> > Thanks for this post, I was quite distressed by the States Are
> > Kings ruling of last week. I have a question though:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
> > > Next in line: the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA.
> > > Like age, disability gets low scrutiny. If I were a lawyer
> > > for a state employer who was sued for disability
> > > discrimination, I would certainly argue that Kimel means
> > > that the state could not be sued in federal court. This
> > > would also apply to public accommodatiions, I would think:
> > > states cannot be required by Congress, a state's attorney
> > > will argue, to accommodate disabilities. that would be
> > > unconstitutional under Kimel.
> > Why would this apply to public accommodations? That is
> > definitely nonobvious to this nonlawyer.
> Well, if it's a public accommodation provided by the
> state--such as a courthouse or a jail--how could you sue to
> enforce the ADA requirement that public accommodations have
> to accommodate PwD? The state would be immune from suit
> under the 11th amendment. I hasten to say that no court has
> held this, as far as I know. Yet. But you wait.
OK, you meant *truly* public, in the sense of publicly owned. I was thinking of private facilities considered 'public accommodations' under CR law, such as busses and hotels.
Joseph Noonan jfn1 at msc.com