A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.
This brief argues that the sworn testimony of a public employee should be considered protected free speech under the First Amendment, even if it is made pursuant to the employee's official duties. It summarizes a case where a police officer, Rhett Darcy, was terminated after providing sworn testimony to a grand jury about corruption in his department. Darcy filed a lawsuit alleging retaliation for his protected speech. The lower courts dismissed the case, finding his testimony was not protected under Garcetti, but the appeals court reversed. This brief asks the Supreme Court to uphold that decision and distinguish sworn testimony as a special category of protected speech.
This document provides summaries of recent court decisions related to the False Claims Act (FCA). The first case summary discusses the Supreme Court's ruling in Cook County v. U.S. ex rel. Chandler that local governments are subject to liability under the FCA as "persons." The Court found that municipalities have been considered "persons" under the FCA since it was enacted in 1863. The document then provides brief summaries of several other court decisions related to various aspects of FCA liability, enforcement, and procedure. It is a quarterly publication of the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund that analyzes major FCA developments.
This document is a response to a petition for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court regarding a case involving former CIA operatives, referred to as John and Jane Doe, seeking financial assistance and personal security from the CIA. The Ninth Circuit held that the state secrets privilege governs this case, not the jurisdictional bar in Totten v. United States. The response argues that: 1) Reynolds established that it is the judiciary's role to determine if the state secrets privilege applies; 2) Webster confirmed the privilege applies to CIA cases and constitutional claims cannot be foreclosed; and 3) dismissing the case without review of the privilege claim would raise serious constitutional issues.
This order grants plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and denies the defendants' motion to dismiss. The order finds that the court has jurisdiction over the case for several reasons: 1) Plaintiff Subramanya's claims are not moot even though she received her EAD because the issues are capable of repetition and evading review. 2) The inherently transitory exception to mootness also applies. 3) The "picking off" exception prevents defendants from mooting the entire class action by addressing the named plaintiff's claims. The order also finds that venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio.
This brief was submitted by Dollar General Corporation in defense against a lawsuit brought by Lamont Wilson alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dollar General argues that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in its favor for two reasons: 1) Wilson's request for additional medical leave was not a reasonable accommodation and would not have enabled him to perform his job duties, and 2) Wilson failed to show that Dollar General did not engage in the required interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation, and therefore did not violate the ADA. The brief outlines the factual background of Wilson's employment and medical issues, and cites various cases to support the district court's legal analysis.
Wisconsin: Mailed Ballots Must Once Again Be Returned By Election Day, Court ...Baker Publishing Company
Mailed ballots in Wisconsin must be received by elections officials by election day, Nov. 3, to be counted, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a reversal of a previous decision that would have given extra time for ballots to be counted through Nov. 9 so long as they were postmarked by Nov. 3.
The latest ruling in the case, which may well be challenged at the US Supreme Court, means the deadline for absentee ballots to arrive remains at 8 p.m. on election day as is spelled out under state law. Judge William Conley, a federal judge in Wisconsin’s Western District, initially extended to Nov. 9 the deadline for ballots to arrive at local election clerks’ offices to account for an expected surge in mail-in ballots due to the coronavirus pandemic and anticipated mail service slowdowns caused in part by President Donald Trump and Postmaster Louis DeJoy’s intentional throttling of the US Postal Service ahead of the election.
JUDICIAL THREATS OF SANCTIONS - Against Vogel Denise NewsomeVogelDenise
1) Newsome filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC against her former employer CHM. The EEOC dismissed the charge after determining CHM was exempt from religious discrimination claims as a religious organization.
2) Newsome then filed a lawsuit against the EEOC seeking to compel further investigation. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding Newsome's claims lacked merit.
3) The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the EEOC has discretion over the scope of investigations and Newsome had other remedies available through suing her employer directly. Newsome's legal theories did not plausibly allege violations of Title VII, the APA, civil rights statutes, or the constitution.
This brief argues that the sworn testimony of a public employee should be considered protected free speech under the First Amendment, even if it is made pursuant to the employee's official duties. It summarizes a case where a police officer, Rhett Darcy, was terminated after providing sworn testimony to a grand jury about corruption in his department. Darcy filed a lawsuit alleging retaliation for his protected speech. The lower courts dismissed the case, finding his testimony was not protected under Garcetti, but the appeals court reversed. This brief asks the Supreme Court to uphold that decision and distinguish sworn testimony as a special category of protected speech.
