When "equal" means "unequal"- and other legal conundrums for the deaf community

Language and the Law in Deaf Communities

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 82-167

  Geer, Sarah S ^a  

^a OBERLIN COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33751229084     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (213)

1. 309 U. S. 134, 138 (1940).
2. Americans with Disabilities Act, 38 U. S. Code
3. (hereinafter referred to as U. S. C.), § 12101
4. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 95-102, as amended. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is codified at 38 U. S. C. § 794;
5. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 38 U. S. C. § 1401
6. American law has extraterritorial effect in some limited situations. For example, employees of American companies who work abroad are still subject to the protections of the employment provisions of the ADA. Federal employees working abroad are protected by the employment provisions of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 38 U. S. C. § 791.
7. D. Sandburg, The Legal Guide to Mother Goose, (N.p.: Price Stern Sloan Publishers, 1979), 7-11.
8. Consent Decree, DeVinney v. Maine Medical Center, May 18, 1998, posted on the NAD Web site at http://www.nad.org/infocenter/infotogo/legal/devinney.html
9. and on the DOJ ADA Web site at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/devin.htm.
10. See, for example, Settlement Agreement Under the ADA of 1990 Between the United States of American and St. Luke's Hospital and Health Network, DOJ # 202-62-70, par. 49 (Sept. 10, 2001).
11. T. Goldstein and J. Lieberman, A Lawyer's Guide to Writing Well, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 19-20.
12. S. Burnham, Drafting Contracts, 2d ed. (Charlottesville, N. C.: Michie, 1993), 265.
13. NY CLS Ins § 3102 (2002).
14. See also New York Administrative Procedure Act, NY CLS St Admin P Act § 201 (2002).
15. Model Life and Health Insurance Policy Language Simplification Act. National Association of Insurance Commissioners (1984).
16. Executive Order No. 12044, 43 Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter referred to as C. F. R.) 12611.
17. Securities Act Rule 421 (d).
18. D. Mellinkoff, Legal Writing; Sense and Nonsense (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1982), 134.
19. J. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 2 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), 230
20. as quoted in D. Mellinkoff, The Language of the Law (Boston: Little Brown, 1963), 252-53.
21. See, for example, 29 C. F. R. 33.6 (U. S. Department of Labor Section 504 regulation).
22. C. A. Hill, 2001. "Why Contracts Are Written in 'Legalese'" Chicago-Kent Law Review 77(1):59-72.
23. T. Agostino, Litigating ADA Claims: Forms, Pleading and Practical guidance. (Horsham, Penn.: LRP Publications, 1996).
24. The term suspect was first used by the Supreme Court to describe a classification on the basis of race or nationality in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). That case was an unsuccessful challenge to the incarceration of Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps during World War II.
25. P. M. Tiersma, Legal Language (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 106.
26. Rothschild v. Grottenthaler, 907 F.2d 286 (2d Cir. 1990).
27. Mellinkoff, The Language of the Law, 290.
28. Mellinkoff, Legal Drafting, 15.
29. Mellinkoff, The Language of the Law, 331.
30. Goldstein and Lieberman, A Lawyer's Guide, 21.
31. L. M. Solon, The Language of Judges (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 12.
32. B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1921), 143
33. quoted in Solon, Language of Judges, 13.
34. Communications Act of 1934, Public Law 416, June 19, 1934, 73d Congress, codified at 47 U. S. C. § 151
35. The resulting rule was codified at 47 C. F. R. 73.1250 (h).
36. National Association of the Deaf, Legal Rights: The Guide for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People, 5th ed. (Washington, D. C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2000), 187-203.
37. 47 C. F. R. 79.1 (b) (l) (iv).
38. Closed Captioning Requirements for Digital Television Receivers; Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, ET Docket 99-254, MM Docket 95-176, Report and Order, FCC 00-259, 15 FCC Rcd 16788, 16790 (2000).
