The Unruh Act damages is stated in California Civil Code section 52 which states:
Actions for damages and other relief for denial of rights
(a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6.
(b) Whoever denies the right provided by Section 51.7 or 51.9, or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, the following:
(1) An amount to be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, for exemplary damages.
(2) A civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the person denied the right provided by Section 51.7 in any action brought by the person denied the right, or by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney. An action for that penalty brought pursuant to Section 51.7 shall be commenced within three years of the alleged practice.
(3) Attorney’s fees as may be determined by the court.
(c) Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in conduct of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights described in this section, and that conduct is of that nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of those rights, the Attorney General, any district attorney or city attorney, or any person aggrieved by the conduct may bring a civil action in the appropriate court by filing with it a complaint. The complaint shall contain the following:
(1) The signature of the officer, or, in his or her absence, the individual acting on behalf of the officer, or the signature of the person aggrieved.
(2) The facts pertaining to the conduct.
(3) A request for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person or persons responsible for the conduct, as the complainant deems necessary to ensure the full enjoyment of the rights described in this section.
(d) Whenever an action has been commenced in any court seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability, the Attorney General or any district attorney or city attorney for or in the name of the people of the State of California may intervene in the action upon timely application if the Attorney General or any district attorney or city attorney certifies that the case is of general public importance. In that action, the people of the State of California shall be entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action.
(e) Actions brought pursuant to this section are independent of any other actions, remedies, or procedures that may be available to an aggrieved party pursuant to any other law.
(f) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice in violation of Section 51 or 51.7 may also file a verified complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing pursuant to Section 12948 of the Government Code.
(g) This section does not require any construction, alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever, beyond that construction, alteration, repair, or modification that is otherwise required by other provisions of law, to any new or existing establishment, facility, building, improvement, or any other structure, nor does this section augment, restrict, or alter in any way the authority of the State Architect to require construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the State Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to other laws.
(h) For the purposes of this section, “actual damages” means special and general damages. This subdivision is declaratory of existing law.
(i) Subdivisions (b) to (f), inclusive, shall not be waived by contract except as provided in Section 51.7.
California Civil Jury Instruction: CACI No. 3067. Unruh Civil Rights Act – Damages (Civ. Code, §§ 51, 52(a))
If you decide that [name of plaintiff] has proved [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] claim against [name of defendant], you also must decide how much money will reasonably compensate [him/her/nonbinary pronoun] for
the harm. This compensation is called “damages.”
[Name of plaintiff] must prove the amount of [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] damages. However, [name of plaintiff] does not have to prove the exact amount of the harm or the exact amount of damages that will provide reasonable compensation for the harm. You must not speculate or guess in awarding damages.
The following are the specific items of damages claimed by [name of
plaintiff]:
[Insert item(s) of claimed harm.]
In addition, you may award [name of plaintiff] up to three times the amount of [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] actual damages as a penalty against [name of defendant].
Direction for Use – CACI No. 3067
Give this instruction for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act in which actual damages are claimed. (See Civ. Code, § 51; CACI No. 3060, Unruh Civil Rights Act – Essential Factual Elements.)
This instruction may also be given for claims under Civil Code section 51.5 (see CACI No. 3061, Discrimination in Business Dealings – Essential Factual Elements) and Civil Code section 51.6 (see CACI No. 3062, Gender Price Discrimination – Essential Factual Elements).
If the only claim is for statutory damages of $4,000 (see Civ. Code, § 52(a)), this instruction is not needed. (See Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 33 [219 Cal.Rptr. 133, 707 P.2d 195] [Unruh Act violations are per se injurious; Civ. Code, § 52(a) provides for minimum statutory damages for every violation regardless of the plaintiff’s actual damages]; see also Civ. Code, § 52(h) [“actual damages” means special and general damages].)
See the instructions in the Damages series (CACI Nos. 3900 et seq.) for additional instructions on actual damages and punitive damages. Note that the statutory minimum amount of recovery for a plaintiff is $4,000 in addition to actual damages.
If the verdict is for less than that amount, the judge should modify the verdict to reflect the statutory minimum.
Unruh Act Damages
Daily Damages
Daily damages are not available under CC § 52(a) and CC § 54.3(a). Kohler v. Rednap, Inc. (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2011), 794 F. Supp. 2d 1091.
Not For Daily Damages
Plaintiffs could not recover punitive damages under CC § 3294 because state’s civil rights act, provided for treble damages and based on the plain language of the CC §§ 52(a) and 54.3(a) defendants were only potentially liable for each offense, and not for daily damages. Doran v. Embassy Suites Hotel (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2002).
Excessive Damages
Under prior laws, failure of street railroad car to accept as a passenger, a colored person, in absence of malice, ill will or wanton conduct toward plaintiff on part of defendant, was not a case for exemplary damages; verdict of $500 was excessive, but plaintiff was entitled to nominal damages in such case even in absence of proof of any actual damage. Pleasants v. North B. & M. R. Co. (Cal. 1868), 34 Cal. 586.
