DREDF Amicus Briefs
Ayon v. Cintas Corporation (2007)
DREDF joined a coalition of civil rights, workers' rights and environmental organizations in signing on to an amicus brief in a case involving a challenge to the Living Wage Ordinance of the City of Los Angeles. Ayon v. Cintas Corp. is very similar to other recent cases involving similar ordinances in Berkeley and Hayward. As does many California cities, Los Angeles has a city ordinance that requires any private business entering a contract to perform work for the city to pay a "living wage" to employees involved in the performance of the contract. In this most recent case, Cintas, a private business that offers uniform and laundry services, is arguing that the ordinance cannot legally extend to Cintas operations to the extent that Cintas performs the work outside the geographic jurisdiction of the city. The amicus brief argues that municipalities in California have the power to mandate various minimum legal requirements be met by contractors when they are performing city contracts, even if the contract work is done outside the geographical limits of the city. The case has implications for a wide range of progressive legislation including environmental protections, worker protections, and civil rights protections.
Bates v. UPS (2007)
DREDF joined with a coalition of disability and employment rights groups in submitting an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit in Bates v. UPS. This is a continuation of our amicus involvement in a long-running class-action case on behalf of employees who are deaf or hard of hearing, challenging defendant s across-the-board use of U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing standards to exclude individuals who are deaf from its driving jobs, even jobs that involve driving non-DOT regulated delivery vehicles. DREDF had previously participated in a 2005 amicus effort in support of plaintiff arguing that the UPS blanket exclusion is based on stereotyped generalizations about disability, and fails to comply with legally required individualized assessment analysis that appropriately balances the public policy goals of nondiscrimination and public safety. In October 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued a panel decision, upholding the favorable district court decision under the federal ADA, and reversing the California law part of the lower court opinion, which involved the Unruh Civil Rights Act. That panel decision (now invalid) is Bates v. UPS, 465 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2006). In November 2006, UPS petitioned the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc, which has been granted. The arguments made remain the same.
B.G. v. M.R. (2007)
DREDF joined an amicus brief that was submitted to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on July 2, 2007 in B.G. v. M.R., Appeal No. 28 (Sept. Term 2007), a family law case. B.G. involves a father with HIV who was stripped of parental rights by a Maryland family law judge on a record that suggested the court was reacting inappropriately to the disability. The amicus brief emphasized the history of discrimination against parents with disabilities, the need for objective assessment of parental fitness, and the disability civil rights analysis that should be applied in adjudicating parental rights.
Francisco-Figueroa v. Gonzales (2007)
DREDF joined an amicus brief submitted to the Ninth Circuit on June 20, 2007, in Francisco-Figueroa v. Gonzales, addressing the right to accommodations of in federal immigration proceedings. The plaintiff-appellant in this case is an individual with a mental health disability who is asserting Section 504 and constitutional due process claims arising out of the lack of accommodation to his disability at a federal removal hearing. The amicus brief supports the plaintiff-appellant position of entitlement to accommodation in the proceedings. In addition to DREDF, the amici included the Disability Rights Legal Center in Los Angeles, and the World Association for Persons with Disabilities.
Hollonbeck v. U.S. Olympic Committee, and Shepherd v. U.S. Olympic Committee (2007)
DREDF joined an amicus brief submitted to the Tenth Circuit in Hollonbeck v. U.S. Olympic Committee, and Shepherd v. U.S. Olympic Committee. The consolidated case challenges the USOC policy of offering better benefits (mostly off-field benefits) to Olympic and Pan American athletes than are offered to Paralympic athletes. The District of Colorado trial court had ruled that this practice is not illegal discrimination. Paralympic athletes appealed the decision arguing that this kind of differential treatment violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits disability discrimination by entities receiving federal funding. In addition to DREDF, the amici include other disability advocacy organizations and individual athletes who are not parties to the lawsuit.
