Nathan Newman wrote:
> Well, one difference that could be used to uphold the ADA is that the federal
> government has large blocks of funding for state programs aimed at the disabled.
> There are a string of precedents allowing the federal government to control
> state action based on the receipt of federal funds in that area of legislation.
> Whether that is enough to overcome this whole 11th Amendment approach Reinquist
> is reviving is an open question, but it might be possible to pick off one or two
> of the conservative majority on the argument that states cannot take billions of
> dollars in funding for dealing with the rights of the disabled, then ignore the
> antidiscrimination provisions tied to that funding.
This might be a good argument against the attack on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by the 8th circuit court were the Court to grant that one cert. But the Florida case - the one the Supremes granted cert so far is really a worker's rights case. Dickson sued the state because he claimed he was discriminated against on the job for his age and his disability. The appellate court dissed bases for the age bias complaint but upheld the disability part. Now the Supremes will decide if the disability part holds up.
>
> I have not looked over the ADA legislation itself, but is there any mention of
> funding being explicitly tied to states upholding antidiscrimination laws
> against the disabled?
Not that I am aware of. I may have overlooked something but doubt it since the ADA has been negatively labelled an unfunded mandate and the cost factor has been one of the major complaints against it. Far as I know there is no direct money from government - only some tax incentives for businesses that make access modifications, provide reasonable accommodations, etc.
Marta