NATIONAL LEAVE
OUT DAY
Wear the Braid, Walk Outside
1:00 p.m. Eastern Time
April 17, 2001
"Join
with disabled students across the nation
in a
simultaneous Leave-Out to protest the
Supreme
Court's pattern of weakening civil rights
protections
in the name of 'states' rights."
The Local Press Release
Contents of this Packet
A. Cover sheet, including instructions for modifying the sample local press
release to fit your market. (1 page)
B. A sample local press release. (1 page)
C. Census news story - background information for people
talking to reporters. (1 page)
D. Garrett analysis - background information for people
talking to reporters. (2 pages)
E. VAWA press release - background information for people
talking to reporters. (1 page)
F. Quote from ACLU press release - background information
for people talking to reporters. (1 page)
G. printable logos
Instructions For Modifying the Sample Local
Press Release
1. The press release should go on letterhead that identifies your group. If you
want, you can get a copy of the NDSU logo and identify yourself as a local
chapter of NDSU.
2. If your group isn't a student group, you'll need to change the headline so
that it fits.
3. Make sure the date is the actual date you are sending the release out.
4. For press releases sent to big city dailies, add two local contacts – name
and number – above Sarah Triano's name. For press releases sent to local
outlets, remove Sarah's name and just use two local contacts.
5. Change all references to Chicago and UIC to appropriate local references.
Make sure that the time – in Chicago, it's noon – is correct, depending on your
time zone.
6. The second paragraph should be changed to highlight an important local
leader or organizer. (Remember to explain why this person is important.) You
can keep the quote and attribute it to that local leader or change it, but the
basic message should be the same: The people's right to equality comes before
the states' right to discriminate."
7. The final paragraph should be changed to highlight an important local leader
or organizer. This can be the same one as in Paragraph 2, or a different one.
(If it's a different person, remember to explain why this person is important.)
You can keep the quote or change it to something your group thinks is
important.
8. If you live in a state where there is any significant move to reinstate the
protections we've lost at the state level, please praise the people involved.
9. Make any other changes your group thinks are important. The final product
should be no longer than one page, with 12-point font.
[LOGO]
For more information contact:
Sarah Triano 773-463-4776
Name Number
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 16, 2001
CIVIL RIGHTS BEFORE STATES' RIGHTS, SAY DISABLED STUDENTS
At noon on Tuesday, April 17, UIC students will meet at 1640 W. Roosevelt to
join with disabled students across the nation in a simultaneous Leave-Out to
protest the Supreme Court's pattern of weakening civil rights protections in
the name of 'states' rights.
"The people's right to equality comes before the states' right to
discriminate," says Sarah Triano. Triano, a member of UIC's Disabled Students
Union, is a co-founder of the National Disabled Students Union and one of the
organizers responsible for Tuesday's national demonstration. The NDSU was
founded on February 21, 2001, in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in
Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett et. al. that state employees
facing disability discrimination at work cannot sue for damages.
The Garrett ruling will make it harder for today's students with disabilities
to become tomorrows workers. The Census Bureau reports that 50% of disabled
people in America are unemployed, and those who do have jobs make less money
than the nondisabled.
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to give
job-seekers and employees with disabilities the same chances nondisabled
workers get, but the Garrett decision makes it easier for state governments to
get away with breaking that law. Workers with disabilities will be unable to
recover damages, making it more difficult for them to finance lawsuits
challenging clear discrimination.
The ADA isn't the first civil rights law to be weakened by the Court. In 2000,
Court rulings struck down the civil rights remedy of the Violence Against Women
Act and protected states against suits by their employees under the federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.
Students across the country are leaving out of their classrooms and libraries
at 1:00 pm Eastern to protest under the banner of the National Disabled
Students Union. UIC students and community supporters will meet at noon, Chicago
time, outside 1640 W. Roosevelt for a march and rally.
The Disabled Students Union is an active campus group fighting for equal access
for disabled students. The National Disabled Students Union is a national,
cross-disability, student organization concerned with disability rights. "In
less than two months, we've gone from being an idea in a few students' minds to
having members on more than sixty campuses," Triano says. "We're
building momentum."
###
Census Looks at Disabled Americans
By GENARO C. ARMAS
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Half the adult Americans with disabilities have jobs, and the
employed typically earn less than the average American, new Census Bureau
estimates show.
The disparity is worse among those people whose disabilities are considered "severe,"
according to the Census Bureau report being released Friday.