In Re Marriage Cases (2007)
In the case In re Marriage Cases before the California Supreme Court, DREDF joined the separate is not equal brief filed on behalf of a number of civil rights groups, including gay and disability rights advocacy organizations. In 2006, the California Court of Appeal overturned an earlier state Superior Court ruling holding that California's law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying discriminates on the basis of sex and violates the fundamental right to marry. Consistent with DREDF's mission, the brief includes arguments regarding constitutional standards for civil rights protection in California
Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents Challenging the Marriage Exclusion
R.K. v. Hayward Unified School District (2007)
DREDF is a party to the amicus brief submitted to the Ninth Circuit in R.K. v, Hayward Unified School District (HUSD). R.K. appeals a Northern District of California decision in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) case involving a 10-year-old student with disabilities who had been placed at a nonpublic school. When the nonpublic school sought to terminate the student s placement, the parents filed a due process complaint, requesting a determination of future placement and a stay put order. Although the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) issued a stay put order, the school refused to honor the order unless HUSD would pay for increased services to support the student. The parents withdrew their due process complaint without prejudice (preserving the right to return to OAH in the future), and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) in federal court to enforce the IDEA s stay put provisions. The Northern District refused to issue a TRO on the grounds that it could not enforce the OAH order because the due process complaint had been withdrawn, and could not issue a stay put order because plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedy by completing the OAH process for considering the future placement issues. The parents appeal argues that the IDEA requires federal courts to enforce the mandatory stay put provisions.
Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association [TSSAA] v. Brentwood Academy ( Brentwood II ) (2007)
DREDF signed on to an amicus brief in Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association [TSSAA] v. Brentwood Academy ( Brentwood II ), No. 06-427, which was before the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007. Brentwood II involves the question of what constitutes a state actor for purposes of compliance with constitutional and civil rights obligations. In the original case, Brentwood Academy challenged TSSAA s imposition of penalties for violations of athletic recruiting rules. Among other things, TSSAA raised the defense that as a private organization it was not subject to constitutional requirements. The Brentwood I amicus brief argued in favor of a state actor analysis that would help ensure that private organizations functioning expansively in the public sphere will be subject to nondiscrimination protections. The specific focus was on issues of Title IX compliance and gender equality in sports, but the underlying principle can be generalized to diverse situations of relevance to all civil rights communities. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled favorably to the amici position, holding that TSSAA was a state actor, and generally endorsing a state actor analysis that is protective to the interests of civil rights communities In Brentwood II amici argued that Brentwood I was correctly decided as to the state actor analysis, and the brief urges the high court not to overrule its Brentwood I decision on this issue. Indeed, the 2007 Court Opinion let its 2001 Opinion stand.
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/06-427all.pdf
Z.S. v. Neptune Bd of Ed (2007)
DREDF has signed on to an amicus brief in the Third Circuit in Z.S. v. Neptune Bd of Ed., a case involving the issue of entitlement to attorneys fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In contrast to the ubiquitous Buckhannon dilemmas, involving issues of what constitutes judgment on the merits or court ordered relief, this case involves a new conundrum, having to do with whether a plaintiff who obtained Buckhannon-sanctioned relief can nevertheless be denied fees because there was never a formal determination that the child in question had a disability. The District Court held that the IDEA only permits fees to those pursuing the rights of a child with a disability, and thus explicit finding that the plaintiff has a disability is a prerequisite to fees. Amici are arguing that this is an inappropriate requirement to insert into a statute that guarantees the right to a determination of whether disability exists (e.g., evaluation obligations). Thus, anyone obtaining an order for an evaluation (regardless of the result of the evaluation) has indeed prevailed in securing IDEA relief.
