C-PALSY Archives

Cerebral Palsy List

C-PALSY@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Magenta Raine <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
St. John's University Cerebral Palsy List
Date:
Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:01:16 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (235 lines)
                  Subj: Fw: Your Save-the-ADA Advocacy Kit, Installment Three 

 Date: 2/10/03 10:43:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
 From: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>
 To: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>
 Sent from the Internet 


 
 
Written with the advisement of disability rights attorneys

 How Much of the ADA Are You Willing To Lose?

 The reality is that California Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s appeal to the 
U.S. Supreme Court using the Medical Board v Hason as a vehicle to destroy 
Title II of the ADA will succeed. The question is: To what degree? There are 
four options before the Supreme Court: 

1. To declare that it is unconstitutional for people with disabilities who 
are discriminated against by state licensing boards to receive compensatory 
damages. 

2. To declare that it is unconstitutional for people with disabilities who 
are discriminated against by state licensing boards to receive either 
compensatory damages or injunctive relief. (Injunctive relief means the state 
agency has to cease its discriminatory practice against that individual or 
class, if it is a class action law suit.)

 3. To declare that it is unconstitutional for the people with disabilities 
who are discriminated against by any and all state agencies to receive 
compensatory damages. 

4. To declare that it is unconstitutional for people with disabilities who 
are discriminated against by any and all state agencies to receive either 
compensatory damages or injunctive relief.

 It is a foregone conclusion by all those familiar with the ADA and the 
actions of this Supreme Court that one of the above actions will be taken. 
Lets take a look at the negative impact upon the lives of people with 
disabilities of these four options. 

* * * * *

 RAMIFICATIONS OF OPTION #1 - A U.S. Supreme declaration that it is 
unconstitutional for people with disabilities who are discriminated against 
by state licensing boards to collect compensatory damages. 

Those Directly Impacted. There are many professions which require licensing. 
Examples of the professionals who will be affected are cosmetologists, 
mattress makers, counselors, teachers, child-care workers, landscapers, 
architects, physicians, building contractors, realtors, engineers, nurses, 
therapists, pest inspectors, firefighters, police, attorneys, accountants, 
acupuncturists, massage therapists, auto mechanics, funeral directors, 
hearing aid dispensers, veterinarians, to name just a few.

 Examples: a. A deaf person is denied a child-care license because she/he is 
deaf. The person will be able to sue the licensing agency which will take, at 
the minimum, several years. At the end of that time, the court may decide 
that the deaf applicant is qualified for a license, and grant injunctive 
relief, thereby requiring the state agency to grant the license. However, the 
deaf applicant will not be compensated for the loss of wages and other 
damages inflicted by the state agency. 

b. If a person with a speech impediment is denied effective communication and 
as a result fails to receive a professional license, that person will still 
have the right to sue the state. After several years of litigation the person 
may receive the requested communication, but will never be compensated for 
the loss of income and opportunity. 

Effects on All People with Disabilities: Most of all, this least negative of 
possible actions by the Supreme Court will set in stone that people with 
disabilities are inferior and must be treated as inferior by all courts in 
the land. Whereas women and other classes who are protected by the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act can seek compensation, people with disabilities will be barred 
forever from this equal redress. This means, in effect, that state agencies 
will have no reason to stop their discriminatory practices against people 
with disabilities because there will be no incentive to do so. If all they 
have to do is stop the discriminatory practice and they do not have to pay 
compensatory damages, they will continue to discriminate.

 * * * * *

 RAMIFICATION OF OPTION #2 - A U.S. Supreme declaration that it is 
unconstitutional for people with disabilities who are discriminated against 
by state licensing boards to collect compensatory damages and injunctive 
relief.

 State licensing boards will have the blessing of the Supreme Court to 
discriminate against people with disabilities at will. The next case before 
the Supreme Court will be to declare all of Title II unconstitutional, and 
this will happen. It will just be a matter of time. 

* * * * *

 RAMIFICATION OF OPTION #3 - A U.S. Supreme declaration that it is 
unconstitutional for the people with disabilities who are discriminated 
against by any and all state agencies to receive compensatory damages. 

THIS IS THE OPTION THAT MOST ATTORNEYS KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE ADA BELIEVE THE 
SUPREME COURT WILL TAKE. 

Those Directly Impacted. All people with disabilities. All people who will 
experience a disability, all those who are regarded as having a disability, 
and all those who have a history of having a disability. 