39. Department of Justice Title III Technical Assistance Manual, III-1.2000 (Jan. 24, 1992);
40. Department of Justice Analysis to Title III, Federal Register, 56, 35546 et seq.
41. 28 C. F. R. § 36.104.
42. Sen. Larry Craig, "The Americans with Disabilities Act: Prologue, Promise, Product and Performance", Idaho Law Journal 35(1999):205, 218.
43. For a comprehensive discussion of the legislative process in Congress, see "How Our Laws Are Made" by Charles W. Johnson, Parliamentarian of the U. S. House of Representatives, Jan. 31, 2000, at http://thomas.loc.gov/ home/lawsmade.toc.html.
44. For the authoritative text of rules of the Congress, see House Rules and Manual (Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States), prepared by Charles W. Johnson, Parliamentarian of the House, House Document 105-358 (1999).
45. New editions are published each Congress. Senate Manual (containing the rules, orders, laws, and resolutions affecting the business of the U. S. Senate; Jefferson's Manual, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution of the United States, etc.) prepared each session under the direction of Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
46. There is a succinct case study of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in William Eskridge and Philip Frickey, Cases and Materials on Legislation-Statutes and the Creation of Public Policy (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1988).
47. Eskridge and Frickey, Cases and Materials on Legislation, 424.
48. 29 U. S. C. 794, as amended.
49. Craig, "The Americans with Disabilities Act", 205, 208 (1999)
50. E. D. Berkowitz, "A Historical Preface to the Americans with Disabilities Act", Journal of Policy History 6(1994):96, 96-97.
51. The history of the political machinations and the strategies used by disability advocates is ably presented in National Council on Disability, Equality of Opportunity: The Making of the American with Disabilities Act. (Washington, D. C.: National Council on Disability, 1997), 14-19.
52. Cherry v. Mathews 419 F. Supp. 922 (D. D. C. 1976).
53. 45 C. F. R. Part 84.
54. National Council on Disability, Equality of Opportunity, 14.
55. R. K. Scotch, From Goodwill to Civil Rights: Transforming Federal Disability Policy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984), p. 156
56. quoted in National Council on Disability, Equality of Opportunity, 20.
57. Erickson v. Board of Governors, 207 F.3d 945
58. 2000 U. S. App. LEXIS 5074 (7th Cir Ill. 2000).
59. Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. (19 How.) 393, 404-06, 417-18, 419-20 (1857).
60. "That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude⋯ shall have the same right[s]⋯. " Ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27.
61. Bolling v. Sharp, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Fourteenth Amendment, which contains both an equal protection and a due process clause, applies to the states. By contrast, the Fifth Amendment, which applies to the federal government, contains only a due process clause. In Bolling, the Court ruled that "the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The 'equal protection of the laws' is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than 'due process of law', and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process"
62. 347 U. S. 499.
63. H. Peet, Legal Rights and responsibilities of the Deaf and Dumb, (Richmond, Va.: C. H. Wynne, 1857).
64. L. Myers, The Law and the Deaf (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1967), 172.
65. Cleburne v. Cleburne Independent Living Center, 473 U. S. 432, 440 (1985);
66. Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U. S. 221, 230 (1981);
67. United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U. S. 166, 174-175 (1980);
68. Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93, 97 (1979);
69. New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297, 303 (1976).
70. Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927).
71. Loving et ux v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967). The Lovings were arrested and charged with miscegenation. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of twenty-five years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for twentyfive years. He stated in an opinion that: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
72. 388 U. S. at 3.
73. 323 U. S. 214 (1944).
74. Cleburne v. Cleburne Independent Living Center, 473 U. S. 432, 439 (1985).
75. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923).
76. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 681 (1973) (plurality opinion).
77. 411 U. S. 677, 686.
78. 163 U. S. 537 (1896).
79. 347 U. S. 483 (1954).
