Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Alexandria Division
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...........................................ii
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................1
II. ARGUMENT 2
III. CONCLUSION................................................22
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
Addington v. Texas,
441 U.S. 418 (1979)............................................12
Connecticut v. Teal,
457 U.S. 440 (1982).............................................4
In Re John Ballay,
482 F.2d 648 (D.C. Cir. 1973)..................................13
Parham v. J.R.,
442 U.S. 584 (1979)............................................12
Smith v. Schlesinger,
513 F.2d 462 (D.C. Cir. 1975)..................................12
29 U.S.C. § 794.................................................9
42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213........................................1
42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7).........................................2
42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(B)........................................13
42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C)........................................13
42 U.S.C. § 12110(a)...........................................18
42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B)........................................10
42 U.S.C. § 12131(2)............................................8
42 U.S.C. § 12132..............................................10
42 U.S.C. § 12134(b)...........................................15
42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(i)..................................15
42 U.S.C. § 12206(c)(3) & (d)..................................16
28 C.F.R. § 35.104.......................................8, 9, 13
28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(i)....................................10
28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(6).......................................10
28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8)...................................10, 15
28 C.F.R. pt. 35, app. A....................................9, 11
28 C.F.R. § 36.301(a)..........................................15
28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. B.......................................15
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS:
H.R. Rep. No. 485, 101st Cong.,
2d Sess., pt. II (1990)...............................2, 3, 5, 15
H.R. Rep. No. 485, 101st Cong.,
2d Sess., pt. III (1990).................................2, 6, 15
S. Rep. No. 116, 101st Cong.,
1st Sess. (1989)......................................2, 3, 5, 15
MISCELLANEOUS:
I. INTRODUCTION
past, even though they may have never affected that person's
professional.2
data confirmed that women, as a class, live longer than men, the
Court held that the plan violated Title VII. The Court concluded
Id. at 707-709. Noting that there was "no assurance that any
which the plan was based, the Court held that Title VII required
Like Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,5 the ADA was
8
6 Senate Report, at 7; Education and Labor Report, at 30.
participating fully in community life,... to enjoying
all the rights that Americans take for granted.
of "have you ever suffered or been treated for any mental illness
7 The United States does not concede and the record does
not support the position that persons answering question 20(b)
are more likely to become impaired in the ability to practice law
in the future than other applicants.
N.W.2d 741 (Minn. April 28, 1994), (while not decided on the
II of the ADA).9
2
B. TITLE II PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
regulation to mean,
long as the candidate does not pose a direct threat and meets the
11 As noted
accompanying in35.104,
section the Department's title II analysis
disabilities.
state whether, within the past five years, they have been treated
consulted for the condition and record the beginning and ending
6
personal issues such as family relationships and bereavement.
for a mental illness. Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 600 (1979);
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 426 (1979).14 See also Smith v.
been revoked.)15
have sought treatment for mental health problems in the past are
where the court held that merely asking for the type of
of the ADA. The court noted that, "as the Title II regulations
future behavior23 and because the Board may ask questions focusing
conduct can, for the most part, elicit the information necessary
for the Board of Law Examiners to enable the Court to protect the
14
District of Columbia study determined that information obtained
plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
DEVAL L. PATRICK
Assistant Attorney
General
Civil Rights Division
__________________________
JOHN L. WODATCH
JOAN A. MAGAGNA
SHEILA M. FORAN
KEN S. NAKATA
Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Public Access Section
P.O. Box 66738
Washington, D.C. 20035-6738
Tel: (202) 307-6309
__________________________
RICHARD PARKER
Assistant United States Attorney
Appearing Per 28 U.S.C. § 517
1101 King Street, Suite 502
Alexandria, VA 22304
Tel: (703) 706-3700
17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
America, do hereby certify that I have this date served upon the
Peter R. Messitt
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
101 North Eighth Street
Richmond, VA 23219
__________________________
KEN S. NAKATA
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Public Access Section
P.O. Box 66738
Washington, D.C. 20035-6738
(202) 307-2232
18