Appellate Courts' Propensity to Construe and Interpret Facts on Appeal The appellate bench's propensity to substitute its own interpretation of facts for that of judge or jury makes municipal and qualified immunities even more problematic.
The appeals judges contend they are not really construing the facts, but merely ascertaining whether they are sufficient for denying an immunity claim.16 In reality, the judges often become involved in fact-deciding, which favors the official.17 The role of appellate judges is not to resolve fact issues, but to respect their rendition below by judge or jury, or, where there is lack of clarity, remand for further fact-finding. Sovereign Immunity for State Government The Eleventh Amendment shields state agencies from liability for damages.18 Courts consider suits against state officials in their official capacities as against the person's office, and therefore against the state itself.19 A plaintiff may not recover damages against the state, but are limited to an equitable remedy, such as declaratory and prospective injunctive relief.20 II.
Although this article discusses §1983 and the ADA in terms of state and local govern-ment and their law enforcement operations, it may be helpful in a broader context.
Also, although the ADA does not apply to federal agencies, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504")5 does.
In both Garrett and Lane, the Court relied on reasoning in City of Boerne v. 273, 288 n.17 (1987) (holding that school teacher with tuberculosis was a "handicapped individual" within meaning of Rehabilitation Act and remanding to determine whether she was otherwise qualified for her position); Nathanson v.
Flores51 to determine whether Congress had legitimately exercised its §5 authority in each instance.52 Thus, courts will apply this framework as they consider the validity of Title II with respect to rights besides access to the courts. Medical College of Penn., 926 F.2d 1368, 1386 (3d Cir.1991) (remanding case to determine whether medical college knew that student's condition was disability and had failed to provide reasonable accommodations, required by Section 504).41 See, e.g., Buskirk v.
Nor is there municipal immunity; Congress has trumped that. of Justice, sometimes also referred to as Justice Department Standards of Accessible Design (JDSAD).
Until recently, the law was unsettled as to the extent to which the ADA overcomes state sovereign immunity for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.47 However, in Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v.
As this article shows, the ADA has served to revitalize Section 504 and, in many instances, turn it into a helpmate.26 Title III was a great expansion over Section 504 in that the ADA extended federal disability law into the private sector.
no one doubts that §5 grants Congress the power to "enforce ...
the provisions" of the Amendment by creating private remedies against the States for actual violations of those provisions....
First, a court must identify the constitutional rights Congress sought to enforce when it enacted Title II. Apollo Metals, 307 F.3d 160, 170-71 (3d Cir.2002) ("Generally, the question of whether a proposed accommodation is reasonable is a question of fact") (Title I); Chisolm v. 2001) ("[g]enerally, the effectiveness of auxiliary aids and/or services is a question of fact precluding summary judgment") (reversing summary judgment in suit by hearing-impaired detainee against pretrial detainment facility and county court system); Kennedy v. Mich.1996) ("reasonableness of an accommodation under the ADA is a question of fact appropriate for resolution by the trier of fact") (denying prison's motion to dismiss ADA and Section 504 case by prisoner and his deaf fiancé to accommodate her disability with the TDD/relay system).42 See 42 U.
In Lane, the Supreme Court found that Title II sought to enforce the prohibition against irrational discrimination based on disability, but that, as applied to a case involving access to the courts, it also implicated other constitutional rights such as the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.53 Next, courts must consider whether Congress identified a pattern of unconstitutional discrimination by the states against people with disabilities.54 Whereas in Garrett the Court found the record of unconstitutional employment discrimination on the basis of disability insufficient to support the broad remedies of Title I, in Lane, the high court found the evidence of discriminatory provision of public services ample under Title II.55 Finally, a court must consider whether the remedy provided by Title II is congruent and proportional to the violation. Dresser Rand Co., 193 F.3d 120, 122 (2d Cir.1999) ("the question of whether a proposed accommodation is reasonable is fact-specific and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis"); Oconomowoc Residential Programs v.