- FotogroottesVierkant
Miniatuurafbeelding
XXS - Zeer klein
XS - extra klein
S - klein
M - medium
✔ L - groot - TaalAfrikaans Argentina AzÉrbaycanca
á¥áá áá£áá Äesky Ãslenska
áá¶áá¶ááááá à¤à¥à¤à¤à¤£à¥ বাà¦à¦²à¦¾
தமிழ௠à²à²¨à³à²¨à²¡ ภาษาà¹à¸à¸¢
ä¸æ (ç¹é«) ä¸æ (é¦æ¸¯) Bahasa Indonesia
Brasil Brezhoneg CatalÃ
ç®ä½ä¸æ Dansk Deutsch
Dhivehi English English
English Español Esperanto
Estonian Finnish Français
Français Gaeilge Galego
Hrvatski Italiano Îλληνικά
íêµì´ LatvieÅ¡u Lëtzebuergesch
Lietuviu Magyar Malay
Nederlands Norwegian nynorsk Norwegian
Polski Português RomânÄ
Slovenšcina Slovensky Srpski
Svenska Türkçe Tiếng Viá»t
Ù¾Ø§Ø±Ø³Û æ¥æ¬èª ÐÑлгаÑÑки
ÐакедонÑки Ðонгол Ð ÑÑÑкий
СÑпÑки УкÑаÑнÑÑка ×¢×ר×ת
اÙعربÙØ© اÙعربÙØ©
Startpagina / Albums / Labels civil rights
+ Atty General Thornburgh 2
ADAPT (483)
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE COURT DECISION The following is a summary and explanation of the court's decision by Timothy M. Cook, the attorney who argued the case on behalf of ADAPT. The court: l. Struck down, as contrary to federal disability civil rights law, “local option,” the DOT policy that allows transit systems the option of providing transit to persons with disabilities only if we make advance reservations, sometimes several days in advance, and then only in segregated settings. 2. Required that every bus newly purchased with federal assistance must be accessible. No retrofitting is required; the ruling only applies to future purchases. The court said that because transit systems may phase in accessible buses, the ruling would not lead to any undue financial burdens for transit systems. 3. Required that transit systems provide both accessible mainline transportation for those who can use accessible buses, and adequate paratransit to serve those who cannot. 4. Struck down the 3 percent cost cap under which DOT deemed transit systems to be in compliance with federal disability civil rights laws once they spent 3 percent of their operating expenses on disability access. As important as the holdings in the case are the language and rationale used by the court in reaching its conclusions. The 73-page, decision is laced with integration-oriented statements and phrases derived from the corpus of race and gender discrimination cases. Thus, the case sets forth a new charter for interpreting laws like Section 504, stating that Congress’ plain intent was to eliminate the segregation of persons with disabilities. It’s good cause for celebrating. But neither too long nor too loudly, for the war is not yet won. We must press forward on two important fronts before that day comes: l. First and foremost, DOT has 90 days from the date of this decision to decide whether to seek an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. This decision will be made by DOT and the Department of Justice, but the White House will also be involved. It is important that we mobilize quickly and inundate DOT, Justice, and the White House with letters from all of us, urging them to embrace the Court of Appeals Decision. Remind President Bush of his campaign promises to integrate persons with disabilities into all aspects of American life. Without access to public transit, as we all know, that is impossible. And just last week President Bush, in his speech to the joint session of Congress, reiterated his commitment to bring persons with disabilities into "the economic mainstream." Letters should go to: William Skinner Secretary of Transportation 7th & Maryland Ave., SW Washington; D.C. Dick Thornburg Attorney General Dept. of Justice 9th & Penna. Ave. NW Washington, D.C. C. Boyden Gray Counsel to the President 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, D.C. And, of course, to President Bush at the White House. 2. We must move forward in support of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), using the court decision as additional impetus. The ADA, which will be reintroduced in the Congress soon, will require that all new buses and transit facilities be accessible. Urge your Senators and Congressperson to climb onto the bandwagon and be a co-sponsor of the ADA when it is reintroduced. If we can get the ADA enacted, there will be no need for any additional court fights.
