U.S Supreme Court
-
Tennessee v. Lane
DREDF filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Lane on behalf of the Honorable Dick Thornburgh, the National Association of People with Disabilities, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and ADA Watch. The issue in this case was whether Congress had the constitutional authority to require states to pay money damages for violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court ruled in favor of Lane on May 17, 2004. (May 2004)
Read DREDF's press release following the Court's affirmative decision in the case. -
Raytheon Co. v. Joel Hernandez
DREDF joined as co-counsel in the preparation of an amicus curiae brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the National Employment Lawyers Association and the American Association of People with Disabilities. The central issue in the case was whether the Americans with Disabilities Act confers preferential rehire rights on employees lawfully terminated for misconduct, such as illegal drug use.
On Dec. 2, 2003, in a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that because the company had a neutral no-rehire policy concerning employing people who had demonstrated drug use while previously employed, the company's policy did not violate the ADA. (December 2003)
-
Medical Board of California v. Michael J. Hason
DREDF prepared an amicus curiae brief for the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Senators Kennedy and Harkin, former Senator Dole, and Representative Hoyer in the case of Medical Board of California v. Michael J. Hason. The issue in the Hason case was whether Congress has the constitutional authority to subject states to suits for money damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In February 2003, the California Medical Board decided not to pursue its Supreme Court petition in the Hason case in response to concerns about the litigation's possible effect on the Americans with Disabilities Act that had been raised by California disability rights advocates, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and Governor Gray Davis. In March 2003 the Supreme Court removed Hason from the calendar. (March 2003)
Read the article in the San Francisco Chronicle. -
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., v. Ella Williams
DREDF filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., v. Ella Williams on behalf of the National Council on Disability. The case involved a worker who, upon developing carpal tunnel syndrome was reassigned from her job as an assembly line to other positions, where she performed satisfactorily. Eventually, Toyota required Williams to perform additional manual tasks, whereupon her pain reappeared. Williams requested an accommodation of her company-diagnosed medical condition and a return to her previous job as paint inspector. Williams stopped going to work and Toyota fired her.
Issued on January 8, 2002, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that Ms. Williams continuing ability to perform such tasks as brushing her teeth, bathing and some household chores disqualified her from fitting within the ADA's definition of disability, and therefore precluded her from claiming a right to reasonable accommodation from her employer. (January 2002)
Read DREDF's article, Supreme Court narrows interpretation of what constitutes a disability under the ADA: Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams
Read DREDFs article, Too Disabled or Not Disabled Enough? The Supreme Court Creates a Catch-22.
-
Chevron USA, Inc. v. Echazabal
DREDF joined as co-counsel in the preparation of an amicus curiae brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of a wide variety of disability organizations including the American Association of People with Disabilities ("AAPD" ), AARP, the American Council of the Blind ("ACB" ), the American Diabetes Association ("ADA"), ADAPT, the Brain Injury Association of America, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, ("DREDF"), Epilepsy Foundation®, HalfthePlanet Foundation, the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center ("LAS-ELC"), the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill ("NAMI"), the National Association of the Deaf Law Center, the National Association of Developmental Disabilities Councils ("NADDC"), the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems ("NAPAS"), the National Association of Rights Protection and Advocacy ("NARPA"), the National Council on Independent Living ("NCIL"), the National Mental Health Association, the National Mental Health Consumers - Self-Help Clearinghouse, the Polio Society, The Arc of the United States ("The Arc"), and the United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc. ("UCP").
This case considered whether the Americans with Disabilities Act permits an employer to refuse to hire or retain an employee who is a person with a disability as defined in the Act by proving that the conditions of employment pose a direct threat to the health or safety of that person.
On June 10, 2002, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that employers do not have to hire a person with a disability if they believe that person's health or safety would be put at risk by performing the job. (June 2002)
-
Garrett, et al. v. University of Alabama
DREDF went before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 11, 2000 to argue the Garrett, et al. v. University of Alabama, et al. case, in which Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act was at stake. DREDF authored the respondents' Supreme Court brief along with the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Michael Gottesman, Larry Gold and the Alabama law firm of Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs which represented former Alabama employees and respondents Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash.
On February 21, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that government workers with disabilities are not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority that "states are not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to make special accommodations for the disabled." (February 2001)
Amici (or "friends") nationwide filed briefs in support of the ADA.
Read DREDF's press release, Civil Rights Advocates Decry Supreme Court Decision, following the Supreme Court's decision in the Garrett case.
-
The Sutton Trilogy Sutton v. United Airlines, Murphy v. United Parcel Service, and Albertsons v. Kirkingburg
In the spring of 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a trio of critical cases involving the federal law definition of disability, which the ADA specifies is an "impairment" that "substantially limits" one or more "major life activities." DREDF participated in these cases by writing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Senators Harkin and Kennedy, former Senator Dole and Congressmen Hoyer and Owens, presenting arguments in favor of a broad interpretation of the ADA.
Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of the disability community, the decisions issued by the high court in June 1999 in Sutton v. United Airlines, Murphy v. United Parcel Service, and Albertsons v. Kirkingburg resulted in a significantly limited interpretation of the federal definition of disability. (June 1999)
Read the brief. Read the U.S. Supreme Court's decision.
Read "Defining Disability in the Aftermath of Sutton: Where Do We Go from Here?" By Arlene B. Mayerson and Kristan S. Mayer.
-
Bragdon v. Abbott
DREDF filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Senators Harkin, Jeffords and Kennedy, and Representatives Hoyer, Owens and Waxman in Abbott v. Bragdon. The central issue in this case was whether people who have HIV but appear asymptomatic are considered disabled and therefore protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In its first case addressing HIV/AIDS discrimination, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected dentist Randon Bragdon's arguments defending his 1994 refusal to fill a cavity for patient Sidney Abbott solely because she is HIV-positive. (June 1998)
Read the U.S. Supreme Court's decision.
