Tzipporah.Benavraham@hnews.fidonet.org (Tzipporah Benavraham) (06/28/91)
Index Number: 16489
06/17 1041 SUPREME COURT LETS STAND RULING ON RIGHTS
OF HANDICAPPED
WASHINGTON (JUNE 17) - Eighteen years after Congress banned
discrimination against the handicapped in programs receiving
federal funds, the Supreme Court Monday let stand a ruling
that alleged violators of the law must face a jury trial.
The court refused to disturb a ruling that a handicapped
person who charges a violation of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is entitled to a jury trial to
determine whether his or her rights were violated and the
compensation involved.
Most courts have held that complaints brought under the
act do not warrant a trial by jury, but the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in September disagreed.
It held that while Section 504 itself does not include a
right to trial by jury, the Seventh Amendment permits a jury
trial for Section 504 cases that seek relief that is "legal
in nature."
The case involved Frank Smith and Ray Martin, both legally
blind and both former officials of the Idaho Commission for
the Blind, a state agency receiving federal funds.
Smith and Martin were heads of separate divisions for the
commission before July 1984, when the commission was
reorganized.
Smith and Martin's jobs were consolidated into one, and
both applied for the slot, which was given to a third
applicant.
Smith and Martin were offered other jobs at their
previous pay, but they would be taking a reduction in
rank.
They sued, claiming the reorganization was tantamount to
a discharge due to their handicap in violation of Section
504. A district court ruled they were not entitled to a jury
trial, but the 9th Circuit last year reversed.
While members of the Idaho Commission for the Blind
brought the appeal to the high court, attorneys for Smith
and Martin also asked the justices to review the case.
"Section 504 was originally enacted in 1973," attorneys
for Smith and Martin wrote the high court. "The blind and
others protected by the Congress under Section 504 have
now waited 18 years to learn the character of remedies
available to them under the act. That is long enough to
wait."
90-1483 Howard Barton, et al., vs. Glenda Smith and
Ray Martin
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!Tzipporah.Benavraham
Internet: Tzipporah.Benavraham@hnews.fidonet.org