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 shall anything in this section be construed to 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. With respect to the Unruh Act claim, Target notes that there are only a few contexts in which an Unruh Act claim can exist independent of an ADA claim. It contends that the facts presented here are not one of those contexts. Compare Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042,1047 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>) with Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724,
holding that insurance policy that discriminated against the disabled did not violate the ada but did independently violate the unruh act holding that the discharge of an employee hospitalized for illness did not violate public policy holding that qualified immunity applies if either a the defendants action did not violate clearly established law or b it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law internal quotation marks omitted holding that an entity that serves the disabled lacks standing under the ada holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled