>Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 14:15:03 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Jamal Mazrui <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Supreme Court to address ADA suits against public colleges
>Sender: [log in to unmask]
>To: Disability Policy <[log in to unmask]>
>X_Mailing_List_Server: Majordomo 1.94.1
>X_Mailing_List_Provider: TRIPIL (http://www.tripil.com)
>Original-recipient: rfc822;[log in to unmask]
>
>   The Chronicle of Higher Education
>
>                                      From the issue dated April 28, 2000
>
>   http://chronicle.com/weekly/v46/i34/34a03701.htm
>
>
>
>  Supreme Court to Decide Whether Public Colleges May Be Sued Under
>  Disabilities Law
>
>   By PETER SCHMIDT
>
>                                                               Washington
>
>   The U.S. Supreme Court announced last week that it will decide whether
>   public colleges and other state agencies can be sued in federal court
>   under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
>   If the Supreme Court accepts arguments that the 1990 federal
>   disabilities law infringes on states' rights, public-college employees
>   and students with physical or mental impairments could be precluded
>   from suing their institutions for damages under the A.D.A.
>   The case before the justices involves two lawsuits, filed by Alabama
>   state employees, which a lower federal court had consolidated. One of
>   the complaints was brought by a University of Alabama employee who
>   charged that her supervisors had discriminated against her after she
>   developed cancer. The plaintiff in the other lawsuit is a state
>   correctional officer.
>   The Supreme Court agreed to take up the question of whether the 11th
>   Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants states broad
>   protections against being sued in federal court, shields states from
>   lawsuits filed under the federal disabilities act.
>   The lawyers for the state employees argue that such states-rights'
>   concerns are trumped by the 14th Amendment's equal-protection
>   guarantees. The Supreme Court historically has cited the 14th
>   Amendment in allowing the U.S. government to enforce state compliance
>   with federal laws banning racial discrimination. The two sides in the
>   case disagree on whether the government's interest in prohibiting
>   discrimination against people with disabilities is compelling enough
>   to justify similar intrusions into states' affairs.
>   Similar questions have arisen over federal laws barring discrimination
>   based on age. On that front, the Supreme Court has come down squarely
>   on the side of the states. In January, in a case involving several
>   Florida public-university employees, the Supreme Court held that
>   Congress had exceeded its authority in passing the federal Age
>   Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and that state agencies
>   therefore cannot be sued for alleged age-related bias in federal
>   court.
>   The Supreme Court has tried twice before to decide the
>   constitutionality of applying the Americans With Disabilities Act to
>   state institutions, by agreeing in January to take up separate
>   lawsuits involving enforcement of the act in Arkansas and Florida.
>   Both cases were subsequently settled, however, before the Supreme
>   Court could render a decision.
>   In the Alabama case, the university employee and the corrections
>   officer accused the state and its university system of violating both
>   the A.D.A. and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which bars recipients
>   of federal funds -- including colleges -- from discriminating on the
>   basis of disability. A U.S. District Court ruled in January 1998 that
>   the 11th Amendment precluded the lawsuits. The U.S. Court of Appeals
>   for the 11th Circuit overturned that decision in October 1999,
>   however.
>   The State of Alabama and the University of Alabama System were joined
>   by the plaintiffs and the U.S. Justice Department in submitting briefs
>   asking the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between the 11th
>   Amendment and the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Supreme Court
>   needed to intervene, they said, because the federal circuit courts
>   were deeply divided over whether states must comply with the act, with
>   judges in six circuits saying yes, and those in two circuits ruling
>   no.
>   The lawyers for the state and the university system also asked the
>   Supreme Court to decide whether the 11th Amendment provides states
>   with immunity from the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
>   The lawyers for the plaintiffs and federal government opposed such a
>   review, however. They are arguing that the circuit courts were in
>   agreement that states can be sued under the Rehabilitation Act, given
>   that the act requires states to waive their 11th-Amendment immunity as
>   a condition for receiving federal funds. On this issue, the Supreme
>   Court sided with the plaintiffs and federal government and decided not
>   to review the 11th Circuit's decision upholding the Rehabilitation
>   Act.
>   The lawsuit against the University of Alabama was brought in 1997 by
>   Patricia Garrett, the director of nursing for women at the University
>   of Alabama Hospital. She charged that, after she was diagnosed with
>   breast cancer in 1994, her supervisor made negative comments about her
>   illness and demoted her when she took four months of unpaid leave for
>   treatment.
>   The university system has denied discriminating against Ms. Garrett.
>
>
>   http://chronicle.com
>   Copyright   2000 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
>
>
>
>
>

Check the URL below to register your institutions
Web page in EASI's Batteri-free Web contest.
http://www.rit.edu/~easi