80. National Council on Disability, Equality of Opportunity, 10-11.
81. City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U. S. 432 (1985).
82. C. L. Ramsey Deaf Children in Public Schools: Placement, Context, and Consequences. (Washington, D. C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1997).
83. Vocational Rehabilitation Act of June 2, 1920, ch. 219
84. 41 Stat. 735
85. (codified as amended at 29 U. S. C. 731-41)
86. (repealed in 1973 and reenacted in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355).
87. National Council on Disability, Equality of Opportunity, 8-9.
88. Congressional Record, (1972):118, 525-26.
89. See also S. Rep. No. 316, 96th Cong., lst sess. 53 (1979) (attempting to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by adding disability to the list of protected classes).
90. Craig, "The Americans with Disabilities Act", 205, 206.
91. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, P. L. 93-112, 93rd Cong., lst sess., (26 September, 1973), § 504
92. (codified as 29 U. S. C. 794). This provision was amended in 1978 to apply to federal executive agencies as well.
93. Craig, "The Americans with Disabilities Act", 205, 208 (1999)
94. quoting Edward D. Berkowitz, "A Historical Preface to the Americans with Disabilities Act", Journal of Policy History, 6(1994):96, 96-97.
95. Scotch, From Goodwill to Civil Rights, 49-57
96. as discussed in National Council on Disability, Equality of Opportunity, 14.
97. U. S. Constitution art. 1, § 8, cl. 1. "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
98. A related provision, Section 503, applies to federal contractors with contracts of over $2, 500. 29 U. S. C. 793.
99. Interview, February 19, 1997
100. quoted in National Council on Disability, Equality of Opportunity, 26.
101. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265 (1978).
102. See, for example, City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507 (1997). Congress attempted to overturn a decision of the Supreme Court by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Supreme Court then ruled that the statute itself was unconstitutional and was not persuaded by the formal congressional findings about the constitutionality of the law. This case is not directly applicable to the ADA, but the Court has used City of Boerne to suggest that the ADA is also an inappropriate congressional act.
103. See Board of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356 (2001).
104. A. Meyerson & S. Yee, "Facing the Challenges of the ADA: The First Ten Years and Beyond. The ADA and Models of Equality", Ohio State Law Journal 62(2001):535, 536-37.
105. L. A. Montanaro, "The Americans with Disabilities Act: Will the Court Get the Hint? Congress' Attempt to Raise the Status of Persons with Disabilities in Equal Protection Cases", Pace Law Review 15 (Winter, 1995):621. This article discusses the case law before and after the Cleburne decision and the role the ADA may play in changing the Equal Protection analysis of laws affecting people with disabilities.
106. P. L. 99-506 (21 Oct. 1986), Title I, § 103 (d) (2) (B) in part, Title X, § 1002 (e) (4), 100 Stat. 1810, 1844.
107. P. L. 102-569 (29 Oct., 1992), Title I, Subtitle A, § 102 (p) (32), Title V, § 506, 106 Stat. 4360, 4428.
108. 45 C. F. R. 84.3 (j).
109. 42 U. S. C. 12112.
110. Craig, "The Americans with Disabilities Act", Idaho Law Journal 35(1999):205, 213.
111. M. Metzger, ed., Bilingualism and Identity in Deaf Communities, Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities series, vol. 6 (Washington, D. C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2000).
112. Emery v. Caravan of Dreams (1995, ND Tex) 879 F. Supp. 640
113. 9 ADD 278
114. 4 AD Cas 409
115. aff'd without op. (1996, CA5 Tex) 85 F. 3d 622.
116. Burns v. Coca-Cola Enters., Inc., 222 F. 3d 247 (6th Cir. 2000).
117. Compare Dupre v. Charter Behavioral Health Sys. of Lafayette, Inc. 242 F. 3d 610 (5th Cir. 2001).
118. Clemente v. Executive Airlines, Inc., 213 F. 3d 25, 10 (1st Cir. 2000).
119. See, for example, Ellison v. Software Spectrum 85 F. 3d 187
120. 16 ADD 942 (5th Cir 1996)
121. or EEOC v. R. J. Gallagher Co. 181 F3d 645 (5th Cir. 1999).
