Summary — HB 5075 (Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act amendments)
Status and procedural history
- Filed March 13, 2025; electronically reproduced September 26, 2025.
- Most recent action (9/26/2025): introduced by Rep. Matthew Bierlein, read a first time and referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Overview / Purpose
- HB 5075 amends section 606 and adds section 606a to the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (1976 PA 220, MCL 37.1606 et seq.).
- The bill creates a presuit notice-and-cure procedure for alleged violations of state or federal accessibility laws, establishes response and cure timelines for facility owners, and limits recovery of attorney fees in certain circumstances. Its stated effect is to provide owners an opportunity to correct accessibility violations before litigation proceeds.
Key provisions
- Presuit notice requirement: A person alleging an accessibility-law violation must generally serve a written notice (personal service or certified mail) on the facility owner, agent, or other responsible person in the form and with the content described in new sec. 606a. The notice must identify the facility, the alleged violations, approximate date observed, and where a response should be sent.
- Owner response deadline: The owner (or responsible person) must respond within 15 business days by one of three options:
1. State that improvements will be made (and then have up to 120 days to complete them);
2. Challenge the validity of the alleged violation (permits immediate suit); or
3. State the violation has been corrected and provide verifying evidence.
- 120‑day cure period: If the owner agrees to make improvements, they have 120 days from receipt of the response to complete them. An extension is allowed only for a “reasonable explanation” (examples: permitting/construction delays).
- Preconditions on filing suit: A plaintiff may not file a civil action under the Act unless a notice under sec. 606a was served and one of the statutory conditions for litigation (e.g., owner failed to respond in 15 business days, owner failed to comply within 120 days, or owner challenged validity) has occurred.
- Attorney fees restrictions:
- Plaintiffs who do not serve the presuit notice are generally not entitled to attorney fees unless the court finds fees appropriate due to the violation’s willfulness, duration, or severity.
- Plaintiffs who do serve the notice may be denied attorney fees if they file suit before expiration of a lawful 120‑day extension and the court finds the owner’s extension justification reasonable and the owner completed required improvements during the extension.
- Definitions: “Accessibility law” is defined to include article 3 of the Act or any federal law that ensures accessibility to public accommodations, transportation, streets, sidewalks, buildings, medical facilities, etc. The bill specifies that “accessibility law” does not include article 5.
Who would be affected
- Plaintiffs: people with disabilities or advocates bringing accessibility claims (they generally must give presuit notice and may face limits on attorney fee recovery).
- Defendants: facility owners, property managers, businesses, and other persons responsible for accessibility compliance (required to respond within 15 business days and, if they elect, to cure within 120 days).
- Courts and attorneys: new procedural steps for prelitigation handling of disability-access claims; potential reduction in fee awards and shifts in litigation timing.
Procedural/timeline highlights
- Notice service by personal service or certified mail.
- Owner response deadline: 15 business days after service.
- Owner cure period: up to 120 days from receipt of the owner’s response; possible reasonable extension.
- Filing a lawsuit is restricted until notice and one of the statutorily specified conditions has occurred.
Potential impact / considerations
- Likely to reduce immediate litigation by creating a formal cure opportunity and potentially reducing “drive-by” or serial demand lawsuits that seek quick settlement.
- Shifts leverage toward owners who use the 120‑day cure period and documented extensions.
- May increase administrative burden on owners to track and respond to notices; plaintiffs may need to wait to litigate or lose fee-shifting leverage.
- Courts will interpret “reasonable explanation,” the sufficiency of notices/responses, and the conditions for awarding attorney fees — these interpretations will determine how the bill functions in practice.
For full statutory text and precise language, see HB 5075 as introduced (Sept. 26, 2025).