This document provides summaries of recent court decisions related to the False Claims Act (FCA). The first case summary discusses the Supreme Court's ruling in Cook County v. U.S. ex rel. Chandler that local governments are subject to liability under the FCA as "persons." The Court found that municipalities have been considered "persons" under the FCA since it was enacted in 1863. The document then provides brief summaries of several other court decisions related to various aspects of FCA liability, enforcement, and procedure. It is a quarterly publication of the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund that analyzes major FCA developments.
This document is a response to a petition for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court regarding a case involving former CIA operatives, referred to as John and Jane Doe, seeking financial assistance and personal security from the CIA. The Ninth Circuit held that the state secrets privilege governs this case, not the jurisdictional bar in Totten v. United States. The response argues that: 1) Reynolds established that it is the judiciary's role to determine if the state secrets privilege applies; 2) Webster confirmed the privilege applies to CIA cases and constitutional claims cannot be foreclosed; and 3) dismissing the case without review of the privilege claim would raise serious constitutional issues.
This order grants plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and denies the defendants' motion to dismiss. The order finds that the court has jurisdiction over the case for several reasons: 1) Plaintiff Subramanya's claims are not moot even though she received her EAD because the issues are capable of repetition and evading review. 2) The inherently transitory exception to mootness also applies. 3) The "picking off" exception prevents defendants from mooting the entire class action by addressing the named plaintiff's claims. The order also finds that venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio.
This brief was submitted by Dollar General Corporation in defense against a lawsuit brought by Lamont Wilson alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dollar General argues that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in its favor for two reasons: 1) Wilson's request for additional medical leave was not a reasonable accommodation and would not have enabled him to perform his job duties, and 2) Wilson failed to show that Dollar General did not engage in the required interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation, and therefore did not violate the ADA. The brief outlines the factual background of Wilson's employment and medical issues, and cites various cases to support the district court's legal analysis.
Wisconsin: Mailed Ballots Must Once Again Be Returned By Election Day, Court ...Baker Publishing Company
Mailed ballots in Wisconsin must be received by elections officials by election day, Nov. 3, to be counted, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a reversal of a previous decision that would have given extra time for ballots to be counted through Nov. 9 so long as they were postmarked by Nov. 3.
The latest ruling in the case, which may well be challenged at the US Supreme Court, means the deadline for absentee ballots to arrive remains at 8 p.m. on election day as is spelled out under state law. Judge William Conley, a federal judge in Wisconsin’s Western District, initially extended to Nov. 9 the deadline for ballots to arrive at local election clerks’ offices to account for an expected surge in mail-in ballots due to the coronavirus pandemic and anticipated mail service slowdowns caused in part by President Donald Trump and Postmaster Louis DeJoy’s intentional throttling of the US Postal Service ahead of the election.
JUDICIAL THREATS OF SANCTIONS - Against Vogel Denise NewsomeVogelDenise
1) Newsome filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC against her former employer CHM. The EEOC dismissed the charge after determining CHM was exempt from religious discrimination claims as a religious organization.
2) Newsome then filed a lawsuit against the EEOC seeking to compel further investigation. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding Newsome's claims lacked merit.
3) The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the EEOC has discretion over the scope of investigations and Newsome had other remedies available through suing her employer directly. Newsome's legal theories did not plausibly allege violations of Title VII, the APA, civil rights statutes, or the constitution.
This order grants summary judgment to defendant Hawaii Family Forum and defendant Fuddy, denies summary judgment for plaintiffs, and denies defendant Abercrombie's motion for summary judgment as moot. The order also denies Hawaii Family Forum's motion to dismiss defendant Abercrombie. The court finds that plaintiffs' claims that Hawaii's laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate due process and equal protection are foreclosed by the Supreme Court's dismissal in Baker v. Nelson. Alternatively, the court finds plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits, and that Perry v. Brown does not control this case due to differences in California and Hawaii's same-sex marriage histories. The court concludes Hawaii's laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests.