122. 527 U. S. 471
123. 119 S. Ct. 2139
124. 144 L. Ed.2d 450 (1999).
125. Murphy v. UPS, 527 U. S. 516
126. 119 S. Ct. 2133
127. 144 L. Ed.2d 484 (1999).
128. 527 U. S. 483-84.
129. Tangires v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 79 F. Supp. 2d 587 (D. Md. 2000).
130. Civ. A No. 971649, 1999 WL 730498 (D. Ariz., Aug. 19, 1999).
131. 29 U. S. C. 791
132. 29 C. F. R. 1613.704.
133. Section 703 (a) (1) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 78 Stat. 255
134. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (a) (1), and 2000e-2 (j).
135. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, 84 (1977).
136. 42 U. S. C. § 12111 (10).
137. See also 29 C. F. R. § 1630.2 (p).
138. H. R. Rep. No. 489 (II), 65-66, 1990 U. S. C. C. A. N. 347-49 (emphasis added).
139. Bryant v. Better Business Bureau, 923 F. Supp. 720, 736-37 (D. Md. 1996).
140. 28 C. F. R. 36.303 (1999);
141. Department of Justice, The Americans with Disabilities Act: Title III Technical Assistance Manual (Washington, D. C.: Author, 1993), 27 (hereinafter DOJ Title III).
142. Title II requires a covered entity to "ensure that its communications with individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications with others." 42 U. S. C. 12182 (b) (2) (A) (iii);
143. Department of Justice, The Americans with Disabilities Act: Title II Technical Assistance Manual (Washington, D. C.: Author, 1993), 38.
144. No. 395-CV-02408 (AHN) (D. Conn. 1998) (consent decree), http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/cthosp.htm.
145. 32 F. Supp. 2d 820;
146. 1998 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 21650 (D. Md. 1998).
147. 908 F. 2d 740 (11th Cir. 1990).
148. Other cases holding that colleges and universities must provide interpreters and other communication services are Camenisch v. University of Texas, 616 F. 2d 127 (5th Cir. 1980)
149. vacated as moot, 451 U. S. 390 (1981);
150. Jones v. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, 504 F. Supp. 1244, fn. 56 (N. D. Ill. 1981)
151. aff'd 689 F. 2d 724 (7th Cir. 1982);
152. Crawford v. University of North Carolina, 440 F. Supp. 1047 (M. D. N. C. 1977);
153. Herbold v. Trustees of the California State Universities and Colleges, C-78-1358-RHS (N. D. Cal. 1978)
154. and Barnes v. Converse College, 436 F. Supp. 635 (D. S. C. 1977).
155. See also Patrick National Disability Law Reporter 7:470.
156. Gordon v. Texas et al., Civ. A. H-98-0394 (S. D. Texas, 1999).
157. The settlement agreement is available at the NAD Web site at http://www.nad.org/infocenter/infotogo/legal/Gordonsettlement.html.
158. 166 F. Supp. 2d 316;
159. 2001 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 16442 (W. D. Pa. 2001).
160. See also Bravin v. Mount Sinai Medical Center, 186 F. R. D. 293 (S. D. N. Y. 1999).
161. 72 F. Supp. 2d 489;
162. 1999 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 16773;
163. 9 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1761 (D. N. J., 1999).
164. 28 C. F. R. 35.104.
165. 296 Ill. App. 3d 127;
166. 693 N. E.2d 1260;
167. 1998 Ill. App. LEXIS 245; 230 Ill. Dec. 509 (1998).
168. 955 P. 2d 528;
169. 1998 Alas. App. LEXIS 14 (1998).
170. U. S. Department of Justice, The Americans with Disabilities Act: Title III Technical Assistance Manual (Supp. 1994), 6.
