAP also argues that lIwhat ia more likely to occur is the sale of certificates as a means of intimidati~g disabled peraons and avoiding meaningful barrier removal. AB 2594 provides a strong incentive for owners to purchase a 'Certificate of ADA compliance' from the specialiat requiring the least amount of barrier removal. 'I CODAP also takes issue with the notice requirements, arguing that "the real purpose of AB2594 is to require a disabled person to advocate for himself against the ADA I expert , as a means of discouraging complaints. II CODAP contends that "businesses that have their 'Certificate of ADA Compliance' will force disabled persona, who already have a claim for diacrirninationt to fight the analyaia of a~ 'ADA expert' without assistance and aCcess to the records or finanoial information required for such analysis. IT Jg__ TÌl§ ExteJ}t :;t'hat The.re .Mav Be I,egHimate._complaint.!L.Of ..--- .PersiB.teIl.t.._Friv:ºl~:u..s Law ßJJits,,)jgain.§..t Srt:L:a1l Busines.:s..~ .....-----E"pe'O,.t Lit.igaj1CS Allê9ing Nomina). Violations Qf ·Disabilit.Y ..j\cce.s_s L'O,ys De,!pit..'i' The GgDdl'"ith Ej'fOJ;J;:--ª---ºL_TÌle B!d.sinee~. Tq .--. Cgmplv 'l¡ith_.._The J;@.w, ..would It.. No~ Be Pt:ê.fe.!,:.able To Addr.ess Thes... u Page:> of ~ /O~,)3 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bm/asm/a.../ab_2594_era_20040503_105535_asm_comm.htm1/19/2005 .L u.õ....... \..I VI V ---...-. ---- . .._~_.,,_..- . ..---------....--...--. ~_....~594 ... .__. Page 7 I J 62)'1) ....-.--". ----... Issues In The Committee's Pending Bill On Disability Access Issues? If this bill does not provide an appealing solution to the complaint that small business allegedly face frivolous lawsuits by "protessional plaintiffs!! who seize on 'Itechnical!! violations of disability access laws to extort settlements in "drive-by" lawsuits, a better approach may be suggested by the Committeels AB 1707, currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. AS 1707 bill would address these concerns by prohibiting treble damages and the minimum statutory penalty against small businesses for violations of diaability discrimination laws regarding architectural access unless the plaintiff shows that the violation impaired his or her access to or use of the façility or caused bodily harm. This approach targets the allegations of "ADA abuse II by removing any tinancial incentive to sue when the alleged violation does not actually aftect the plaintiftrs equal access to the facility ou a particular occasion, without discouraging compliance with the law or relieving a business from responsibility for violating existing legal obligation and without undermining fair enforcement actions by persons with disabilities whose civil rights are denied by violation of the access laws. Prior .Rela~~d Leqislat.i_on . sa 262 (Kuehl), Çh. 872, Stats. 2003, required the State Architect to establish and publiçize a program for voluntary certification by the state of any person who meets specified criteria as a certified disability access specialist I and to annually publish and make available to the public a list of certified aCCeSs specialists. This bill also added county coupsel to the public prosecutors authorized tc bring an action to eujoin a violation of prescribed requiremente relating to access to buildings by persons with disabilities¡ and added civil penalties for specified violations in such actions. AB 209 (Leslie) of 2003 would have established a 60-day notiçe requirement before bringing an action for damages under state law against a business with fewer than 50 employees for an alleged violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act if the business has made a good faith etfort to comply with the ADA. This bill further provided that such a business may not be sued under state law for violating the federal law if the business corrected the alleged violation within 60 days of the date the notice of violation was received. For larger business (50 or more employees), the bill provided that a potential plaintiff shall make a reasonable effort to provide the o ...---... AB 2594 Page 8 foregoing notice. If the plaintiff failed to provide the notice, the amount of damages that a plaintiff may recover against such a business ia limited to $2,000 per violation. Status. Failed passage in Assembly Judiciary Committee. SB 69 (Oller) of 2003 would have required that an individual with a disability who in good faith believes that a public accommodation or housing accommodation does not provide full and http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/a.../ab_2594_efa_20040503_105535_asm_comm.htm1/19/2005 J !.'L7'":L....JJ""TnX equal access, to notify the owner o~ manager of that accommodation. The bill would also set fQrth the duty of the owner or manager, or other responsible party, to notify the individual of planned access improvements, as defined, and to make those improvements within a specified period, during which period the individual would be prohibited from commenoing a cause of action under any state disabled access law. The bill would also prohibit the recovery of attorney's fees, treble damages, or any other costs, with reepect to any action or proceeding regarding access improvements. Status: 'Failed passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee. /3 ùÒ"),) AB 2222 (!