LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for C-PALSY Archives

   

C-PALSY Archives

C-PALSY Archives


C-PALSY@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

C-PALSY Home

C-PALSY Home

C-PALSY  February 2003

C-PALSY February 2003

Subject:

Re: Fw: Your Save-the-ADA Advocacy Kit, Installment Three

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:

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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager