Disabling Interpretations
The Americans With Disabilities Act In Federal Court
Seiten
2005
University of Pittsburgh Press (Verlag)
978-0-8229-5879-6 (ISBN)
University of Pittsburgh Press (Verlag)
978-0-8229-5879-6 (ISBN)
- Titel ist leider vergriffen;
keine Neuauflage - Artikel merken
Concerned with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, this book takes a critical stance of the nation's legal system for preventing the act from becoming effective.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was intended to send a clear message to society that discrimination on the basis of disability is unacceptable. As with most civil rights laws, the courts were given primary responsibility for implementing disability rights policy.
Mezey argues that the act has not fulfilled its potential primarily because of the judiciary's /u0022disabling interpretations/u0022 in adjudicating ADA claims. In the decade of litigation following the enactment of the ADA, judicial interpretation of the law has largely constricted the parameters of disability rights and excluded large numbers of claimants from the reach of the law. The Supreme Court has not interpreted the act broadly, as was intended by Congress, and this method of decision making was for the most part mirrored by the courts below. The high court's rulings to expand state sovereign immunity and insulate states from liability in damage suits has also caused claimants to become enmeshed in litigation and has encouraged defendants to challenge other laws affecting disability rights. Despite the law's strong civil rights rhetoric, disability rights remain an imperfectly realized goal.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was intended to send a clear message to society that discrimination on the basis of disability is unacceptable. As with most civil rights laws, the courts were given primary responsibility for implementing disability rights policy.
Mezey argues that the act has not fulfilled its potential primarily because of the judiciary's /u0022disabling interpretations/u0022 in adjudicating ADA claims. In the decade of litigation following the enactment of the ADA, judicial interpretation of the law has largely constricted the parameters of disability rights and excluded large numbers of claimants from the reach of the law. The Supreme Court has not interpreted the act broadly, as was intended by Congress, and this method of decision making was for the most part mirrored by the courts below. The high court's rulings to expand state sovereign immunity and insulate states from liability in damage suits has also caused claimants to become enmeshed in litigation and has encouraged defendants to challenge other laws affecting disability rights. Despite the law's strong civil rights rhetoric, disability rights remain an imperfectly realized goal.
Susan Gluck Mezey, Ph.D., J.D., is a professor of political science at Loyola University, Chicago. She is former director of Loyola's Women's Studies Program and chair of the 1999 Forum on the Child. She is the author of Pitiful Plaintiffs: Child Welfare
| Erscheint lt. Verlag | 31.7.2005 |
|---|---|
| Verlagsort | Pittsburgh PA |
| Sprache | englisch |
| Maße | 150 x 230 mm |
| Themenwelt | Recht / Steuern ► EU / Internationales Recht |
| Recht / Steuern ► Öffentliches Recht | |
| ISBN-10 | 0-8229-5879-1 / 0822958791 |
| ISBN-13 | 978-0-8229-5879-6 / 9780822958796 |
| Zustand | Neuware |
| Informationen gemäß Produktsicherheitsverordnung (GPSR) | |
| Haben Sie eine Frage zum Produkt? |
Mehr entdecken
aus dem Bereich
aus dem Bereich
Textausgabe mit einer Einführung von Prof. em. Dr. Roland Bieber
Buch | Softcover (2024)
Nomos (Verlag)
CHF 27,85
Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen und in den …
Buch | Softcover (2025)
dtv Verlagsgesellschaft
CHF 29,25
