Thursday 7 May 2015

WHY DO WE WANT TO GO BACK.... SAY NO TO SB67

SB 67 reverses 44 years of legislative history save in 2008 and 2012. 

            The various legislative pronouncements of our state's policy leave no doubt that the purpose of section 54 et seq. and section 19955 et seq. is to reduce or eliminate the physical impediments to participation in community life by the disability community. (In re Marriage of Carney (1979) 24 *178  Cal.3d 725, 738 [157 Cal.Rptr. 383, 598 P.2d 36, 3 A.L.R.4th 1028].) The legislative concern with the enforcement difficulties of the handicap access legislation has been stated with clarity. In declaring an amendment to section 54.3 to be an urgency statute, the Legislature explained: "This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution *179  and shall go into immediate effect.

            The facts constituting such necessity are: Many physically disabled persons are presently being deprived of their civil rights because the enforcement provisions of Sections 54, 54.1, and 54.2 of the Civil Code are not adequate to insure such rights. This act will provide adequate enforcement and insure that the civil rights of physically disabled persons are being enforced and thus it is necessary that this act take effect at the earliest possible date." (Stats. 1977, ch. 881, § 4, p. 2651, italics added.)

            The Legislature's awareness of the continuous problems of enforcement is also reflected in the expansive nature of this body of legislation. (See Achtenberg, "Crips" Unite to Enforce Symbolic Laws: Legal Aid for the Disabled: An Overview (1975) 4 U. San Fernando Val.L.Rev. 161, 175, 208.) Over the five decades since the enactment of sections 54, 54.1 and 54.3, the Legislature has repeatedly expanded the methods of enforcement. (See People ex rel. Deukmejian v. CHE, Inc., supra, 150 Cal.App.3d at p. 135, quoting In re Marriage of Carney, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 740.) As originally enacted in 1968, section 54.3 set forth that a denial of equal access under sections 54, 54.1 and 54.2 constituted a misdemeanor. (Stats. 1968, ch. 461, § 1, p. 1093.)

            In 1976, the statute was amended so that anyone depriving a physically handicapped person of equal access was subject to liability for actual damages plus a maximum of $500 in punitive damages for each offense. (Stats. 1976, ch. 971, § 2, p. 2270.)

            In 1977, the limit on punitive damages was increased to $1,000. (Stats. 1977, ch. 881, § 1, pp. 2650‑ 2651.) The 1981 amendment removed the $1,000 cap on punitive damages and set forth, as the statute now provides, that a violator is liable for actual damages as well as an amount up to three times actual damages "but in no case less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) ...." This last amendment also subjected a defendant to liability for the plaintiff's attorney fees. (Stats. 1981, ch. 395, § 1, pp. 1582‑1583.) An additional remedy was added by the enactment of section 55 in 1974. By this statute, a private action for injunction was authorized for any individual aggrieved or potentially aggrieved by a violation of section 54 or 54.1. (Stats. 1974, ch. 1443, § 1, p. 3150.)

            In 1976 the Legislature endorsed an additional enforcement method by enacting section 55.1 which authorizes injunction actions by the district attorney, city attorney, Department of Rehabilitation or Attorney General. (Stats. 1976, ch. 869, § 1, p. 1979.)

After 1976 there were several amendments to strengthen DPA including statutory damages to $4000.


SB 67 contradicts prior DPA history and weakens its enforcement. 

No comments:

Post a Comment