> 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. -- Nathan Newman
> The problem with this approach is that key elements of ADA are applied
> to employment and public accommodation in the private sector where
> there is no direct federal funding. So that for example an apartment,
> a job, a restaurant, a mall, and a movie theater, all public
> facilities but most likely without direct federal subsidies will escape
> such a test.
> This was the primary point of ADA, which was to extend the earlier 504
> protections directed at federally funded programs and facilities, to
> the broaden scope from federal to include private, i.e all facilities.
In the current battle, though it is the states bringing a challenge not private employers (they already did last summer and the definition of disability got significantly narrowed). We've - that us some of us online - have come up with a consensus that this will be our approach to the Dickson case:
**Disability belongs in the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection because we have a long history of States denying us not only jobs but basic human and civil rights -- the rights to vote, serve on juries, marry, procreate, and live in freedom. Congress took note of this history when it enacted the ADA, and advocates and activists will make sure the Court understands it too.**