ülehl), Ch. 1049, Stats. 2000, p¡:-ovided that "the law of this state in the area of disabilities provides protections independent from those in the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1S90 (Public Law 101-336). Although the federal act provides a floor of protec~iont this state's law has always, even prior to passage of the federal act, afforded addi tional protections. II AB 1040 (Dutra) (2001) would have provided fo¡:- ce¡:-tain notice obligations and defenses with respect to violations of the ADA under state law. After convening a wide range of business and disability rights advocates in a series of substantive discussions¡ the author ultimately elected not to move this bill. AB 21aS (Baldwin) (2000) failed passage in this Committee. That bill would have required a disability discrimination victim to notify the owner or manager of a place of public accommodation by certified mail clea¡:-ly identifying the specific access problema alleged, and give the ¡:-esponsible party SO days to make an "undisputed access improvement. II REGISTF;. {ED. SUPPQB-'I'J 9!'RQSITION SUJ;>port LJ -.---.,.. _tIE 2594 Page 9 California Apartment Association Civil Justice Association of California ConSUlting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California (CELSOC) .,ODDoait;i.,.9:n. American Civil Liberties union Attorney General California Center for Law and the Deaf California Council of the Blind Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. Coalition of Disability Access Professionals Consumer Attorneys of California Protection ~ Advocacy, Inc. -..--,-.,.,..,. AIlalysis Prepar,,,,oLÞy.. Kevin G. Baker I JUD. I (916) 319-2334 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04!bm/asm/a...Iab _2594_cfa_20040503 _105535 _asm_comm.htrn 1/19/2005 lllll L3W1J1l1dlY (X. ~L4"U':" .~-~~ Bill Summary & Status for the lOath Congress ~~~, -- NEW SEARCH I HOME I HELP "".",..._~.._,.,,--..---.·"·"..........."."".·_"0.._,,~~,~·"..~·.._ ---". .page 1 01 1 \~ 'b Q.3 - H.R. 728 Title: To amend title III of the Amerieans with Disabilities Aet of 1990 to require, as a precondition to eommencing a civil action with respect to a place of public accommodation or a commercial facility, that an opportunity be provided to correct alleged violations. Sponsor: ReD Folev. Mark [FL-16] (introdueed 2/12/2003) ~nsors (63) Latest Major Aetion: 3/6/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. ~~'",""",,"~- All Inforrnat,iQJ1 (except text) Text oJ Legislation TiU",s CRS Summary Cosponsors (63) C-º-mmittees Related Bills Amendments CBO Cost Estimates Subjects Related Committee Doeuments http://thomas.loe.gov/egi-bin/bdquery/z?dl 08:h.r.00728: .- Major Congressional Aetions All CO.!l!;Le~sionitl ActiQ!l$ All Congressional Actions with Amendments With links to Congressional Record pages~ votes~reports ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of2 HR 72S ll:I Itf ~,)3 10Sth CONGRESS 1 st Session H. R. 728 To amend title III of the Amerieans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to require, as a preeondition to eommeneing a civil action with respect to a place of pub lie accommodation or a eommercial facility, that an opportunity be provided to eorreet alleged violations. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATJVES February 12, 2003 Mr. FOLEY (for himself, Mr. SHAW, Mr. COX, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. HERGER, Mr. PAUL, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. DUNCAN, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. WELDON of Florida, and Mr. ISSA) introdueed the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary ~""^"_~""."0'-.,..,~,. ...._~-""..""~...~,..~ "~'~''''WI_'''',"''''''''''.,.~,,·,·~_~·~~ _Ø".'.,."i'''"'.''''"''''¡''"".......~.'........~.~~.~........,......,."~,...'"'''__,_""'~ A BILL To amend title III ofthe Amerieans with Disabilities Aet of 1990 to require, as a precondition to eommencing a civil action with respect to a place of public accommodation or a commercial facility, that an opportunity be provided to eOITeet alleged violations. Be it elJacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the UlJited States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the 'ADA Notification Act'. SEC. 2. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990; AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS AS PRECONDITION TO CIVIL ACTIONS REGARDING PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES. Section 30S(a)(I) of the Amerieans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 D.s.C. 1218S(a)(I)) is amended-- (1) by striking '(1) AVAILABILITY' and all that follows through 'The remedies and procedures set forth' and inserting the following: '(I) AVAILABILITY OF REMEDIES AND PROCEDURES- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?e 1 OS :.ltemp/-c 1 OSy XHBV J( 1/21/2005 15 D'b~) '(A) IN GENERAL- Subjeet to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the remedies and procedures set forth'; (2) in subparagraph (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this seetion), by striking the second sentence; and (3) by adding at the end the following subparagraphs: '(B) OPPORTUNITY FOR CORRECTION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION- A eourt does not have jurisdiction in a civil action filed under subparagraph (A) with the court unless-- '(i) before filing the complaint, the plaintiff provided to the defendant notiee of the alleged violation, and the notice was provided by registered mail or in person; '(ii) the notice identified the specific faets that constitute the alleged violation, including identifieation of the loeation at whieh the violation oeeurred and the date on which the violation occurred; '(iii) 90 or more days has elapsed after the date on which the notice was so provided; '(iv) the notice informed the defendant that the civil action could not be eommeneed until the expiration of sueh 90-day period; and '(v) the complaint states that, as of the date on which the complaint is filed, the defendant has not eOITected the allegcd violation. '(C) CERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR CORRBCTION- With respect to a civil action that does not meet the criteria under subparagraph (B) to provide jurisdiction to the court involved, the foJIowing applies: '(i) The court shalJ impose an appropriate sanetion upon the attorneys involved (and notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction to proceed with the action, the court has jurisdiction to impose and enforce the sanetion). '(ii) If the criteria are subsequently met and the civil action proeecds, the court may not under seetion 505 allow the plaintiff any attorneys' fees (including litigation expenses) or eosts.'. END http://thomas.loe.gov/egi-binlquery/C?cI08:.Itemp/--cIOSyXHBVx 1121/2005 AB 20 Assembly 8111- INTRODUCE!) -- Page 1 of 1 BII,L NUMBBR: AB 20 BILL TEXT INTRODUCED 1lc2 ~d--3 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Leslie DECEMSE:R 6, 2004 An act to amend Section 54.3 of the Civil Code, relating to disabled persons. LEGISLATIYE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 20, as introduced, Leslie. Disabled persons. Under existing law, any person who denies or interferes with admittance to, or enjoyment of, public facilities, Or otherwise interferes with the rights of an individual with a disability, is liable for each offense, as specified. This bill would make nonsubstantive, techniçal chang~s to that prevision. Vote, majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee, no. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALI!~RNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS, SECTION 1. section 54.3 of the Civil Code is amended to read: 54.3. (a) Any person or persons, firm or corporation who denies or interferes with admittance. to , or enjoyment of , the public facilities as specified in Sections 54 and 54.1 , or otherwise interferes with the rights of an individual with a disability under Sections 54, 54.1 , and 54.2 is liable for each offense for the actual damages and any amount as may be determined by a jury, or the court sitting without a jury; up to a ma.x,i:m.wn o,f three times the .amount of actual damage.s but in no Case less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and attorney' s fee.s as In<1Y be determined by the Court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied any of the rights provided in Sections 54 J 54.1, and ·54 ~ 2. fi'Ioterfere, ff fer purposes ·of this section, includes, but is not limited ·to, preventing or causing the prevention of a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog from carrying out its functions in assisting a disabled person. (b) Any person who claims to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice in violation of Section 54, 54.1, or 54.2 may also file a verified complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing pursuant to Section 12948 of the Government Code. The remedies in this Sieçtion are Il.onexç·lusive and are in addition to any other remedy provided by law, including, but not limited to, any action for injunctive