Capitol People First v. Department of Developmental Services (2006)
DREDF joined with other disability rights organizations to file an amicus brief supporting in People First, a California state court case. The appeal challenged the class cert denial, which was based on the trial court s reasoning that the class action vehicle is inappropriate when the class members seek individualized assessment. On September 25, 2007, the First District Appellate Court reversed the state court order denying certification of the class action, and remanded the case with directions to enter an order granting certification. People First is a class action on behalf of Californians with developmental disabilities who are or will be institutionalized or at risk of being institutionalized in public or private facilities. The case is aimed at ensuring that all class members receive appropriate assessments, as a preface to community placement options.
Green v. State of California (2006)
In a case brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), DREDF and other disability rights organizations filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court arguing that FEHA is more expansive than the ADA on the question of whether the plaintiff-employee in a FEHA case is obligated to establish that she is capable of performing the essential duties of a job as part of a prima facie disability employment discrimination case or whether the defendant-employer must instead establish inability to perform as an affirmative defense. Unfortunately, on August 23, 2007, the high court ruled that FEHA tracks the ADA in that it is the employee s obligation to establish that she is qualified to perform the job as part of a prima facie case.
Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central (2006)
DREDF signed on to an amicus brief filed in Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central seeking an interpretation of the California Family Rights Act (CRFA). The amicus brief argues for an expansive interpretation of this statute in various particulars. The case is relevant to DREDF's work both because availability of CRFA leave based on "serious medical condition" is itself an issue of interest to people with disabilities, and because legal interpretations of CRFA have implications for interpretations of disability nondiscrimination statutes, particularly with respect to various cross-references that CRFA makes to laws that are often the basis for DREDF's own cases.
Pioneer Electronics v. Superior Court (2006)
DREDF joined a large coalition of public interest organizations in an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in Pioneer Electronics v. Superior Court, which addressed a balance-of-interests question involving the privacy interests of individuals, versus the public interest in ensuring access to relevant information about class members by class counsel in ensuring effective implementation and enforcement of civil rights and consumer rights laws. The intermediate appellate court had created a new state constitutional privacy standard, which amici argued would severely undermine the efficacy of class actions in California. In January 2007, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the appellate court decision as overprotective of privacy rights, inconsistent with established privacy principles, and likely to cause adverse consequences in future cases, thereby vindicating the amicus position and confirming California s commitment to an effective class action vehicle for rights enforcement.
USA v. AMC Entertainment (2006)
DREDF is amici in USA v. AMC Entertainment, an ADA Title III stadium seating case that the US Department of Justice filed in federal court in 1999, in the Central District of California. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit ruled in a separate case that limiting accessible seating to the front row of theaters violates the ADA. Following the Ninth Circuit ruling, the district court in this case granted a nationwide injunction against AMC. But because other circuits have different views of the seating requirements, AMC appealed the injunction arguing that nationwide relief cannot be granted in a situation where circuits are in conflict about the legal arguments that support an injunction. The amicus brief argues that district courts have discretion to issue injunctions even in the face of circuit splits, focusing particularly on the effect that an adverse ruling would have on the representation provided by public interest organizations, and on implications for enforcement of civil rights laws.
Woo v. Lockyer (2006)
DREDF signed on to an amicus brief with a broad coalition of civil rights groups in same-sex marriage cases that are currently pending in the intermediate California appellate court, First Appellate District, Division 3. Woo v. Lockyer is a consolidation of six cases that arose out of or were prompted by the San Francisco marriages in 2004. The case presents lines of argument relevant to DREDF's mission, offering reasoning regarding appropriate constitutional and public policy standards for civil rights protection in California, including references to authority in support of strong state disability rights protections.
Gambini v. Total Renal Care (2005)
Joining other disability and women's right organizations, DREDF is an amicus in Gambini v. Total Renal Care. The case involves an employee who was admittedly fired due to the employer's unwarranted and unsubstantiated fears that the employee posed a risk of violence due to her psychiatric disability. There was no objective or medical evaluation of the worker's ability to safely and effectively work, and she in fact did not pose any threat. The employee asked for, and did not get, a jury instruction on direct threat.
Tennessee v. Lane (2004)
DREDF filed an amicus brief in Lane on behalf of national disability community representatives and former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, who had played an instrumental role in the passage and implementation of the ADA. The Lane decision finally squarely addressed the constitutionality of ADA Title II. The Court ruled that Congress had the authority to provide monetary remedies for violations of the disability nondiscrimination mandate by a state court system, because in that respect the ADA implicated the fundamental Fourteenth Amendment right of judicial access.
Yanowitz v. L'Oreal (2004)
DREDF signed on to an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in the Yanowitz v. L'Oreal case. We were joined by a number of other California civil rights and legal services offices in arguing for an expansive construction of the "retaliation" protection under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Yanowitz is a gender discrimination case in which the female plaintiff, a mid-level manager at the L'Oreal cosmetic company, alleged she was fired for defying a senior manager's order to fire a subordinate for what she believed was a discriminatory (sexist) reason. In August 2005, the California Supreme Court endorsed an expansive interpretation of FEHA deciding that California workplace sexual harassment/hostile environment prohibitions protect a middle-manager who was retaliated against when she refused to carry out an order from a male supervisor to fire another employee because she wasn't "hot" enough.
Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003)
DREDF joined an amicus brief filed by a number of civil rights organizations representing diverse communities. The Hibbs decision upheld the constitutionality of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), thus making Hibbs the first recent case in which a federal statute survived a sovereign immunity challenge.
Raytheon v. Hernandez (2003)
DREDF co-authored a brief on behalf of national employment and disability rights groups in Raytheon, supporting a plaintiff who challenged an employer s failure to rehire him on the basis of his drug addiction and past substance abuse. The high court decision allowed an employer to apply a neutral no rehire policy, but also left intact the ADA requirement that employers may not discriminate against applicants who have been rehabilitated and do not currently use drugs illegally.
Chevron v. Echazabal (2002)
DREDF co-authored a brief on behalf of national disability rights groups in Echazabal, arguing that Congress clearly intended to eradicate paternalistic exclusions of people with disabilities, and employers thus should not be able to deny employment based on workplace threats to the health or safety of an individual worker himself. The Echazabal decision held that an employer need not hire a worker who poses a direct threat to his own safety, but also imposed requirements on the decision-making process to be followed when seeking to exclude a worker.
U.S. Airways v. Barnett (2002)
DREDF joined a coalition of employment rights organizations in Barnett, addressing the interplay of seniority systems and the reasonable accommodation entitlement. The high court ruled that a seniority system will generally prevail as to any job reassignment, unless there is evidence of special circumstances that make it reasonable to accommodate a more junior employee with a disability by reassignment in contravention of seniority rules.
PGA Tour v. Martin (2001)
DREDF coordinated the amicus filings in this well-known case involved the professional golfer Casey Martin. Working in coalition with other national disability advocates, DREDF directed interested organizations to the appropriate amicus brief writers, assisted in the development of amicus arguments to be presented to the Court, and reviewed all draft amicus briefs to ensure that they presented a coherent and consistent view of the law. The Martin decision was a legal victory for the disability community, holding that the Tour is a public accommodation subject to Title III, and that Casey Martin s use of a golf cart as an accommodation to his mobility disability was a reasonable modification.
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000)
Recent cutting-edge constitutional advocacy efforts began when DREDF joined a coalition of legal and advocacy organizations in filing an amicus brief Kimel. This case addressed the authority of Congress to apply the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) to states. While not a disability case, it was widely regarded as launching a general reconsideration of sovereign immunity, and thus highly relevant to all diversity communities. The high court dealt a substantial initial blow to federal statutory civil rights when it ruled in Kimel that Congress lacked constitutional authority to subject states to lawsuits under the ADEA.
Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel Zimring (1999)
In this landmark case, DREDF joined with a coalition of national disability advocacy and professional organizations to submit an amicus brief detailing the history of governmental institutionalization of people with disabilities and the merits of community-based care. The Olmstead decision held that the unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities in institutions may constitute discrimination based on disability in violation of the integration mandate of ADA Title II.
Lane v. Pena (1996)
DREDF and co-counsel Employment Law Center filed an amicus brief on behalf of national disability groups and other civil rights organizations in Lane. The case was brought by a student discharged from the federally operated U.S. Merchant Marine Academy because of his diabetes, and presented the question of whether suit will lie against the federal government for monetary damages under Section 504. The Lane Court ruled that Congress had not waived federal sovereign immunity to suit for monetary damages under Section 504. As a consequence of this decision, the federal government is not liable for damages under Section 504, although damages for violations of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act (protecting federal employees) are still available.
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992)
DREDF and co-counsel at the Washington, D.C., law firm of Dickstein, Shapiro Morin filed a Section 504 amicus brief on behalf of national disability rights organizations in Franklin. The case was brought pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibit gender discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal financial assistance. The Franklin Court held that there is, at a minimum, a private right of action under Title IX for compensatory damages to redress intentional discrimination. The case is important to the disability community because Title IX, like Section 504, incorporates Title VI remedies.
School Board of Nassau County v. Arline (1987)
DREDF joined with other national disability advocates to file an amicus brief on behalf of 36 members of Congress in Arline, a landmark case addressing the question of whether persons with contagious diseases (such as tuberculosis and HIV), are covered by Section 504. DREDF also assisted in the preparation of the plaintiff party brief and helped prepare her attorney for oral argument. The Court unanimously held that contagious diseases are covered by Section 504. Former Senator Alan Cranston (D.-Calif.) recognized the critical role of DREDF s Arline brief in a statement published in the U.S. Senate Congressional Record.
U.S. Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America (1986)
DREDF filed an amicus brief on behalf of individuals with disabilities and disability groups in DOT v. PVA. The Court invalidated regulations broadly applying Section 504 to commercial airlines, holding that only airlines receiving direct federal subsidies were subject to this disability nondiscrimination statute. Following this adverse decision, DREDF worked to promote the passage of the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, which applies to all commercial air carriers irrespective of receipt of federal financial assistance.
Atascadero v. Scanlon (1985)
DREDF joined with other national disability advocates to file an amicus brief on behalf of federal legislators in Atascadero. This employment discrimination case involved a claim for back pay and damages against a state agency that received federal funds. The Court held that in enacting Section 504 Congress had not waived the states U.S. Constitutional Eleventh Amendment immunity to suits for retroactive monetary relief. Following this adverse decision, DREDF helped to draft and promote the Civil Rights and Remedies Equalization Act of 1986, legislation that overturned the decision.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)
DREDF filed an amicus brief on its own behalf in the Cleburne case, which challenged a zoning ordinance that prohibited group homes for persons with mental retardation from being placed in specific areas of the community. This was the first high court case to consider the question of whether disability constitutes a suspect class for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While the Court did not give disability suspect class status, Cleburne did hold that there was no rational basis to exclude such a group home from a family neighborhood.
Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California (2007)
DREDF joined an amicus brief submitted to the California Supreme Court on in Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California. The decision being reviewed came out of the Second Appellate District, Division Two: Olson v. Auto Club of S. Cal. (2006) 139 Cal App. 4th 552, Case No. B168730. This case raises the issue of whether expert fees can be recovered as part of the attorneys fees recovery available to prevailing plaintiffs under California s general fee-shifting statute, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1021.5. The Second Appellate District held that expert fees are not recoverable, and the amicus brief argues that this undermines the most basic goal of Section1021.5, to encourage the filing of lawsuits to enforce important environmental, consumer and civil rights by making such cases economically feasible. The general goal of preserving a broad right to attorneys fees in meritorious cases is an important one shared by the entire public interest and legal services community.
