In a previous blog entry, I talked about the principle of sovereign immunity as it applies to persons with disabilities. As mentioned in that blog entry, a state, including an arm of the state, is not going to be forced to waive its sovereign immunity with respect to disability discrimination in employment matters.

Anybody that wants to go to law school must take the LSAT, law school admission test sponsored by the law school admission Council (LSAC) . The LSAT is a standardized test consisting of 100 multiple-choice questions ( Binno v. American Bar Association, 2012 WL 4513617, *1 (E.D. Mich. September 30, 2012)), divided into five

Few cases today actually go to trial. However, the ones that do go to trial involving juries necessarily mean that a jury has to be picked first. Jurors aren’t so much picked as they are eliminated. With respect to jury selection, there are three kinds of jury challenges. First, there is a peremptory challenge. Peremptory

Sovereign immunity is enormously complicated. What it is, is a principle from which the founding fathers took from England that says a sovereign cannot be sued for damages without its consent. This principal goes way back, and also can be found in the 11th amendment to the United States Constitution. The language of the 11th

In a prior blog entry, I discussed how the issue of reassignment when an otherwise qualified person with a disability can no longer do the job would eventually be headed to the Supreme Court. However, that entry did not address the question as to how you go about proving up, i.e. making a prima

I recently relocated my office. Therefore, that is why you haven’t seen an entry in a little bit. I am now settled in and will get back to regular blogging. Thank you for bearing with me.

With the amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act, litigation will now shift from whether a person has a