or otber equitable reHef available to th", aggrieved party or bruught in. the name of the people of this state or of the United States. Icl A person may not be held liabl" for da:mage$ pursuant to both this section and Section 52 for the same act or failure to act. http://info.sen.ca.gov/publbilllasmlab_000l-0050/ab_20_ bill_ 20041206_ ATTACHMENT 3 . AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 18,2005 CITY CLERK File # D(d~lë51..Ia~ \1 0() d-3 SUBJECT: Consideration of Support for Legislative Changes that would Amend the Amerieans with Disabilities Aet to Require Notice Prior to Filing a Lawsuit Report Prepared by Joni Pattillo, Assistant City ATTACHMENT: I) Letter from City of Mono Bay ~ 2) Proposed Resolution ~ . Council to eonsider the adoption of the attached resolution or supply Staff with additional direetion on this matter. RECOMMENDATION: FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: e The federal government enaeted the Amerieans with Disabilities Aet of 1990 (ADA) to prevent diserirnination to individuals with disabilities. ADA guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in publie accommodations, employment, transportation, state and loeal government services, and telecommuniq¡¡tions. The City of Dublin subsequent to the enactment of ADA also adopted the ADA Transition Plan in·'1993; the plan articulated various strategies in order to provide equal aeeess to the disabled when providing munieipal services. The City of Morro Bay based on the direetion of the City COUlleil for the City of Mono Bay is requesting the City of Dublin's support for legislation that would amend ADA and California State Aceess laws to require notiee prior to filing a lawsuit. The City of Morro Bay is located on the Pacific Coast of California about half way between San Praneisco and Los Angeles near Hearst Castle and the Big Sur Coast. . The City is a pleasant tourist destination with shops, restaurants and hotels along the coastline and within several blocks of the primary streets. The City of Morro Bay has grown very little in the past 20 years, and as of 2000, there are 10,350 people residing in the City. All the shops and restaurants are locally owned and operated and are considered "Mom & Pop" shops. In 2002, litigation was filed against the City of Morro Bay for alleged violations of the ADA and State Access laws. The City of Morro Bay settled a portion of the lawsuit by agreeing to spend $75,000 on ADA improvements over the next five years. The City of Morro Bay has been unable to settle the portion of the lawsuit dealing with attorneys' fees as plaintiff's attomeys demanded approximately $200,000. The Court recently reduced the amount of the attomeys' fees to $54,000; however, plaintiff's attomey is appealing the decision. _.~_____.____~~______________~__________~~____________~~_____._~_____~_~__._______~___w_______________~_____ . COPIES TO: - .... H/cc-formslagdastmt.doc lUþ2- ATTACHMENT 4 In 2004, litigation was filed against 1610eally owned and operated restaurants in Mb~ ~¡fd alleged violations of ADA. All the lawsuits are identical and have been filed by the same plaintiff and attorney. These lawsuits have had a tremendous impaet on the Community. Two of the restaurants have had to elose their doors, as they did not have the finaneial ability to fight the allegations. It appears that the spirit of ADA is being abused by a growing number of attorneys. Without giving smail business owners an opportunity to remedy the alleged violations, these attomeys are filing lawsuits for minor technical access . violations. Fearing the time, hassle and expense of lawsuits, small businesses are being forced into cash settlements- most of which goes to theattomeys. In order to help rectify this problem, legiSlation has been introdueed by California State Assemblyman Tim Leslie (AB 2594) and by U.S. Congressman Mark Foley (H.R. 728) that would amend ADA to require, as a precondition to commencing a civil action with respeet to a plaee of public accommodation or commercial facility, that an opportunity be provided to correct alleged violations. Reeommendation Couneil to eonsider the adoption of the attached resolution or supply Staff with additional direction on this matter. . '" . 2~1- . -..- .. . ....',' ¡q-ö¿) Q.:> City of Morro Bay Morro Bay, CA 93442 . 805-772·6200 'V¡~:¡" RECF:' ".,,' ." ¡ '~1. \ /i CrfV Ot' OUBI..il\i December 21, 2004 Richard C. Ambrose Dublin City Manager 100 Civie Plaza Dublin, CA 94568-2658 cX,w5 ~ ~--51' i!.Þ Re: Request/or support for legislation that would amend the Americans with Disabililie.