A years-long effort by state Sen. Roger Niello to reshape how California handles disability access lawsuits against small businesses has stalled once again — this time despite backing from a majority of his colleagues in the state Senate.
Niello, a Fair Oaks Republican who also helps oversee his family’s auto dealership business, has spent years pushing legislation aimed at curbing what he describes as opportunistic lawsuits filed against small businesses over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. His concern traces back to Scott Johnson, a Northern California man who filed thousands of such lawsuits and drew widespread criticism for what many viewed as profit-driven litigation rather than genuine advocacy for accessibility.
This year’s attempt, Senate Bill 84, would have given small business owners 120 days to fix ADA violations before they could be sued. The bill cleared the state Senate with strong, bipartisan support. But it never got a chance in the Assembly — not because lawmakers voted it down, but because the chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee simply refused to schedule a hearing.
That chair, Democratic Assemblymember Ash Kalra of San Jose, said Niello’s refusal to accept proposed amendments left him no choice. Kalra, a former defense attorney who has led the committee since 2023, called the bill an affront to the disability rights community in its original form.
“Having a piece of legislation that completely undermines the ADA without taking any amendments is a slap in the face to the disability rights community,” Kalra said.
This marks the second time Kalra has effectively killed a similar Niello proposal without a hearing. A nearly identical bill, Senate Bill 585, met the same fate in 2023.
Disability rights organizations have consistently opposed Niello’s approach, arguing it removes incentive for businesses to fix accessibility problems proactively and makes it harder for people with disabilities to enforce their rights. Business groups, however, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association and dozens of local chambers, have thrown their support behind the measure, arguing that a small number of law firms have used minor technical violations — regardless of whether they truly restrict access — to extract settlements from business owners.
While closed-door negotiations over legislation are common in Sacramento, longtime Capitol lobbyist Chris Micheli said it’s highly unusual for a bill from one legislative chamber to be blocked entirely by a committee chair in the other chamber without any public hearing. Micheli, who represents the Civil Justice Association of California, a supporter of Niello’s bill, said such moves are typically reserved for bills within a chamber’s own house.
At the same time Niello’s bill was sidelined, Kalra’s committee helped shape a rival approach: Assembly Bill 649, authored by Long Beach Democrat Josh Lowenthal. That measure builds on California’s existing Certified Access Specialist inspection program, which currently gives businesses 120 days to correct additional violations once they’ve completed a certified inspection. Lowenthal’s bill would extend that protection window to six years.
Niello argues the state doesn’t have enough certified inspectors to make that system work at scale, and said he was frustrated that Kalra’s committee wanted his bill to essentially mirror Lowenthal’s rather than let both proposals compete on their own merits.
“I said to (Kalra), let both bills move forward and let the bill with the best merit win, and if they both pass the Legislature, then let the governor decide,” Niello said. “I’m perfectly happy to cast my fate to that particular whim, but he’s not.”
Kalra pushed back sharply against Niello’s continued lobbying for a hearing, characterizing it as an attempt to strong-arm the process.
“Just trying to push a chair into having a hearing without any consideration about other opinions is not how business is done,” Kalra said.
Niello called that characterization “frankly offensive,” saying he had engaged directly with disability rights advocates about his bill. Those groups, however, remain firmly opposed. In a letter to state lawmakers, Disability Rights California and allied organizations argued that no other civil rights law requires victims to formally notify violators and wait months before they can seek legal recourse. The coalition has instead thrown its support behind Lowenthal’s bill, which it says better balances the concerns of business owners with the rights of people with disabilities.
Kalra has close ties to the Consumer Attorneys of California, a group that also opposes Niello’s legislation. Campaign finance records show Kalra has voted in line with the organization’s positions on 97% of bills it has weighed in on since he took office in 2016, and has received more than $62,000 in campaign contributions from the group during that time. Asked whether those contributions influenced his decision on SB 84, Kalra said he’d had “almost zero conversation” with the group about the bill, but had spoken extensively with disability rights advocates.
“To suggest that somehow I’m being influenced by a group that I’ve hardly ever talked to about this bill at all is just flatly not true,” he said.
Lowenthal’s bill, meanwhile, continues to advance and is expected to be heard again later this summer after clearing the Senate Judiciary Committee — though two Democratic senators who had co-authored Niello’s bill voted against it. During the hearing, state Sen. Henry Stern voiced some discomfort with how the process had unfolded, telling Lowenthal he appreciated the chance for a vote but had expected Niello’s competing idea to at least get similar consideration given the level of support it received in the Senate.
As for Niello, he says the fight isn’t over. He’s already considering bringing the proposal back if voters return him to the Legislature this November.
“SB 84 is dead,” he said, “but the idea is not dead.”
Original source: CalMatters