The results show that more needs to be done by the federal government and the
private sector for people with disabilities who actively seek work to become
more accepted in the workplace, said Olivia Raynor, director of the National
Arts and Disabilities Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Overall, 20 percent of Americans in 1997, or 52.6 million people, said they had
disabilities. Of that total, 33 million said their disability was severe.
The data, based on a survey separate from the 2000 census, were the latest
available.
Of the 27.8 million people age 21 to 64 with disabilities, half worked in 1997,
with average earnings of $23,373 per year, the report said.
Of those with severe disabilities in the same age category, 31 percent had a
job, with average earnings of $18,631 per year. By comparison, 78 percent of
all Americans age 21 to 64 worked, averaging $30,155 a year.
The report comes 11 years after passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Despite the landmark legislation, people with disabilities who seek jobs "already
have two strikes going against them going into a job interview," said Kirk
Bauer, executive director of Rockville, Md.-based Disabled Sports USA.
The term "disability" accounted for a variety of definitions,
including those who use a wheelchair or cane; those who had difficulty
performing simple tasks on their own, such as eating or bathing; and people
with learning disability or mental retardation.
Many employers are ignorant of the skills that people with disabilities bring
to a job interview, and many potential bosses see their hiring as "expensive
or litigious," Bauer said.
Those with disabilities also tend to have lower than average educational and
training backgrounds, which leave them less prepared, especially during a time
of low unemployment, advocates said.
The study also found that 28 percent of those age 25 and over with severe
disabilities lived in poverty, compared with 10 percent of those with
disabilities considered "not severe" and 8 percent of people with no
disability.
On the Net: Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov
AP-NY-03-16-01 0001EST
Copyright
2001 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the
prior written authority of The Associated Press.
A. State Immunity under the 11th Amendment
The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") prohibits discrimination
against people with disabilities in employment (Title I), state and local
governments programs (Title II) and public accommodations (Title III). Although
the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits Congress to pass laws to
prevent discriminatory actions by states, the 11th Amendment has been
interpreted to provide states with immunity from private lawsuits in federal
court unless the federal legislation remedies or prevents a problem of
unconstitutional state action, and the legislation is deemed proportional and a
reasonable response to the problem it is intended to remedy or prevent. In
recent years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the states' immunity under the
11th Amendment quite broadly.
B. The Facts of the Garrett Case
The Garrett case is the consolidation of two ADA employment discrimination
cases by state employees against two separate state defendants. In one, state
university employee Patricia Garrett alleged that her employer violated the ADA
by demoting and then firing her from her position as a supervising nurse after
she was treated for breast cancer. In the other case, Milton Ash alleged that
the Alabama Department of Human Services violated the ADA by failing to
reasonably accommodate his asthma by not enforcing the agency's no-smoking
rule. Both sought money damages in their ADA lawsuits. In both cases, the State
of Alabama argued that it is immune from suit because Congress exceeded its
authority by applying the ADA to state entities.
C. The Supreme Court's Decision
In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that suits in federal court
by state employees to recover money damages under Title I of the ADA are barred
by the 11th Amendment. The majority held that although Congress clearly stated
its intention for states to be subject to ADA employment discrimination suits,
the ADA's legislative record fails to show that Congress identified a history
and pattern of irrational employment discrimination by the states against
people with disabilities. The Court stated that the legislative history
indicated that Congress targeted the ADA at employment discrimination in the
private sector.
D. Implications of the Supreme Court's Ruling in Garrett
· State employers are no longer subject to private federal ADA Title I
employment discrimination suits seeking money damages. The result of the
Supreme Court's decision is that employees with disabilities who work for state
employers have fewer civil rights protections than employees with disabilities
who work for private or local governmental employers.
· States are still subject to ADA Title I employment discrimination suits
seeking non-monetary relief. The Supreme Court expressly held that state
employees can bring ADA actions in federal court when seeking injunctive
relief, such as reasonable accommodations, promotions or reinstatement.
· States are still subject to Title I employment discrimination suits in
federal court for money damages brought by the United States. The Department of
Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can still bring ADA
actions for money damages against the states.
· Private and local governmental employers are still subject to Title I
employment discrimination suits in federal court. The Supreme Court did not
extend the 11th Amendment immunity beyond state entities.
· States are still subject to ADA claims under Title II. The Supreme Court
expressly declined to address the constitutionality of Title II of the ADA,
which covers programs and services provided by state and local governmental
entities. However, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Illinois,
Indiana and Wisconsin, has ruled that states cannot be sued for money damages
under Title II. Even though the Supreme Court did not address this issue,
individuals in those three states cannot bring a Title II claim for damages
against the state.