<,' Act to require notice prior to filing a lawsuit. Dear City Manager; This correspondence is being sent to you at the direction of the City Council for the City of Morro Bay to solicit your support for legislation that would amend the Americans with Disabilities Act and Califomia State Access laws to require notiee prior to filing a lawsuit. As you may know, the City of Morro Bay is located on the Pacific Coast ofCaJifomia about half way between San FranCÎseo and Los Angeles near Hearst Castle and the Big Sur Coast. The City of Morro Bay is a working fishing village and the local fishing industry is one of the most important along the California Coast. The City is a pleasant tourist destination with shops, restaurants and hotels along the coastline and within severa] blocks of the primary streets. The Embarcadero, which runs along the waterfront, incJudes art galleries, tourist gift shops, surf and sport shops and dozens of restaurants. The City of Morro Bay has grown very little in the past 20 years, and as of 2000, there are 10,350 people residing in the City. Therc are absolutely no national chains in the City of Morro Bay except groeery stores and fast food ehains. All of the shops and restaurants are Joeally owned and operated and are considered "Mom & Pop" shops. In 2002, litigation was filed against the City for aJ1eged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State Access laws. The City quiekly settled a portion of the lawsuit by agreeing to spend $75,000 on ADA improvements over the next five years. The City was unable to settle the portion of the lawsuit dealing with attomeys' fees as plaintiff's attorneys demanded approximately $200,000. The Court recently redueed the iUTlount of the attomeys' fees to $54,000; however, plaintiff's attomey is appealing the decision. In 2004, litigation was filed against 16 locally owned and operated restaurants in Morro Bay for alleged violations of ADA. All of the lawsuits are identical and have been filed by the same plaintiff and attorney. These lawsuits have had a tremendous impaet on the Community. Two of ADMINISTRATION 595 Horbor Street CITY ATIORNEY 955 Shasta Avenue FINANCEDEPARTM"'~ "m"""D·~"'I\A"NT 595 Harbor Street , - t 'is ~ DS t .;. PUBLIC SERVICE ATTACHMENT 1 955 Shasta Avcnul HARBOR DEPARTMENT ¡Z75 Emboreadero Road POLICE DEPARTMENT 870 Morro Bay Boulevard Request for Support - ADA December 21, 2004 ~o~'J-) the restaurants have had to close their doors as they did not have th.e financial ability to fight the . allegations. The 14-year-old Americans with Disabilities Act is a good law. Unfortunately, the intent and spirit of the Amerieans with Disabilities Aet of 1990 is being abused by a growing number of attomeys. Without giving small business owners an opportunity to remedy the alleged violations, these attomeys are filing lawsuits for minor teehnieal aceess violations. Fearing the time, hassle and expense of lawsuits, small bu.sit)esses are being forced into eash settlements - most of which goes to the attomeys. By creating a multitude of cases, these attorneys are generating substantial amounts of income for themselves at the expense of small businesses. To help rectifY this problem, Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) introduced the ADA NotifìcatÙm A ct (H. R. 728), which amends the Amerieans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to deny jurisdietion to a court in a eivil aetion for remedies unless the eomplainant has implemented specified notifieation procedures that include opportunity for eorrection of the alleged violation. At the State level, Assemblyman Tim Leslie (Tahoe City) has introdueed similar legislation. AB 2594 Public accommodations: persons with disabililil!s would allow a person who hires an ADA speeialist to review the design and eonstruction of the person's premises to have a Certificate of ADA Complianee. Holders of such a certifieate would bc eotitled to notice and the opportunity to correct future ADA violations before a civillawstiit could be filed. Congressman Foley's and Assemblyman Leslie's legislation would curtail the abusive praetiee e of certain attorneys filing lawsuits for easily eorreetable ADA infractions and would enable small businesses to work with the disabled eommunity to eorrect minor violations and improve accessibility for the disabled. In effect, passage of this legislation would tip the balanee back to accessibility and baek to the disabled and away from the lawyers. Recently our City Couneil passed the enclosed resolution and direeted Staff to notify other jurisdictions and solieit support it) our eodeavor to seek an amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act to require notice prior to filing a lawsuit. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, ~,~ Robert Schultz City Attorney . '! . : ~/ 9::J3 - . - . RESOLUTION NO. 68--04 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY SUPPORTING LEGISLATION AMENDING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TO REQUIRE NOTICE PRIOR TO FILING LEGAL ACITON THE CITY COUNCIL City of Morro Bay, Ctillfornia WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilitiea Act gives civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities aínrllar to those provided to individuals on the basia of race, color, 5eX, national origin, age, and religion; and WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public ac<;ommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government serviees, and telecommunications; and WHEREAS, the City of Morro Bay supports the goals of this landmark civil rights law and the original intent of the Amerieans with Disabilities Act because it provides equal access opportunities for all Americans; and WHEREAS, since the enactment of the Americans willi Disabilities Act, many abuses have been perpetrated against Property owners by a few unscrupulous attorneys 5eCking to wage eeonoß1Îc retribution upon property owners using the guise of a well-intentioned civil rights law. Unfortunately, it is not llie goal of these few attorneys to improve accessibility for llie disabled, but to exact financial punishinent through lawSuits; and WHEREAS, legislation has been introduced by California State Assemblyman Tim Leslie (AB 2594) and by . U.S. Congres5IIlan Mark Foley (H.R. 728) that would amend the Americans willi Disabilities Act to require, as _p~ndition to co~cing a e~vil action with respect ~o a 'place of publie accommodation or commercial WCdlty, that an OpportunIty be provIded to correct alleged vlOlatioI15.' . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY that this Council, supports the adoplÏoh of legislation that would require notice prior to tiling legal action for violatiollS of the Americans willi Disabilities Act since it would curtail the abusive practice of certain attorneys by providing a due process provision for property owners so that they may be infull compliance with the Act. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon passage, the City Clerk shall deliver this Resolution to the League of California Cities, Centra.! Coast Cities, the Governor's office, and to the California and Federal Legislative Delegation. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay at a regula¡: meeting thereof held on the 2? day of September, 2004 on the following vote: . AYES; NOES; ABSENT: Elliott, Peirce, Petern, Wmholtz, Yates None None , ATfEST: ß¡j.~- tiGETI ~R, City Clerk ~.;¡ ö(J 5 "" RESOLUTION NO. - 05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ********* . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN SUPPORTING LEGISLATION AMENDING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TO REQUIRE NOTICE PRIOR TO FILING LEGAL ACTION WHEREAS, the Amerieans with Disabilities Aet gives eivil rights proteetion to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, eolor, sex, national origin, age, and religion; and WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Aet guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government serviees, and teleeommunieations; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin supports the goals of this landmark civil rights law and the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it provides equal access opportunities for all Americans; and WHEREAS, since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, many abuses have been perpetrated against property owners by a few unscrupulous attorneys seeking to wage economic retribution upon property oWtlers using the guise of a well-intentioned civil rights law. Unfortunately, it is not the goal of these few attomeys to improve accessibility for the disabled, but to exact financial punishment through lawsuits; and e WHEREAS, legislation has been introduced by CaIifomia State Assemblyman Tim Leslie (AB 2594) and by U.S. Congressman Mark Foley (H.R. 728) that would am.end the Americans with Disabilities Act to require, as a prceondition to commencing a civil aetion with respect to a place of public accommodation or commercial faeility, that an opportUlJity be provided to eorreet alleged violations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin that this Council supports the adoption of legislation that would require notiee prior to filing legal action for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Aet since it would curtail the abusive praetiee of certain attomeys by providing a due proeess provision for property owners so that they may be in full eomplianee with the Act. BE IT FURTIIER RESOLVED that upon passage, the City Clerk shall deliver this Resolution to the League of .califomia Cities, the Govemor's offiee, and to the California and Federal Legislative Delegation. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of January, 2005. AYES: . ATTACHMENT 2 NOES' ,;)3 D.?3 - e ABSENT' ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk . .