LISTSERV - C-PALSY Archives - LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

References:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <462501c09c36$0c5d9300$b62729d8@ericspc>
Date:         Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:42:27 -0500
Reply-To:     PS & P - SD Team <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       SJU Advocacy List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         PS & P - SD Team <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Important Footnotes in Alabama vs Garret
To:           [log in to unmask]

Some important footnotes which, are both disturbing and yet also, offer at
least *some* hope:
====
Footnote 1:
++++
"We are not disposed to decide the constitutional issue whether Title II,
which has somewhat different remedial provisions from Title I, is
appropriate legislation under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when the
parties have not favored us with briefing on the statutory question. To the
extent the Court granted certiorari on the question whether respondents may
sue their state employers for damages under Title II of the ADA, see this
Court' s Rule 24.1(a), that portion of the writ is dismissed as
improvidently granted. See The Monrosa v. Carbon Black Export, Inc., 359 U.
S. 180, 184 (1959)."

Footnote 9:
++++
"Our holding here that Congress did not validly abrogate the States'
sovereign immunity from suit by private individuals for money damages under
Title I does not mean that persons with disabilities have no federal
recourse against discrimination. Title I of the ADA still prescribes
standards applicable to the States. Those standards can be enforced by the
United States in actions for money damages, as well as by private
individuals in actions for injunctive relief under Ex parte Young, 209 U. S.
123 (1908). In addition, state laws protecting the rights of persons with
disabilities in employment and other aspects of life provide independent
avenues of redress. See n. 5, supra."
====

So it does not look *all* bad, though it is, in my opinion, still a major
*travesty*, as is evidenced by the all too commonplace 5-4 split along
ideological lines, but at least it appears as though Title II remains
unscathed, and one's right to seek injunction against (or the Federal
government's right to sue) a State, under under Title I, remains unscathed
as well ...

The opinion is located at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1240.pdf

see:
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/main.html?PACKAGEID=scotus
for the AP News Story ...

Sincerely Yours,
--
Pat S & Phoenix - SD Team
<-->
"Deaf people can do anything but hear." - Gallaudet University President -
I. King Jordan
<-->
http://www.nad.org/
http://www.nfsd.com/
http://home.att.net/~volodia/mass-aa/index.html
<-->

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Johnson
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 11:35 AM
Subject: Alabama vs Garret

Wednesday February 21 10:28 AM ET
Justices Limit Disability Law

By LAURIE ASSEO, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court limited the reach of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, ruling Wednesday that state workers cannot file
employment-discrimination lawsuits against their employers under the federal
disability-rights law.

<snipped>