FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE Contact:
Peri Jude Radecic, Director of Public Advocacy
September
6, 2005 (520) 327-9547, extension 24
Cell: (623) 308-5111
Statement of the
“We have disagreed with many of the opinions written by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist on issues of importance to people with disabilities. Chief Justice Rehnquist had consistently voted to narrow the rights of people with disabilities. The Chief Justice had voted with the majority in recent cases to narrow the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and limit the ability of plaintiffs to seek monetary damages for discrimination. In 2001, the Chief Justice wrote the majority opinion in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett to find that employees are not entitled to recover monetary damages in employment discrimination claims against a state agency. In 2002, the Chief Justice joined the majority in Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams. Williams significantly limited plaintiffs’ ability to prove that work is a major life activity under the definition of disability. Although disability advocates celebrated a victory in Tennessee v. Lane, a 2004 case that solidified the rights of people with disabilities to have full public access to court house buildings, the Chief Justice wrote a dissenting opinion. He was also part of the dissent in 1999 in Olmstead v. L.C. The majority in Olmstead ruled that disabled persons have the right to live in the most integrated setting under the Americans with Disabilities Act, meaning that states may not relegate our most vulnerable citizens to nursing homes or institutions.
“Clearly, the Chief Justice Rehnquist had been on the opposite side of expanding and upholding the rights of people with disabilities. A whole range of laws that protect people with disabilities continue to be challenged in court. These laws protect people in employment, housing, education, public accommodation, and health care. We urge the United States Senate to fully explore the nomination of Judge John Roberts as the next Chief Justice to ensure that he will be a Jurist who will uphold the rights of people with disabilities under key laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.”
- 30 -
The
Arizona Center for Disability Law is a not for profit public interest law firm,
dedicated to protecting the rights of individuals with a wide range of
physical, mental, psychiatric, sensory and cognitive disabilities. The
(520) 327-9547 (Voice/TTY) P Fax (520) 884-0992
www.azdisabilitylaw.org P center@azdisabilitylaw.org