09/07/11: Amicus Brief in PPL Montana LLC vs. Montanaartba
This brief was submitted by several industry groups in support of petitioners in a Supreme Court case regarding the test for determining whether a river is navigable for title purposes under the Clean Water Act. The brief argues that navigability determinations under the CWA must be made on a case-by-case, segment-by-segment basis and cannot be based solely on evidence of present-day recreational use, as the agencies have proposed. It also contends that the agencies' post-Rapanos guidance on navigable waters has not been faithful to the Rapanos decision.
'Madhavi Vuppalpati & Anandhan Jayaraman defeated in their attempt to derail ...mh37o
Madhavi Vuppalpati and her husband Anandhan Jayaraman are defeated in their attempt to derail the trial in Washington Court with this denial by Hon Madam Justice Marsha j. Pechman
The document is a letter from the Attorney General of Massachusetts appealing the withholding of documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request regarding communications about the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002. The letter argues that the Council on Environmental Quality failed to adequately justify withholding documents and violated FOIA. It provides examples where CEQ inadvertently disclosed information it had tried to redact, demonstrating the information was not properly exempt. The letter requests CEQ provide a detailed Vaughn index to justify any withheld information.
Typenex_2015-01-05 - Doc. 10 - Appellant's Brief without DC OrderPeter Forrest
This document is a brief filed by TypeNex Medical, LLC appealing a district court ruling in a patent infringement case brought by Precision Dynamics Corporation. The brief summarizes the technical background of medical identification bracelets, describes the accused TypeNex product and the '982 patent at issue. It then outlines the district court proceedings and sets forth TypeNex's arguments on appeal regarding claim construction of key terms in the '982 patent and whether TypeNex's product meets limitations of the asserted claims. The brief argues the district court erred in its claim constructions and that under the proper constructions, TypeNex's product does not infringe the '982 patent.
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.
MEALEY'S Data Privacy Law Report Sample Issue May 2015LexisNexis
Download this first issue of Mealey’s Data Privacy Law Report. This monthly newsletter (also available in eBook format) follows the latest litigation in federal and state courts involving online privacy and data protection. The report also covers federal and state regulatory and legislative developments, as well as rulings by administrative agencies tasked with enforcing laws that impact data privacy. Order today by calling 800.223.1940 or by visiting the LexisNexis Store here: http://bit.ly/1HLhMiD
Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...mh37o
Federal court denied the motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and Anandhan Jayaraman. Court confirmed that PISL India and PISl PA are one and the same companies.
Native American Law Report, March 2015 issueLexisNexis
The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case involving the sale of a membership interest in a casino. Ted and Maria Gatzaros sold their membership interest in an entity that owned 50% of a casino to Monroe Partners for $265 million, to be paid over time. Monroe then sold the interest to Kewadin Greektown Casino. Kewadin and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians guaranteed payment if Kewadin defaulted. Kewadin and Monroe later filed for bankruptcy. The Gatzaros sought to recover nearly $74 million still owed from the sale from the tribe, but lower courts found the tribe had not waived defenses to the claims and the Gatzaros
2012AnnualSurveyofFifthCircuitClassActionsCases_TXBusinessLitigationJournalCole Davis
This document provides a summary of class action cases decided in 2012 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and federal district courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It discusses 15 cases that substantively addressed Rule 23 litigation classes and 4 settlement class cases. For the litigation class cases, only 2 of the proposed classes were certified. All 4 settlement class cases were approved. The document summarizes several notable cases involving various federal and state laws, including antitrust, ERISA, securities, bankruptcy, and consumer protection statutes. It analyzes the application of Rule 23 requirements like commonality, predominance, and cohesiveness.
Jason Luckasevic is an attorney who started the retired NFL player concussion litigation. He received his bachelor's degree from Washington & Jefferson College in 1997 and his law degree from Duquesne University School of Law in 2000. He has been admitted to practice law in several states. Luckasevic's practice areas include toxic torts, personal injury, medical malpractice, and discrimination cases. He is a member of several legal associations. The litigation stems from research finding chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in the brains of deceased NFL players. In 2011, 75 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging cognitive injuries from multiple concussions during their NFL careers. Previous cases like Stringer v. NFL and Brown v. NFL established legal preced
This document is a response to a petition for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court. It summarizes a case involving former CIA assets (John and Jane Doe), who are now US citizens, bringing Fifth Amendment claims against the CIA. The Does allege the CIA coerced them into spying during the Cold War and promised lifelong financial assistance, but has since denied their requests for assistance. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Totten v. United States does not require immediate dismissal and Reynolds v. United States procedures for asserting the state secrets privilege must be followed. The response argues the Ninth Circuit's decision is correct and consistent with Webster v. Doe.
