Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances measure to give businesses a limited ‘right to cure’ ADA construction violations after CASP inspections
Summary
AB 649 would create a pilot program granting businesses that obtain a Certified Access Specialist (CASP) inspection a time-limited right to correct construction-related ADA violations before facing litigation. Lawmakers and disability advocates debated safeguards and the program’s scope.
Assemblymember Alastair Lowenthal’s AB 649, a proposal to give businesses a limited window to fix construction-related accessibility violations after a Certified Access Specialist (CASP) inspection, advanced from the Judiciary Committee after months of negotiation and amendments.
Lowenthal said the bill is designed to incentivize proactive compliance with accessibility standards without dismantling remedies for people with disabilities. “We want more businesses to take ADA compliance seriously and proactively make their businesses accessible,” he said, adding that CASP inspections and the time to remediate barriers can be costly for small enterprises.
Under the measure as amended, businesses that obtain a CASP inspection and correct identified construction-related violations would receive initial logistical protections and, within a limited period after certification, a 120‑day right to remedy any newly identified construction-related claims; the program includes a six‑year participation window and a sunset to allow legislative review.
Supporters, including Legal Aid groups and business owners who described facing prelitigation demands during charitable events, said the measure could reduce abusive lawsuit patterns from a small number of high-frequency litigants while preserving access protections. Chris Sweeney, a Long Beach restaurateur who testified, described settling an ADA complaint for $6,000 after receiving a demand even though the corrective step was minor.
Disability rights groups told the committee they were neutral after committee amendments that strengthened notice, maintenance and oversight requirements; they emphasized that litigation remains an essential enforcement tool and urged monitoring to ensure remedies result in real barrier removal. Committee members pressed on whether federal ADA claims would be curtailed; staff advised that fixing a state construction violation would generally also address parallel federal claims, and the author and advocates acknowledged edge cases where maintenance or later structural changes could again create exposure.
The committee accepted multiple technical changes and advanced the bill; the author and disability advocates plan continued engagement as the bill moves to the next committee.