ADAPT (581)
New York Times NATIONAL Tuesday March 13, 1990 Bill Barring Discrimination Against Disabled Hits Snag By STEVEN A. HOLMES, Special to The New York Times WASHINGTON, March 12 — Having strongly supported a comprehensive bill in the Senate to extend civil rights protections to 43 million Americans with physical and mental disabilities, the Bush Administration is balking at efforts to toughen penalties against businesses that do not comply. Officially, the White House has not withdrawn its support for the bill, which would require all new buildings and services used by the public to accommodate the disabled. “We do support the legislation," the White House spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, said today. "We‘re very supportive of their rights and their cause." But other Administration officials said President Bush was reluctant to support the measure if its backers persisted in seeking penalties for job discrimination that are harsher than those in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law bars discrimination on the basis of race, sex and national origin and limits penalties to court injunctions directing a business to stop discriminating and to reinstatement and back pay for those dismissed or not promoted as a result of bias. Both the disabilities bill passed by the Senate and one pending in the House state that penalties for violating the anti-discrimination provisions will be the same as those in the Civil Rights Act. Letter From Attorney General But a new bill introduced in both the House and the Senate last month would toughen the penalties in the 1964 law to allow for compensatory and punitive damages. Thus it would affect those in the disabilities bill as well. Sponsors say chances for passage of the proposed changes in the Civil Rights Act are good. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, in a letter sent tonight to Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, the chief sponsor of the House bill, said the Administration would seek to amend the disabilities bill to delete any link to the 1964 act and to lay out specifically what the employer sanctions would be. A spokesman for Mr.Thornburgh, David Runkel, said tonight that the Administration does not want the penalties in the disabilities act to go beyond the court injunctions and reinstatement and back pay now in the 1964 law. Senior Administration officials said the White House may withdraw its support from the bill if it is unable to delete any reference to the 1964 legislation. The disabilities measure, which passed the Senate in September by a vote of 76 to 8, has 246 sponsors in the House and passage seems virtually assured. Alixe Glen, a White House spokeswoman, declined to say whether the President would veto the bill if it continues to be linked to the civil rights laws. Rally by Disabled People The maneuvering over the bill came as more than 250 disabled people, many of them in wheelchairs, held a rally at the White House and then moved on to the steps of the Capitol to press for prompt House passage of the disabled rights bill. "Too often disabled people are seen as objects of charity or pity," Bob Kafka, a quadriplegic from Austin, Tex., said. "We're here to change that image. And we're here to send a message to the President and to Congress that this bill needs to be passed with no weakening amendments." If passed in its current form, the Americans with Disabilities Act would be the most sweeping civil rights law enacted since the landmark 1964 act. It mandates that all new buildings used by the general public, including restaurants, lodgings, places of entertainment, doctors’ offices and other establishments, provide the disabled with the means to enter and exit and that existing businesses make appropriate modifications if that can be done without creating a financial burden. The bill would also require that new railroad and subway cars and buses purchased by public and private transportation companies be accessible to people with disabilities and that telephone companies provide public telephones that can be used by persons with speech or hearing impairments. It was to gain the support of the White House and Senate Republicans that the bill's backers agreed to link the penalty provisions to those in the 1964 civil rights law. The bill's supporters had wanted to allow disabled people who proved they were victims of intentional and willful job discrimination to sue for compensatory and punitive damages. But the Administration argued that the disabled should not receive protections that were greater than those accorded to women and minorities. With the Administration's backing, the Senate approved the bill. But as it worked its way through House committees, a separate measure, the Civil Rights Act of 1990, was introduced in Congress with the backing of a coalition oi civil rights organizations that includes groups representing people with disabilities. The new measure amends the 1964 law to permit compensatory and punitive damages for victims of job discrimination. ENLARGED TEXT INSERTED INTO THE ARTICLE: How tough should the penalties against businesses be? PHOTO (The New York Times/George Tames): Three women in wheelchairs (Paulette Patterson, Christine Coughlin, and Lillibeth Navarro) across a sidewalk roll in front of a large white pillared government building [part of the White House complex]. The closest woman is holding a small bull horn and chanting; she is being pushed by another woman with an ADAPT headband and T-shirt. The other two women are in power chairs, the one in the middle has a placard that says something about Rights, and she is carrying the ADAPT flag and chanting. All four women look very determined and strong. Caption reads: Hundreds of handicapped people demonstrated in Washington yesterday to press for passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act.