Southern district of alabama southern division



Download 86.67 Kb.
Page1/10
Date21.05.2021
Size86.67 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION




)

VIRGIL LANCASTER, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 94-1016-BH-C

)

CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, )

)

Defendant )

)

_________________________________________________________________


UNITED STATES' MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

_________________________________________________________________




INTRODUCTION

This is an employment discrimination case, brought pursuant to Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-17. Plaintiff Virgil Lancaster alleges that the City of Mobile ("the City") discriminated against him on the basis of his learning disability in its job application and hiring processes. Specifically, Lancaster alleges that the City failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations during its written examination for the position of "body/paint mechanic," and that the City did not hire Lancaster for this position because Lancaster failed the written examination.1

On December 13, 1995, this Court directed the parties to brief the question of whether the ADA is constitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. This Court subsequently certified the question of the ADA's constitutionality to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2403, and granted the United States' motion to intervene as of right. The United States demonstrates below that Congress properly exercised its powers, under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause, in prohibiting disability discrimination by local government employers under Title I of the ADA.2




Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page