Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances 'ADA 30 days to comply' amid sharp debate over civil-rights impact
Summary
The committee reported HR 6453, which would require pre-suit notice and a cure period for alleged ADA violations; sponsors said it curbs abusive 'drive-by' litigation against small businesses, while opponents called it a dangerous limitation on civil-rights enforcement that could delay or deter access claims.
The House Judiciary Committee on March 25 voted to report HR 6453, the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act, after a lengthy and often heated debate over whether a pre-suit notice-and-cure regime would curb abusive litigation or undermine civil-rights enforcement.
Chair opened the discussion arguing that "Before filing suit, a plaintiff must give a business written notice of the alleged problem and a chance to fix it," framing the proposal as a common-sense fix to reduce lawyer-driven settlements while preserving accessibility.
Ranking Member Jerry Raskin (in committee remarks) strongly opposed the measure, saying it would "undermine the civil rights of Americans with disabilities" by imposing a pre-suit hurdle and a vague "substantial progress" standard that could indefinitely delay relief. He warned the bill would shift the burden onto people with disabilities and erode the ADA's enforcement mechanisms.
Proponents described concrete examples from small-business districts—alleged serial plaintiffs and demand-letter tactics that, they said, pushed family businesses to pay settlements for technical defects. Several members referenced state responses (California and Missouri) and urged a modest federal cure period as a balance.
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute (title edit) and the chair announced the bill ordered to be reported; during the sequence the clerk recorded that one tally showed "16 eyes and eight nos" for an intermediate vote. Committee supporters said the change preserves the right to sue after notice and cure, while opponents said it would create confusion and weaken the ADA's deterrent effect.
The committee-recorded debate highlighted the divide: proponents emphasized protecting small businesses from abusive litigation; opponents emphasized preserving immediate access enforcement and preventing racialized or otherwise discriminatory targeting of people with disabilities. Members agreed to include opening statements in the committee record and gave two days for additional views.
