SB 84 would give businesses 120 days to fix violations before being sued; the measure now awaits a hearing in a committee whose chairman has declined to schedule one.
SACRAMENTO — A bill that would give California small businesses a window to fix disability-access violations before facing lawsuits remains stuck in an Assembly committee, and its supporters are pressing the chairman to schedule a hearing before the Legislature’s summer recess.
Senate Bill 84, authored by Sen. Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), would bar a lawsuit seeking statutory damages over a construction-related accessibility violation unless the business is first served written notice and given 120 days to correct the problem. A business that fixes the violation within that window would not be liable for damages, costs, or the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.
Under current California law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act allows plaintiffs to recover $4,000 per violation, and supporters say stacked claims can turn minor infractions into existential financial threats for small operators. California accounts for a disproportionate share of ADA-related lawsuits filed nationwide, a pattern critics attribute to “drive-by” filings that yield settlements going largely to attorneys rather than to physical accessibility improvements.
The measure passed the Senate with broad bipartisan support and carries joint authors from both parties, including Sens. Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento) and Anna Caballero (D-Merced). It now awaits a hearing before the Assembly Judiciary Committee, chaired by Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San Jose).
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, an advocacy group backing the bill, is urging supporters to contact Kalra’s office and ask him to schedule a hearing, arguing the bill protects access for people with disabilities while shielding small businesses from meritless litigation.
Kalra has declined to advance the bill in its current form. In statements on earlier versions, he has said the author and co-authors have been unwilling to negotiate a more balanced right-to-cure measure and that the legislation has drawn sustained opposition from disability and civil-rights organizations. He has pointed to Assembly Bill 649, developed with input from disability advocates and business groups, as an alternative aimed at similar protections for small businesses.
The outcome carries direct stakes for rural counties like Siskiyou, where main-street retailers, restaurants, and service businesses in communities such as Yreka, Etna, Weed, and Mount Shasta operate on thin margins and have limited capacity to absorb a sudden settlement demand. Proponents argue a notice-and-cure period would steer money toward fixing access barriers rather than toward litigation; opponents counter that a cure period weakens enforcement of rights the ADA was written to guarantee.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee can be reached at (916) 319-2025.