A fictitious legal brief to remit the final judgment of bail forfeiture. Capt. Bryant issued a bond for the release of Rutger Batty who later failed to appear in court. Mr. Batty was in a Texas jail because of a prior illegal gun possession charge. Though Mr. Batty was not incarcerated in a North Carolina jail or a federal prison within the United States, Captain Bryant wants Weft and Wright, P.L.L.C. to try and get the forfeited bail money remitted.
The district court erred in convicting Samantha Clark under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for statements made during plea negotiations with the U.S. Attorney's office while representing a criminal defendant. Subsection (b) of § 1001 creates an exception for statements made by a party or their counsel during a judicial proceeding. The district court relied on inapplicable case law that did not address this exception. As Clark's statements were made in her role as defense counsel during a judicial proceeding, she was exempt from prosecution under the plain language of subsection (b).
The Estate of Elizabeth Haynes Urquhart vs. American Regional_ Earl R. Davis ...Earl R. Davis
This turnover action is untimely because Elizabeth Urquhart died in 2005. The statute of
limitations in a discovery or turnover proceeding is governed by the CPLR. See SCPA § 102 (“The
CPLR and other laws applicable to practice and procedure apply in the surrogate’s court except
where other procedure is provided by this act.”). A proceeding “commenced pursuant to SCPA §
2103 has been likened to a replevin action, which has a statute of limitations of three years.” If you are interested to know about the case, get in touch with Earl R. Davis.
This brief was submitted by the Bar Association of the City of New York in support of reversing the district court's decision. It argues that (1) the Immigration and Nationality Act preempts states from regulating immigration without federal consent, and (2) the federal government's power over foreign relations precludes independent state action in this area. The brief cites numerous Supreme Court cases that establish federal supremacy over immigration and foreign policy. It contends Alabama's immigration law improperly intrudes on these exclusive federal powers.
FindLaw | Justice Dept. Motion to Dismiss Defense of Marriage Actguest8f8287
This document is the United States' motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It provides background on DOMA and the procedural history of the case. The motion argues that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that DOMA is a valid exercise of congressional authority, and that DOMA does not violate equal protection, due process, privacy, speech, or other constitutional rights. The motion requests that all claims against the United States be dismissed.
FindLaw | Justice Dept. Motion to Dismiss Defense of Marriage ActLegalDocs
This document is the United States' motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It provides background on DOMA and the procedural history of the case. The motion argues that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that DOMA is a valid exercise of congressional authority, and that DOMA does not violate equal protection, due process, privacy, speech, or other constitutional rights. The motion requests that all claims against the United States be dismissed.
FindLaw | Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Prop. 8 SuitLegalDocs
This document is a motion filed by plaintiffs in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The motion argues that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and requests a preliminary injunction preventing Proposition 8 from taking effect. It summarizes the facts of the case and presents legal arguments that Proposition 8 violates due process by restricting the fundamental right to marry, and violates equal protection by discriminating against gay and lesbian individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation and sex.
This order grants summary judgment to defendant Hawaii Family Forum and defendant Fuddy, denies summary judgment for plaintiffs, and denies defendant Abercrombie's motion for summary judgment as moot. The order also denies Hawaii Family Forum's motion to dismiss defendant Abercrombie. The court finds that plaintiffs' claims that Hawaii's laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate due process and equal protection are foreclosed by the Supreme Court's dismissal in Baker v. Nelson. Alternatively, the court finds plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits, and that Perry v. Brown does not control this case due to differences in California and Hawaii's same-sex marriage histories. The court concludes Hawaii's laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests.
09/07/11: Amicus Brief in PPL Montana LLC vs. Montanaartba
This brief was submitted by several industry groups in support of petitioners in a Supreme Court case regarding the test for determining whether a river is navigable for title purposes under the Clean Water Act. The brief argues that navigability determinations under the CWA must be made on a case-by-case, segment-by-segment basis and cannot be based solely on evidence of present-day recreational use, as the agencies have proposed. It also contends that the agencies' post-Rapanos guidance on navigable waters has not been faithful to the Rapanos decision.