Example. If a person with a visual impairment requests information from a 
state employment agency in alternate format and the agency fails to provide 
that information, the person will not be able to collect compensation for the 
failed opportunity and lost wages. More importantly, the state agency will 
have no incentive to stop this discriminatory practice. The state agency, if 
taken to court and so ordered, will be forced to supply the information in 
alternate format, which may or may not be outdated by then. Because they will 
not have to pay compensatory damages, there will be no incentive for the 
state agency to insure that from then on it makes its information available 
in alternate format. Needless to say, people with disabilities will be 
greatly discouraged from taking state agencies to court because it will be an 
act of futility, not only for themselves but for other people with 
disabilities. Because there will be little consequence of its action, the 
agency will continue its discriminatory practices because there will be no 
incentive to act otherwise. 

At least one circuit has held already that people with disabilities cannot 
sue state officials under the Ex Parte Young Doctrine for injunctive relief 
to enforce the ADA. Other circuit courts will undoubtedly try to follow. When 
the circuit decisions regarding injunctive relief are coupled with this 
option, there will be nothing to stop states from discriminating against 
people with disabilities. This means that the Olmstead Decision will end up 
being unenforceable as regards discrimination by the states in the circuits 
which enact similar decisions. 

* * * * *

 RAMIFICATION OF OPTION #4 - A U.S. Supreme declaration that it is 
unconstitutional for the people with disabilities who are discriminated 
against by any and all state agencies to receive compensatory damages and 
injunctive relief. 

States will have the blessing of the Supreme Court to discriminate against 
people with disabilities at will. That's it. Its all over. That the Supreme 
Court will chose this option is a REAL POSSIBILITY. The reason is because of 
the test for constitutionality the Supreme Court developed in the Garrett 
decision. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL 
TO DISCRIMINATE WHEN IT IS RATIONAL. And, they said, IT IS RATIONAL TO 
DISCRIMINATE IF IT WOULD SAVE THE STATE MONEY! 

* * * * *

 WHAT CAN YOU DO TO SAVE THE ADA?

 1. Contact your congressional representatives and ask them to write 
California Governor Gray Davis and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer 
and request that they stop the Medical Board v Hason appeal before the U.S. 
Supreme Court. This must be done immediately because the Supreme Court has 
already accepted the appeal! Ask them to send a copy of their letter to Safe 
Sidewalks for All Coalition at 901 Third Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95818. We 
especially need pressure from other Democratic leaders to ask the California 
governor and the attorney general to stop acting against the Democratic 
Party's historic support of people with disabilities. 

2. Attend the March in March rally in Sacramento, March 15, 2003, 1 p.m. to 4 
p.m! Transportation and housing available. See the rally announcement 
attached below.

 HolLynn D’’Lil

 MARCH IN MARCH FOR DISABILITY PRIDE!


SATURDAY, MARCH 15, 2003, FROM 1 TO 4 P.M.
12th and "J" Streets in SACRAMENTO, 

Headquarters for the

 CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONVENTION.

 
CELEBRATE DISABILITY CULTURE AND PRIDE!

 ASK THE DEMOCRATS TO PROTECT DISABILITY RIGHTS!

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES ARE UNDER ATTACK! 

GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS

 PROPOSES TO BALANCE THE BUDGET

 ON THE BACKS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES!

 
ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER

 HAS APPEALED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

 TO DECLARE TITLE II OF THE ADA UNCONSTITUTIONAL! 

THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP 

HAS APPEALED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

 TO STOP ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

 TO SIDEWALKS! 

LET THE POLITICIANS KNOW

 THAT WE SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE! 

WE ARE PROUD OF WHO WE ARE!

 WE WILL FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS!

 WE WILL FIGHT FOR OUR FAIR SHARE!
LET’’S ALL SHOW UP AND BE COUNTED!

 TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO ALL!

 Get a group together and we will rent a van to get you to Sacramento! 
Contact Richard Skaff: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>  and Warren Cushman: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">
[log in to unmask]</A> . For Housing Assistance Call Susan Barnhill: (916) 372 
4006 or <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> 

For more information: call Larry McIver at (916) 772-3916,

 or Hollynn D’’Lil at (916) 443-3623 or <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> 





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am available to do writing, editing, reporting, designing jobs, including 
business cards, etc. I am also a disability rights activist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ATOM RSS1 RSS2