Public Access – The Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Act
The Goldstein Law Firm
Mid-June 2009 Newsletter Supplement
“Public Access – The Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Act”
By: Charles H. Goldstein, Esq.
The Goldstein Law Firm
In Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 2009 DJDAR 8446, the California Supreme Court recently answered the question of whether a plaintiff who claims a violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act must prove that the Defendant intended to discriminate. This is a significant case and will affect all California businesses that are subject to the public accommodations laws because they are open to the public.
In this case, Kenneth Munson had a physical disability that required him to use a wheelchair. Munson alleged that he visited the Del Taco Restaurant in San Bernardino, California, and that he encountered architectural barriers that denied him legally required access to the parking area and restrooms.
Munson sued Del Taco, Inc. in federal district court, for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) of 1990, and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Munson sought injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees under California Civil Code section 52 for the alleged Unruh Act violations. The District Court found that an ADA violation occurred and therefore Del Taco was liable under the Unruh Act for statutory damages.
Del Taco appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the Unruh Act requires a plaintiff to establish that a defendant intentionally discriminated against him or her and showing that a defendant was motivated by animus against people with disabilities. The Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to consider the issue of whether the Unruh Act required proof of intent to discriminate. Following a lengthy statutory analysis, the Court unanimously concluded that a plaintiff alleging violation of the Unruh Act does not need to show that a defendant acted with discriminatory intent.
Unfortunately, it appears that absent action by the California legislature, a plaintiff only needs to show that he or she encountered architectural barriers that denied legally required access to a public accommodation facility, such as a parking area, restaurant facility, and/or production facility restroom.
The Goldstein Law Firm
A Professional Corproation
8912 Burton Way
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Telephone: (310) 553-4746
Facsimile: (310) 282-8070