In recent months, DREDF has joined in filing a number of amicus, or "friend of the court," briefs in significant cases in both state and federal courts. These efforts continue DREDF's longstanding tradition of working in coalition with other civil rights and disability advocacy organizations, and of offering our legal expertise and the disability community's perspective to judges across the country.

DREDF is writing an amicus brief in the case of Williams v. Toyota on behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD). NCD is an independent federal agency that makes recommendations to the President and Congress on issues affecting Americans with disabilities. The Williams case involves a woman with carpal tunnel syndrome, (CTS) tendinitis and other musculoskeletal impairments. Williams was able to perform a modified duty job on the assembly line. When Toyota increased her job duties, she experienced pain and asked to be reasonably accommodated by being returned to the job she had been successfully performing. Toyota refused and Williams brought suit under the ADA. The question before the Supreme Court is whether Williams is a person with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. This case will determine not only the viability of the ADA for people with CTS, but also people with a variety of other disabilities, who require reasonable accommodation to stay employed.

In May 2000, DREDF joined as amicus with a number of other national civil rights organizations, including the National Women's Law Center, in a case involving the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Schools Association). In almost all states, public and private secondary schools delegate authority to regulate interscholastic athletic competitions to statewide athletic associations. In this gender discrimination case, the constitutional issue was whether such associations are ?state actors? for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus subject to the nondiscrimination mandate of the Equal Protection Clause. In February 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to the civil rights community, ruling that an interscholastic association's regulatory enforcement action is indeed ?state action.?

For the past several years, DREDF, along with other disability and civil rights groups, has been involved in amicus work in a disability employment discrimination case involving issues of reasonable accommodation. The case (Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc.) has generated several decisions from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The most recent amicus brief, filed in April 2000, helped to push the Court toward a favorable en banc decision that was issued in October 2000. Specifically, this decision held that: (1) reassignment is not in itself an ?unreasonable? accommodation just because the employer has a seniority system; and (2) engaging in an ?interactive process? with employees is a mandatory employer obligation, and is triggered by notice of the employee's disability and desire for accommodation. In February 2001, U.S. Air filed a petition for certiorari, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court granted the petition in April 2001, but limited the appeal to the first issue (involving reassignment and seniority systems). The case will now be briefed and argued before the high court.

In December 2000, DREDF joined a coalition of California disability advocacy and civil rights amici presenting arguments to the Ninth Circuit in Barrios v. California Interscholastic Federation, a case involving the availability of attorneys' fees recovery for plaintiffs who resolve civil rights cases through settlement. The case has not yet been decided. The underlying litigation had challenged a California Interscholastic Federation decision barring an umpire who uses a wheelchair from taking the field to coach, allegedly for safety reasons. The terms of settlement in that case permitted the umpire onto the field, and provided for monetary compensation in an amount ten times the statutory minimum damages.

In February 2000, DREDF joined a coalition of national disability and civil rights groups in filing an amicus brief to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Galvez-Letona v. Kirkpatrick, which involved claims that Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) regulations violated federal disability rights law. Specifically, the case challenged INS regulations requiring persons with developmental disabilities, but not others, to demonstrate their capacity to understand and execute a “meaningful oath” as part of their application to become naturalized American citizens. In February 2001, the Tenth Circuit ruled in an unpublished decision that because the INS had indicated it would waive the requirement for Galvez-Letona, the Court did not need to rule on the question of whether the regulations violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

In January 2000, DREDF joined a coalition of California public interest, legal services and advocacy organizations in submitting an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in Ketchum v. Moses. The case addressed the issue of whether California attorneys' fees law authorizes courts to award attorneys' fees "multipliers" or "enhancements" to prevailing parties, i.e., reasonable fees that increase fee awards to account for a lawyer's contingent risk of non-payment. In February 2001, the state high court decided that California law, in contrast to more restrictive U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of federal law, does authorize such awards.

In October 2000, DREDF joined with a coalition of California nonprofit fair housing, disability rights and legal services organizations in submitting an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in the case of Konig v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission. This case addressed the issue of whether the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) is authorized to award actual damages for emotional distress or other intangible injury to a fair housing complainant who prevails in an FEHC proceeding. Amici argued that such damages are authorized by California law, and are consistent with the expansive California public policy favoring the protection of civil rights and comprehensive redress of civil rights violations. The case has not yet been decided.

In May 2000, DREDF joined a coalition of California disability advocacy and civil rights groups in presenting an amicus letter to the California Supreme Court. The letter relates to the question of how the one-year statute of limitations under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) applies to cases in which an employee is alleging an ongoing pattern of discriminatory conduct over a period of years. In a May 2000 decision, the California Court of Appeals (in the case of Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc.) had issued a decision that disregarded longstanding precedent granting liberal access to courts to seek redress for “continuing violations” of civil rights. The amicus letter asked the California Supreme Court to either depublish the Richards decision, or grant review in the case. In June 2000, the high court granted review. The case has not yet been decided.

In January 2001, DREDF joined a coalition of civil rights groups in filing an amicus brief in a case (Levin v. Yeshiva University) alleging discrimination in policies regarding student housing for medical students. Specifically challenged was the policy of excluding all unmarried couples from family student housing. Amici argued that this policy has the effect of giving preferences to heterosexual medical students that are not available to lesbian and gay male medical students, and that it therefore constitutes illegal "disparate impact" discrimination. The case has not yet been decided.

Return to DREDF