Developers and general contractors often face difficult issues related to compliance with standards imposed by the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Until now, project owners have faced a significant number of lawsuits filed by a disproportionately small group of disabled plaintiffs who sometimes base their claims on technicalities within the ADA. In an attempt to protect developer and contractors' interests from this small group of plaintiffs who some say have created a cottage industry suing on ADA compliance issues, the legislature has attempted to reach a compromise culminating in State Senate Bill 1608. The bill attempts to encourage ADA compliance at the earliest phases of construction to prevent litigation and to clarify "standards" set forth under the ADA.
The bill requires judges to grant a temporary stay related to an ADA claim filed against building owners if the building has previously been inspected by a Certified Access Specialist ("CAS"). Further, the statute would entitle defendants with CAS certificates to a speedy evaluation conference before the judge in order to help expedite resolution or settlement of the dispute. This creates a clear incentive for building owners to have an inspection by a CAS at the outset in order to take advantage of protections afforded by the bill.
SB 1608 also requires architects to complete coursework on disability access requirements in order to renew their licenses. The aim of this continuing education requirement is to boost compliance during the design phase, eliminating the need for costly modifications later in construction, or after completion, at which point non-compliance may have already lead to litigation.
The Bill also provides for the creation of a nineteen member commission which will create a "Master Checklist" for inspectors to use in certifying that the building is ADA compliant. The creation of such a checklist should provide the construction industry with much-needed clarifications regarding requirement specifics, and alleviating ambiguity and subjectivity in the interpretation of ADA requirements which have created headaches and frustration for those who have attempted to comply with them in the past.
| 