'Madhavi Vuppalpati & Anandhan Jayaraman defeated in their attempt to derail ...mh37o
Madhavi Vuppalpati and her husband Anandhan Jayaraman are defeated in their attempt to derail the trial in Washington Court with this denial by Hon Madam Justice Marsha j. Pechman
The document is a letter from the Attorney General of Massachusetts appealing the withholding of documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request regarding communications about the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002. The letter argues that the Council on Environmental Quality failed to adequately justify withholding documents and violated FOIA. It provides examples where CEQ inadvertently disclosed information it had tried to redact, demonstrating the information was not properly exempt. The letter requests CEQ provide a detailed Vaughn index to justify any withheld information.
Typenex_2015-01-05 - Doc. 10 - Appellant's Brief without DC OrderPeter Forrest
This document is a brief filed by TypeNex Medical, LLC appealing a district court ruling in a patent infringement case brought by Precision Dynamics Corporation. The brief summarizes the technical background of medical identification bracelets, describes the accused TypeNex product and the '982 patent at issue. It then outlines the district court proceedings and sets forth TypeNex's arguments on appeal regarding claim construction of key terms in the '982 patent and whether TypeNex's product meets limitations of the asserted claims. The brief argues the district court erred in its claim constructions and that under the proper constructions, TypeNex's product does not infringe the '982 patent.
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.
MEALEY'S Data Privacy Law Report Sample Issue May 2015LexisNexis
Download this first issue of Mealey’s Data Privacy Law Report. This monthly newsletter (also available in eBook format) follows the latest litigation in federal and state courts involving online privacy and data protection. The report also covers federal and state regulatory and legislative developments, as well as rulings by administrative agencies tasked with enforcing laws that impact data privacy. Order today by calling 800.223.1940 or by visiting the LexisNexis Store here: http://bit.ly/1HLhMiD
Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...mh37o
Federal court denied the motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and Anandhan Jayaraman. Court confirmed that PISL India and PISl PA are one and the same companies.
Native American Law Report, March 2015 issueLexisNexis
The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case involving the sale of a membership interest in a casino. Ted and Maria Gatzaros sold their membership interest in an entity that owned 50% of a casino to Monroe Partners for $265 million, to be paid over time. Monroe then sold the interest to Kewadin Greektown Casino. Kewadin and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians guaranteed payment if Kewadin defaulted. Kewadin and Monroe later filed for bankruptcy. The Gatzaros sought to recover nearly $74 million still owed from the sale from the tribe, but lower courts found the tribe had not waived defenses to the claims and the Gatzaros
2012AnnualSurveyofFifthCircuitClassActionsCases_TXBusinessLitigationJournalCole Davis
This document provides a summary of class action cases decided in 2012 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and federal district courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It discusses 15 cases that substantively addressed Rule 23 litigation classes and 4 settlement class cases. For the litigation class cases, only 2 of the proposed classes were certified. All 4 settlement class cases were approved. The document summarizes several notable cases involving various federal and state laws, including antitrust, ERISA, securities, bankruptcy, and consumer protection statutes. It analyzes the application of Rule 23 requirements like commonality, predominance, and cohesiveness.
Jason Luckasevic is an attorney who started the retired NFL player concussion litigation. He received his bachelor's degree from Washington & Jefferson College in 1997 and his law degree from Duquesne University School of Law in 2000. He has been admitted to practice law in several states. Luckasevic's practice areas include toxic torts, personal injury, medical malpractice, and discrimination cases. He is a member of several legal associations. The litigation stems from research finding chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in the brains of deceased NFL players. In 2011, 75 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging cognitive injuries from multiple concussions during their NFL careers. Previous cases like Stringer v. NFL and Brown v. NFL established legal preced
This document is a response to a petition for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court. It summarizes a case involving former CIA assets (John and Jane Doe), who are now US citizens, bringing Fifth Amendment claims against the CIA. The Does allege the CIA coerced them into spying during the Cold War and promised lifelong financial assistance, but has since denied their requests for assistance. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Totten v. United States does not require immediate dismissal and Reynolds v. United States procedures for asserting the state secrets privilege must be followed. The response argues the Ninth Circuit's decision is correct and consistent with Webster v. Doe.
A fictitious legal brief to remit the final judgment of bail forfeiture. Capt. Bryant issued a bond for the release of Rutger Batty who later failed to appear in court. Mr. Batty was in a Texas jail because of a prior illegal gun possession charge. Though Mr. Batty was not incarcerated in a North Carolina jail or a federal prison within the United States, Captain Bryant wants Weft and Wright, P.L.L.C. to try and get the forfeited bail money remitted.
The district court erred in convicting Samantha Clark under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for statements made during plea negotiations with the U.S. Attorney's office while representing a criminal defendant. Subsection (b) of § 1001 creates an exception for statements made by a party or their counsel during a judicial proceeding. The district court relied on inapplicable case law that did not address this exception. As Clark's statements were made in her role as defense counsel during a judicial proceeding, she was exempt from prosecution under the plain language of subsection (b).
The Estate of Elizabeth Haynes Urquhart vs. American Regional_ Earl R. Davis ...Earl R. Davis
This turnover action is untimely because Elizabeth Urquhart died in 2005. The statute of
limitations in a discovery or turnover proceeding is governed by the CPLR. See SCPA § 102 (“The
CPLR and other laws applicable to practice and procedure apply in the surrogate’s court except
where other procedure is provided by this act.”). A proceeding “commenced pursuant to SCPA §
2103 has been likened to a replevin action, which has a statute of limitations of three years.” If you are interested to know about the case, get in touch with Earl R. Davis.
This brief was submitted by the Bar Association of the City of New York in support of reversing the district court's decision. It argues that (1) the Immigration and Nationality Act preempts states from regulating immigration without federal consent, and (2) the federal government's power over foreign relations precludes independent state action in this area. The brief cites numerous Supreme Court cases that establish federal supremacy over immigration and foreign policy. It contends Alabama's immigration law improperly intrudes on these exclusive federal powers.
FindLaw | Justice Dept. Motion to Dismiss Defense of Marriage Actguest8f8287
This document is the United States' motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It provides background on DOMA and the procedural history of the case. The motion argues that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that DOMA is a valid exercise of congressional authority, and that DOMA does not violate equal protection, due process, privacy, speech, or other constitutional rights. The motion requests that all claims against the United States be dismissed.
FindLaw | Justice Dept. Motion to Dismiss Defense of Marriage ActLegalDocs
This document is the United States' motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It provides background on DOMA and the procedural history of the case. The motion argues that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that DOMA is a valid exercise of congressional authority, and that DOMA does not violate equal protection, due process, privacy, speech, or other constitutional rights. The motion requests that all claims against the United States be dismissed.
FindLaw | Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Prop. 8 SuitLegalDocs
This document is a motion filed by plaintiffs in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The motion argues that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and requests a preliminary injunction preventing Proposition 8 from taking effect. It summarizes the facts of the case and presents legal arguments that Proposition 8 violates due process by restricting the fundamental right to marry, and violates equal protection by discriminating against gay and lesbian individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation and sex.
This memorandum argues that the DEA's practice of obtaining Oregon patients' prescription records from the state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. It asserts that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their prescription records, as these records can reveal sensitive health information. The memorandum maintains that both case law and state statutes recognize privacy interests in medical information. It concludes that the DEA must obtain a judicial warrant supported by probable cause before accessing individuals' prescription records from the PDMP.
This memorandum argues that the DEA's practice of obtaining Oregon patients' prescription records from the state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. It asserts that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their prescription records, as these records can reveal sensitive health information. The memorandum maintains that both case law and state statutes recognize privacy interests in medical information. It concludes that the DEA must obtain a judicial warrant supported by probable cause before accessing individuals' prescription records from the PDMP.
This brief was filed by plaintiffs appealing the district court's decision upholding the FTA and City of Honolulu's approval of a $5 billion elevated heavy rail transit project through historic areas of downtown Honolulu. The brief argues that the FTA and city violated NEPA by failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, including managed lanes and light rail, and by improperly restricting the stated purpose and need of the project. It also argues the FTA violated Section 4(f) by failing to avoid using historic sites or fully identify and evaluate potential impacts to Native Hawaiian burial sites. The plaintiffs request that the court reverse the district court's decision.
