Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Labor and Employment Law (2)
- Litigation (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
-
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Judges (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Law and Gender (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legal Profession (1)
- Legal Remedies (1)
- Legislation (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Disability Law
Ending The Charade: The Fifth Circuit Should Expressly Adopt The Deliberate Indifference Standard For Ada Title Ii And Ra Section 504 Damages Claims, Derek Warden
Texas A&M Law Review
While the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) has been law for over 30 years, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to adopt a definitive standard for how plaintiffs win damages under Title II of that law. Further, while the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) has been law for almost 50 years, the Fifth Circuit has failed to announce any specific standard for how plaintiffs obtain damages under that law as well. I previously wrote an article in the pages of this journal that sought to “clarify” the Fifth Circuit’s jurisprudence on the issue. In Fifth Indifference: Clarifying the Fifth Circuit’s …
Fifth Indifference: Clarifying The Fifth Circuit's Intent Standard For Damages Under Title Ii Of The Americans With Disabilities Act, Derek Warden
Texas A&M Law Review
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. Title II of the ADA applies to public entities. That same Title allows plaintiffs to obtain damages upon a showing that the discrimination was intentional. There are generally two possible standards of intent: (1) deliberate indifference or (2) animus. While most Circuit Courts expressly adopted the deliberate indifference model, the Fifth Circuit has not. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has not adopted any standard and this has led to confusion. The confusion is not helped, moreover, by the sheer lack of justification offered by a number of the Circuit Courts …
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
Texas A&M Law Review
In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason …