|
California Supreme Court Clarifies ADA and California Unruh Civil Rights Act Statutory Requirements
by: Steve Horan and Jessica Walker
On June 11, 2009, the California Supreme Court decided an important case regarding statutory minimum damages recoverable by disabled plaintiffs under California state law based upon violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (June 11, 2009, S162818)_Cal.4th_(2009 Cal. LEXIS 5183), the following questions were certified by the Ninth Circuit for answer by the California Supreme Court: (1) Must a plaintiff who seeks damages under California Civil Code section 52, claiming the denial of full and equal treatment on the basis of disability in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, Section 51) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.), prove "intentional discrimination?" (2) If the answer to Question 1 is "yes," what does "intentional discrimination" mean in this context?
Unfortunately for businesses and public entities who are sued by disabled plaintiffs under the ADA and California's Unruh Act, the Court held that an ADA plaintiff need not prove intentional discrimination to receive the $4,000 minimum statutory penalty.
The Court analyzed prior case law and legislative history.
The ADA prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities and allows a private right of action for injunctive relief and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. Generally, Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from denying the benefits of their programs, activities, or services to disabled individuals or otherwise discriminating against disabled persons in employment, contracts, licenses, and so on. It requires programs be accessible as a whole or in their entirety, but does not require removal of all access barriers. Title III of the ADA, generally prohibits private businesses from denying disabled individuals full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered by their "places of public accommodation." Places of public accommodation include restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, schools, gyms, and so on. Private parties must remove access barriers if doing so is readily achievable.
The California legislature expanded the protections afforded by the ADA with the Unruh Civil Rights Act, section 51 of which provides that any violation of the ADA is also a violation of section 51. Section 52 provides that any person or entity that violates section 51 is:
". . .liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury. . . up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney's fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto. . ."
Previously, in Gunther v. Lin (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 223, the Court of Appeals held that, without proving intentional discrimination, an ADA plaintiff could obtain minimum statutory damages of $1,000 under the Disabled Persons Act, Civil Code sections 54-55.3, but had to prove intentional discrimination to obtain the minimum statutory damages of $4,000 under section 52 of Unruh. In Munson, the California Supreme Court expressly overruled Gunther and that an ADA plaintiff that establishes an ADA violation under Unruh section 51 is entitled to minimum statutory damages of $4,000 without having to prove intentional discrimination.
For litigation commenced after January 1, 2009, the Munson Court noted that under chapter 549 of the California 2008 Statutes (Sen. Bill No. 1608 (2007-2008 Reg. Sess.)), sections 55.56 and 55.57, recovery of minimum statutory damages under Unruh by a disabled plaintiff are permitted only if an accessibility violation actually denied the plaintiff full and equal access. Thus, Unruh statutory damages are only allowed if "the plaintiff personally encountered the violation on a particular occasion, or the plaintiff was deterred from accessing a place of public accommodation on a particular occasion." These sections also limit statutory damages to one statutory damage assessment per occasion of access denial, rather than per individual accessibility standard violation at the location.
|