· States are still subject to the Supreme Court's ruling in Olmstead. The
Garrett decision does not affect the Supreme Court's previous decision in
Olmstead that unjustified institutionalization is discrimination under the ADA.
States must still comply with the Olmstead
decision.
· States are still subject to federal disability lawsuits under Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act. In Garrett, plaintiffs only sued under the ADA.
Although the Supreme Court did not address the Rehab Act, the Seventh Circuit
has held that, unlike the ADA, private individuals can bring suits in federal
court against states under the Rehab Act, as it is legislation under Congress'
spending power.
· People with disabilities can still bring private suits in state court against
state entities under state law and the ADA. See, Erickson v. Board of
Governors, 207 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2000).
Questions? Call Equip for Equality at (800) 537-2632 (v) or (800) 610-2779
(tty)
Media Contact: Sharon Reis 202/745-5103
May 18, 2000
Supreme Court Ruling on Violence Against Women Act
Disappoints Women's Organization
Ruling negatively impacts campus women and all victims of violent crime
Washington, DC, May 15, 2000 - - The American Association of University Women
(AAUW) Legal Advocacy Fund is extremely disappointed with the Supreme Court's
narrow decision declaring the civil rights remedy of the Violence Against Women
Act (VAWA) unconstitutional. The justices ruled 5-4 that Christy Brzonkala, a
former Virginia Tech student who was allegedly raped by two football players,
cannot sue her attackers for monetary damages in a federal court. The AAUW
Legal Advocacy Fund has provided financial and moral support for Brzonkala
since February 1997.
The justices dismissed the complaint, citing that Congress had exceeded its constitutional
bounds. The majority opinion stated that Congress may not regulate
non-economic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct's aggregate
effect on interstate commerce. The AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund and other
proponents of VAWA believe that violent crime impacts the economy to a degree
that Congress should have the power to regulate it under the Commerce Clause.
The ruling means that women like Christy Brzonkala must rely on state criminal
and civil laws to protect them, and not the federal government. In fact, 36
state attorneys general asked the Supreme Court to uphold the federal remedy in
VAWA because states are not adequately addressing the issue.
"Unfortunately, we know too well that the current state-level remedies for
rape, assault, and abuse are not working. How can we encourage women to speak
out for justice, when justice varies so differently from state to state?"
said Patricia McCabe, an attorney and the director of the AAUW Legal Advocacy
Fund.
Sylvia Newman, president of the AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund said, "We were
hopeful that Sandra Day O'Connor, who often supports women's issues, would be
on our side for this decision. We are very disappointed. The next step is to
mobilize women to the polls this fall knowing that the next president could
appoint one to three Supreme Court justices. Only by speaking loudly and
clearly through the voting process will we be able to remedy this
injustice."
# # #
The AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund (LAF) provides funding and a support system for
women seeking judicial redress for sex discrimination in higher education.
Since 1981, LAF has helped students, faculty and administrators challenge
discriminatory practices involving harassment, denial of tenure or promotion
and aid for women's athletics programs. LAF has provided more than $600,000 in
financial support -- plus thousands in technical assistance -- for more than 58
lawsuits. AAUW is the nation's leading advocate for education and equity for
women and girls.
From an ACLU press release dated June 28, 2000:
"A majority of the Court was appointed by presidents who claimed to be
looking for judges who would enforce law, not make law," said Shapiro.
"Yet, this Court has shown a greater willingness to strike down Acts of
Congress than any Court since the early days of the New Deal."
This helps to explain, for example, the Court's surprisingly lopsided vote
earlier this week to uphold Miranda in United States v. Dickerson. Although
Chief Justice Rehnquist had frequently criticized Miranda in past decisions, he
wrote a forceful opinion for the majority in Dickerson reaffirming the
principle that it is the Court, not Congress, that is ultimately responsible
for interpreting the Fifth Amendment.
On the other hand, the Court continued to breathe new life into the doctrine of
state's rights by invalidating two important pieces of civil rights legislation
enacted by Congress during the past decade. In United States v. Morrison, the
Court held that Congress had exceeded its powers under both the Commerce Clause
and the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing the victims of sexually motivated
violence to sue their attackers in federal court. And, in Kimel v. Florida
Board of Regents, the Court held that the Eleventh Amendment protected the
states against suits by their employees under the federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.
PRINTABLE LOGOS
|
|