Prof of Actual Not a Prerequisite
Proof of actual damages was not a prerequisite to recovery of statutory minimum damages under CC § 52(a) for a realty company’s failure to provide a handicapped parking space for its business customers. Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty (9th Cir. Cal. June 20, 2000), 216 F.3d 827.
No Damages
In arguing that CC § 52 provided the damage component for the claim under CC § 52.1, while simultaneously failing to provide any evidence of any discriminatory action taken against him, a claimant essentially conceded that he had no claim under CC § 52. Mendez v. County of Alameda (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2005).
Treble Damages
Finding that the treble damage provisions of CC §§ 52(a), 54.3 governed a disabled person’s discrimination claims, the court granted the restaurant’s motion to strike the disabled person’s claims for punitive damages under CC § 3294. Loskot v. Lulu’s Rest. (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2000).
No Double Damages for Unruh Act and Disable Person Act
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367, a district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a disabled person’s state claims of disability discrimination by a restaurant, as a public accommodation, because (1) those claims predominated over the person’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 12181, 12182, as only injunctive relief was available under the ADA pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 12188(a)(1), 2000a-3(a), while actual damages were available under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, CC §§ 51, 52, and under the Disabled Persons Act (DPA), CC §§ 54, 54.1; (2) although it was clear, pursuant to CC § 54.3, that the person could not recover under both the Unruh Act and the DPA, unsettled and complex issues of state law existed as both of the state acts were ill-defined; and (3) the California courts should be given the opportunity to interpret California’s disability laws. Molski v. Hitching Post I Rest., Inc. (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2005).
Damages per Visit to a Business Location
Summary judgment was granted to a customer because he was entitled to statutory damages for each of three visits to a restaurant that was admittedly in violation of Americans with Disability Act standards since the allowance of damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, CC § 52, for incidents of deterrence did not limit the damages previously available under the statute. Feezor v. Del Taco, Inc. (S.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2005).
Punitive Damages Limited to 3 Times of Actual Damages
Punitive damages for violations of CC §§ 52(a) and 54.3 are limited to three times the amount of actual damages, and a request for punitive damages under CC § 3294 is not available. Peters v. CJK Assocs., LLC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2003).
Maximum Punitive Damages is 3X Actual Damages
On appeal from an award of punitive damages against two officers for their retaliatory actions against a citizen, the reviewing court reduced the awards from $3 million and $1 million to $35,000 and $20,000 in order to satisfy the proper purposes of punitive damages and avoid the officers’ financial devastation. In comparing the punitive damages award and other civil penalties, the reviewing court noted that under CC §§ 52 and 52.1, a person who violated another person’s constitutional rights would be liable for a maximum of three times the amount of the actual damage suffered; the 8 to 1 and 8.5 to 1 ratios involved in the jury’s award were substantially higher than that amount. Grassilli v. Barr (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Sept. 13, 2006), 142 Cal. App. 4th 1260.
Discrimination Intent Required for Damages
Where case law supported that plaintiffs were allowed to recover monetary damages under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act without proving discriminatory intent, but other case law plainly held that a plaintiff who sought damages under CC § 52 had to show intentional discrimination, because of the conflicting authority the court found it appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USCS § 1367. Oliver v. Longs Drug Stores Cal., Inc. (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2008).
No Discrimination Intent Required for Damages
Plaintiff who seeks damages under CC, § 52, claiming the denial of full and equal treatment on the basis of disability in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, CC, § 51, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., need not prove intentional discrimination. Insofar as they hold to the contrary, Gunther v. Lin (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Oct. 26, 2006), 144 Cal. App. 4th 223, overruled in part, Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (Cal. June 11, 2009), 46 Cal. 4th 661, and Coronado v. Cobblestone Village Community Rentals, L.P. (Cal. App. 5th Dist. June 4, 2008), 163 Cal. App. 4th 831, overruled in part, Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (Cal. June 11, 2009), 46 Cal. 4th 661.
Statutory Damages
Disabled elderly couple was entitled to judgment against a store for discrimination in the failure to remove architectural barriers in violation of 42 U.S.C.S. § 12182 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 12101 et seq., and in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, CC §§ 51 et seq.; the couple was entitled to injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C.S. § 12188 in relation to two of the three barriers because they established that corrections of the parking space barrier and the ice cream counter barrier were readily achievable within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 12181(9), 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). The couple was also entitled to statutory damages under CC § 52 for the violations. Hubbard v. Rite Aid Corp. (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2006), 433 F. Supp. 2d 1150.
https://california-business-lawyer-corporate-lawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/businesses-that-succeed.jpg
1071
1077
Brad N
http://california-business-lawyer-corporate-lawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Nakase-Wade-logo-transparent-200x54px.png
Brad N2024-04-16 14:14:522024-04-16 14:16:245 Businesses That Have the Highest Success Rate for Profits
