Amicus Briefs

ADA | Criminal Justice | Education | Employment | Housing | Medicaid | P&A Access

Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA)

Goodman v. Georgia (U.S. Supreme Court, Amicus Brief filed on July 2005)

Question. Whether, and to what extent, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., validly abrogates state sovereign immunity for suits by prisoners with disabilities challenging discrimination by state-operated prisons. [transcript of oral argument]

On January 10, 2006, the Supreme Court reversed, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Scalia. The Court observed that Mr. Goodman's ADA claims "were evidently based, at least in large part, on conduct that independently violated the provisions of s. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment" (and the Bill of Rights protections incorporated therein). "While the Members of this Court have disagreed regarding the scope of Congress's 'prophylactic' enforcement powers under s 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment," the Court's opinion stated, "no one doubts that s 5 grants Congress the power to 'enforce . . the provisions' of the Amendment by creating private remedies against the States for actual violations of those provisions." Accordingly, at least "insofar as Title II creates a private cause of action for damages against the States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity." [decision] U.S. v. Georgia, Goodman v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 126 S.Ct. 877 (2006)

Toledo v. Sanchez (1st Cir. Amicus Brief filed Oct. 2005)

Question. In a case involving the denial of accommodations for a university student with schizoaffective disorder, whether Congress validly abrogated Puerto Rico’s 11th Amendment immunity in the context of higher education  

On July 6, 2006, the court held that "Title II [of the ADA], as it applies to the class of cases implicating the right of access to public education, constitutes a valid exercise of Congress' Section 5 authority to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, state sovereign immunity is not a defense to this action, and we affirm the district court's decision to reinstate Toledo's Title II claims."  The First Circuit joined the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits in upholding Title II as valid Section 5 legislation in the education context. [Decision] Toledo v. Sanchez, 454 F.3d 24 (1 st Cir. 2006)

Neily v. CalPERS (9th Cir. May 2005)

Question. Whether  Long Term Care insurance offered by state employer violates ADA Title II by excluding from coverage a person w/ post-polio syndrome & another w/ Type I, insulin-dependent diabetes because of the "extent & severity" of their conditions; but not all persons w/ these conditions are excluded.

On November 29, 2006, the 9 th Circuit affirmed the granting of summary judgment for defendant in a Memorandum decision. Neily v. CalPERS, 2006 WL 3431879

Criminal Justice

Clark v. Arizona (U.S. Supreme Court. Jan. 2006)

Question. (1) Whether the Constitution (14 th Amend. Due Process Cl.) requires States to offer a criminal def. the possibility of an insanity defense; if so, must the State allow Def. to claim that, because of mental defect, he could not know the nature & quality of the crime he is accused of committing.

(2) Whether a State may limit/eliminate the right of a Def. to offer evid. of mental defect to rebut the prosecution’s evid. that the Def. had the state of mind required by statute (knowledge that he was killing a police officer). [decision]

Education

Arlington Central School Dist. v Murphy (U.S. Supreme Court , March 2006)

Question. Whether IDEA authorizes payment of expert fees to parents who win special education cases in court [Case brought by parents to force a N.Y. public school district to pay for their son’s special education at a private school.)

Bd of Ed v. Michael R. (7th Cir., Feb. 2006)

Question. Did the Court err in granting SJ in favor of the School that Pl. should be given FAPE in a self-contained classroom, and that the parents were given opportunity to participate in the IEP

Schaffer v. Weast (U.S. Supreme Court, Apr 2005)

Question. Who has the burden of proof in IDEA due process hearings. [transcript of oral argument] [decision]

P.N. v. Clementon Bd. of Ed. (3d Cir., May 2005)

Question. In IDEA cases, what degree of relief is needed to change the legal relationship between the parties and therefore permit an award of attorney fees? 

Employment

Burlington Northern v. White (U.S. Supreme Court, March 2006)

Question. What kind of proof does a worker need to show that s/he suffered an adverse employment action amounting to retaliatory discrimination based on race, sex or religion?

On June 23, 2006 the Supreme Court decided unanimously that an employer’s actions that are “harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination” are sufficiently adverse to constitute unlawful retaliation. The Court specifically rejected the argument that retaliation had to involve an adverse change the terms or conditions of employment. While this is a Title VII case involving sex discrimination, the opinion is likely to be relied upon in interpreting similar anti-retaliation provisions in the ADA. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway v White , 548 U.S. ___; 126 S. Ct. 2405; 2006 WL 1698953

Mammone v President & Fellows of Harvard Univ. (Mass. Supreme Judicial Ct , Dec. 2005)

Question. Whether the Superior Ct erred in finding as a matter of law that Plaintiff is not an “otherwise qualified” handicapped person because he engaged in misconduct "significantly inimical to the interests of his employer and in violation of the employer's rules."

On May 12, 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court , in a 5-1 decision affirmed the grant of summary judgment for defendant finding that plaintiff’s misconduct put him outside the definition of an “otherwise qualified individual” under Massachusetts antidiscrimination law. Mammone v. President & Fellows of Harvard College 446 Mass. 657.

Sopchak v. Mills (2nd Cir., Dec. 2004)

Question. 1) Whether complaint stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 for violation of Pl’s due process rights under the 14 Amend. to the US Constitution.
2) Whether it stated a cause of action under Title I of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, for violation of statutory rights under 29 USC ' 722(c)(2).

Housing

Hinneberg v. Big Stone Co. Housing (MN S. Ct., Apr. 2005)

Question. Whether Fair Housing Act requires Housing Authority to modify its Housing Choice Voucher Program portability rules (i.e. waive its 12 month waiting period to use the Voucher outside of housing authority’s jurisdiction as an accommodation).

Held: FHAA applies to public housing authorities (HA) that administer Sec. 8 housing programs. However, waiving the one-year waiting period before being allowed to use the portability provisions of the Voucher to move another jurisdiction amounted to an undue burden on the housing authority, and a fundamental alteration of its Housing Choice Voucher Program. Hinneberg v. Big Stone County Housing, 2005 WL 3117287. (Minn. Nov. 23, 2005)

Medicaid

Lankford v. Sherman (8th Cir. Dec. 2005)

Question. Whether under Federal Medicaid law and regulations, durable medical equipment (DME) is a mandatory service that must be available to Plaintiffs.

Watson v. Thorne (9th Cir. Nov. 2005)

Question. Whether there are private rights under §1983 to enforce the “reasonable standards, eligibility and service coverage rules of the Medicaid Act.

P&A Access

Wis Coalition v Wis Dept of Public Instruction (7th Cir. Jan. 2006)

Question. Whether the Dist. Ct erred in upholding elementary school’s denial of P&A’s request for names of parents of 6 students who had been illegally secluded in school, because the P&A failed to obtain permission from the students’ parents/GUs.

OPA v. Kirk (2d Cir. Oct. 2005)

Question. In connection with the investigation of patient deaths at a State hospital, whether the Connecticut P&A has a right to access to peer review records under PAIMI.

Iowa P&A, Inc. v. Tanager Place (8th Cir. Oct. 2005)

Question. (1) the importance of P&A access authority in residential facilities for youth; (2) the constitutionality of the PAIMI statute

OPA v. Hartford Bd of Ed (2d Cir. June 2005)

Question. Whether the Dist. Court correctly held that P&A has a right to access parent & guardian info for students and to access to school facility, pursuant to PAIMI & PAIR. [ Dist. Ct found FERPA pre-empted by PAIMI.]