In a previous blog entry, I discussed the case of the National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix, a decision from the District Court in Massachusetts. In that discussion, I expressed surprise that not only did Netflix not appeal, they settled for $900,000. The reason I expressed surprise was that this case broke
Final Federal Regulations
Granting a right to display doesn’t mean the obligation ends there
By William Goren on
I
Introduction
Let’s say you have this situation. The city holds an outdoor car show allowing a whole bunch of people to display their wares outside. One of the vendors blocks the curb ramps providing persons with disabilities access to the sidewalk in front of the hotel where a person was staying as he was…
Right of a deaf child to access a city’s municipal recreational league
By William Goren on
I recently came across this article on the Internet discussing a case where the parents of an 8-year-old boy who is deaf are suing Greensburg, Pennsylvania, for failing to provide an interpreter for the child while he plays in the city soccer program. According to the article, the suit was filed on May 29, 2014,…
If you do standardized testing, your world as you know it has ended
By William Goren on
My usual practice is to put up a blog entry on Mondays. However, Monday is Memorial Day, and so I thought I would put up a blog entry today, especially since there has been some big news this week. In particular, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing of the State of California, United States…
Looking at Defenses in a Title II case
By William Goren on
This particular blog entry will look at possible defenses that may be raised in a title II case. As is usual, there are different categories. Here we have case of the week, the court’s response to the arguments raised by the defendants in the case, and takeaways. Feel free to focus on any and/or all…
Does Association discrimination apply to title II of the ADA?
By William Goren on
This blog entry explores whether an association discrimination claim applies to title II of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and, for that matter, the California Disabled Persons Act. As is my practice, the blog is divided into the facts, the issue, the court’s reasoning, and takeaways. Feel free to zero in on any and/or all…
DOJ brings the hammer down on the State of Lousiana’s bar licensing authority
By William Goren on
I’m going to be off next week, and so I thought I would blog on this one since it is something I have talked about before.
Previously, I blogged on a South Dakota Supreme Court case and talked about the difficulty a person with MH has in passing the character and fitness gauntlet. I also…
Temporary disabilities and the ADA
By William Goren on
Posted in ADA, Final Federal Regulations, Proposed Federal Regulations, Title I, Title II, Title III
In the first and second editions of my book, understanding the ADA, I cited to the case of Burch v. Coca-Cola Company, 119 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 1997), for the proposition that temporary disabilities are not protected by the ADA. However, I did say as a preventive manner, it made sense to treat temporary…
The ADA and Bar Examiners: Uphill Climb for Wannabe Attorneys may have just become less so
By William Goren on
In a previous blog entry, I talked about how a person with an MH history desiring to be an attorney faces an uphill climb with respect to the State Bar’s character and fitness gauntlet that has to be run. In particular, I talked about a case from the Supreme Court of South Dakota that…
Is it consistent with the ADA for an amusement park to deny access to the rides because of a person’s disability?
By William Goren on
Erik Beard, an attorney with the law firm of Wiggin and Dana and who has a blog on legal issues affecting amusement parks , has been talking for some time about a case out of the central district of California that squarely presents the issue of whether amusement park rides must be accessible to persons…