California Supreme Court Rules Discriminatory Intent Unnecessary for ADA Claims

Contact: Melissa Sharp 202-314-2068

Sacramento, Calif., June 11, 2009 — Karen Harned, executive director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center and John Kabateck, NFIB/California executive director, issued the following statement today in reaction to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., where the court held that California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act does not require plaintiffs to prove intentional discrimination in order to obtain monetary damages for Americans with Disabilities Act violations:

“Today’s decision is bad for small business owners. Unscrupulous plaintiffs and their attorneys have already taken advantage of the law to file numerous lawsuits against small business owners based on alleged ADA violations. Often the goal of these cases is not to improve access for the disabled, but is to induce a settlement from the small business owners who can’t afford to fight the allegations in court,” said Harned.

 

“Ruling that intentional discrimination is not needed in order for a plaintiff to collect damages for ADA violations further allows these plaintiffs and their lawyers to continue to extort small business owners who may or may not have violated the law,” said Harned.

 

“It is now up to the Legislature to fix the law,” said Kabateck. “Requiring proof of intentional discrimination in order for a claimant to be awarded monetary damages creates a disincentive for those plaintiffs and their lawyers who are filing claims just to get a quick settlement award. The Legislature owes it to small business owners, the victims of those who abuse the ADA, to clarify the standards of the law and require proof of intentional discrimination in order for a plaintiff to receive monetary damages for ADA violations.”