171. See, for example, DeVinney v. Maine Med. Ctr., Civ. No. 97-276-P-C (D. Me. Nov. 6, 1998) (consent decree), http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/devin.htm.
172. Many examples of relevant case law are cited and discussed in Bonnie P. Tucker, "Access to Health Care for Individuals with Hearing Impairments", Houston Law Review 35(2000):1101, 1112-1115.
173. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 105 (1983).
174. 843 F. Supp. 1329 (N. D. Cal. 1994).
175. 1997 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 6616;
176. 6 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1345 (1997).
177. Tucker, "Access to Health Care", 1101, 1138
178. quoting from Bonnie Tucker, "Mental Health Services for Deaf Persons: Proposed Legislation", Arizona State Law Journal (1980):673, 675-76.
179. Tucker, "Access to Health Care", 1101, 1139.
180. 864 F. Supp. 1201 (S. D. Fla. 1994).
181. Tucker, "Access to Health Care", 1101, 1142.
182. Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975)
183. (codified as amended at 20 U. S. C. A. secs. 1400-1487) (West Supp. 1997).
184. In 1990, Congress changed the name of the act to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Public Law 101-476, 104 Stat. 1141 (1990) (IDEA).
185. See 20 U. S. C. A. § 1400 (a) (1990).
186. D. M. Engel, "Law, Culture, and Children with Disabilities: Educational Rights and the Construction of Difference", Duke Law Journal (1991):166.
187. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 383, 393 (1954).
188. 20 U. S. C. 1400-1483 (1990)
189. amended by 20 U. S. C. A. § 1400-1487 (West Supp. 1997).
190. R. W. Goldman, "A Free Appropriate Education in the Least Restrictive Environment: Promises Made, Promises Broken by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act", Dayton Law Review 20 (Fall, 1994):243, 245 (footnotes omitted).
191. See also Engel, "Law, Culture, and Children with Disabilities", 166, 176 ("In short, although the general purpose of the EHA was to provide children with disabilities an 'appropriate' education in the 'least restrictive environment', both these goals remain vague in theory as well as in practice, with few guidelines to shape the substantive content of these newly articulated rights.").
192. See 20 U. S. C. 1400 (b).
193. 20 U. S. C. 1401 (a) (16)
194. 20 U. S. C. A. 1401 (25).
195. 20 U. S. C. A. 1401 (22).
196. 20 U. S. C. 1401 (a) (20)
197. amended by 20 U. S. C. A. 1401 (11).
198. 20 U. S. C. 1412 (2) (A) (1990)
199. amended by 20 U. S. C. A. 1400-1487 (West Supp. 1997) (requiring states to establish a "goal of providing full educational opportunity to all [children with disabilities].");
200. S. Rep. No. 94-168, (1997), 9, (states must establish a goal to "guarantee that [children with disabilities] are provided equal educational opportunity.")
201. M. Weber, "The Transformation of the Education of the Handicapped Act: A Study in the Interpretation of Radical Statutes", University of California-Davis Law Review 24(1990):349, 366.
202. T. Eyer, "Greater Expectations: How the 1997 IDEA Amendments Raise the Basic Floor of Opportunity for Children With Disabilities", Dickenson Law Review 106(1999):613, 619.
203. Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176 (1982).
204. 20 U. S. C. A. 1400 (c) (1).
205. See also H. R. Rep. No. 105-95, at 82 (1997)
206. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, § 614 (d) (3) (B) (iv).
207. Eyer, "Greater Expectations", 613, 634.
208. Engel, "Law, Culture, and Children with Disabilities", 166, 167.
209. citing H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 94-664, 94th Cong., 1st sess. 43 (1975)
210. and S. Rep. No. 168, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 11
211. reprinted in 1975 U. S. Code Congressional and Administrative News 1425, 1435.
212. R. C. Smith, A Case about Amy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996).
213. Engel, "Law, Culture, and Children with Disabilities", 205.