Ddi 12 ss disabilities Neg Dartmouth 2012 Andrew 1 ddi 12 ss disabilities Neg Strategy Sheet


) Federal laws aimed at integration fail – the ADA proves people favor segregation of people with disabilities



Download 266.63 Kb.
Page91/111
Date29.06.2021
Size266.63 Kb.
#147297
1   ...   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   ...   111
2.) Federal laws aimed at integration fail – the ADA proves people favor segregation of people with disabilities

Doris Fleischer, Professor @ New Jersey Institute of Technology and Frieda Zames, disability rights activist and mathematics professor, December 15th 2000, “The Disability Rights Movement”, pg. 65; AB


In the intervening years between the 1977 signing of the regulations for Section 504 and the 1990 passage of the ADA, disability leaders concentrated on the courts to ensure enforcement of Section 504. The evolution of federal laws and litigation that provided access to transportation for the disability population epitomizes the Section 504 struggle of those who sought integration- as opposed to those who favored continued segregation-of people with disabilities. Section 504 in effect mandated that all recipients of federal funds mainstream people with disabilities. Transcending the particulars of the case, the 1977 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Lloyd v. Illinois Regional Transportation Authoritys6 created a precedent for people with disabilities and their organizations to sue federal agencies and recipients of federal funds to enforce Section504. Although Southeastern Community College v. Daviss7 was not a transportation case, this 1979 decision had a profound effect on Sec- tion 504 transportation lawsuits. Frances Davis, a severely hard-of-hearing licensed practical nurse, was denied entrance to Southeastern Community College'S asso- ciate degree nursing program because ofher disability. ofSection504,toinsistthatfunctionalhear- ing was essential for acceptance into the nursing program. The college argued that extensive modifications would be necessary for Davis to participate safely in the pro- gram or to practice the nursing profession. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the college against Davis, deciding that the ac- commodation to provide equal opportunity constituted affirmative action, so Section 504-a nondiscrimination, not an affirma- tive action, statute-was inapplicable. The fact that one hundred and fifty hard-of- hearing and deaf nurses were already work- ing for the federal government according to a 1976 Civil Service Commission survey would have supported Davis's contention that she could work safely as a nurse.S8 Not introduced in the original lawsuit, however, this statistic could not be used by the plain- tiff on appeal. Davis) the first Section 504 case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, es- tablished a disappointing precedent for dis- ability lawyers because the suit set the stage for the 1981 APTA transportation decision.



Download 266.63 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   ...   111




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2022
send message

    Main page