Legal Rights News Brief

Posted: August 15, 2005

Foundation Joins Supreme Court Briefs in Key Disability Rights Cases

Recently, the Epilepsy Foundation has participated in the filing of a series of United States Supreme Court friend of the court (“amicus”) briefs, joining other disability rights organizations, in an effort to ensure full enforcement of two key disability rights laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Most recently, on July 29, 2005, the Foundation participated in a brief filed in a case, Goodman v. Georgia, concerning the rights of prison inmates to have access to programs and health services. The brief details the history of states’ discrimination against people with disabilities in public services and activities, and argues that this long pattern of discrimination justifies actions for monetary damages (as well as injunctive relief) against prisons which deny full access to persons with disabilities.

The Foundation urged the Supreme Court to extend the reasoning of its ruling last year in Tennessee v. Lane , in which the Court ruled that individuals could sue states under the ADA for money damages for denial of access to courthouses. In Lane, t he Court ruled that access to courts is a "compelling" interest justifying a right to seek money damages (and therefore states’ general immunity under the 11 th Amendment regarding such damages should not apply). In the Goodman case, an inmate with paraplegia who uses a wheelchair is claiming a compelling interest – access to basic services and a humane environment. Mr. Goodman claims, for instance, that the prison failed to make toilet and bathing facilities accessible to him, denied him needed medical care (such as treatment for bedsores and access to mental health counselors), and excluded him from programs and activities (such as classes and religious services) because of his disability.

Late last year, the Foundation joined in another Supreme Court amicus brief involving the ADA, which argued that the statute applies to foreign cruise ships sailing in U.S. waters. On June 6, 2005, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in this case, Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd, agreeing with this position. This is an important victory for the many persons with disabilities who desire to use this recreational opportunity, but had been barred from doing so. The U.S. is served almost exclusively by foreign-owned cruise ships, and these vessels, in many cases, do not have accessible cabins, emergency evacuation equipment, restrooms, elevators and restaurants. The Court found that cruise ships are both public accommodations and transportation services that are generally subject to the ADA’s requirements.

Further, in the case of Schaffer v. Weast, the Foundation argued in a Supreme Court brief filed on April 29, 2005, that the burden of proof in hearings concerning the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act should be placed on the school district, rather than on the parents of a child with a disability. The brief argues that fairness requires that the school district bears this burden during a “due process” hearing, which allows parents to raise concerns about a school district’s failure to comply with the IDEA’s requirement that they provide a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities. The brief notes, for instance, that placing the burden on school districts would lessen the inherent advantage they have over parents during the hearing process, which is an adversarial administrative proceeding and involves complicated and technical matters concerning the child’s special education services.