The SEC is seeking an order from the court to compel Ignite International Brands, Ltd. to comply with an administrative subpoena issued by the SEC on May 20, 2022 as part of its investigation into potential accounting fraud by the company. Ignite has failed to comply with the subpoena despite receiving three extensions and is now asserting its compliance should be stayed due to a separate criminal investigation, but the SEC argues multiple concurrent investigations do not excuse noncompliance. The SEC is asking the court to enforce the subpoena pursuant to its authority under federal securities laws.
2003 E.E.O.C. V. J.B. Hunt Transport Sotomayormaldef
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.
This document is a petition for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court of the United States. It challenges a Ninth Circuit decision regarding whether verb usage of a trademark constitutes generic use and what test should be used to determine if a mark has become generic. The petition asks the Supreme Court to consider three questions: 1) whether verb usage of a trademark is generic as a matter of law, 2) whether the test is majority usage or understanding, and 3) whether district courts can weigh evidence on summary judgment. The petition argues these are important trademark law issues that conflict with other circuits and should be settled.
http://www.consenttosearch.com/ is a blog focused on Fourth Amendment issues, just as this brief is focused on strip searches and the Fourth Amendment.
Similar to 1999 Bartlett V. New York State Board Of Law Examiners (20)
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has faced unfair and unjust criticism for her views. However, she has the experience and qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. Her story is an inspiration that the American dream can be achieved through hard work and determination.
The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce endorsed Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court following her nomination by President Obama. The USHCC board unanimously voted to support her nomination and urged the swift confirmation by the Senate. They believe Judge Sotomayor's experience as a litigator and judge demonstrate her reputation as a fair and impartial jurist, and that she will continue to serve with a balanced and non-ideological approach.
2000 Dissenting Opinon Croll V. Croll Sotomayormaldef
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.
This document summarizes a dissenting opinion regarding a denial of rehearing a case in banc. The dissent argues that the court's precedent that corporations and individuals from British territories are not considered "citizens or subjects of a foreign state" for purposes of establishing alienage jurisdiction is flawed and contrary to the purpose of alienage jurisdiction. The dissent would grant rehearing in banc to reexamine this precedent and ensure foreign entities and individuals have appropriate access to federal courts.
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.
This document is a court ruling on an appeal from a civil rights lawsuit brought by the Walczyk family against members of the Farmington Police Department. It summarizes a longstanding property dispute between the Walczyks and a development corporation. It then describes events leading up to the police obtaining arrest and search warrants for Thomas Walczyk based on comments he made about potentially taking matters into his own hands regarding the dispute. The court must determine if the police were justified in their actions or if the Walczyks' civil rights were violated.
2000 Malesko V. Correctional Services Corp Sotomayormaldef
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.
- Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit alleging that the City of New York's practice of seizing and retaining vehicles without a prompt post-seizure hearing to challenge the retention violates due process rights.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, finding no due process violation. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that plaintiffs' due process rights were violated by the lack of a prompt opportunity to challenge the deprivation of their vehicles pending forfeiture proceedings.
- The case was remanded to the district court to order appropriate injunctive relief requiring a prompt post-seizure hearing where the City must demonstrate that retention of each vehicle is justified.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano. The court adopted the reasoning of the district court, which found that the Civil Service Board was in an unfortunate situation with no good alternatives when it invalidated promotional exams for firefighters due to their disproportionate racial impact. While sympathetic to the plaintiffs' frustration, the court held that the Board's actions were protected under Title VII because it was trying to fulfill its obligations under the statute when confronted with exams that had a discriminatory effect.
Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. She currently serves as a United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit in New York. She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University and Yale Law School, where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal. She has had a distinguished career including serving as a prosecutor, private practice, and as a US District Court Judge before her current position on the Second Circuit.
Essential Tools for Modern PR Business .pptxPragencyuk
Discover the essential tools and strategies for modern PR business success. Learn how to craft compelling news releases, leverage press release sites and news wires, stay updated with PR news, and integrate effective PR practices to enhance your brand's visibility and credibility. Elevate your PR efforts with our comprehensive guide.
केरल उच्च न्यायालय ने 11 जून, 2024 को मंडला पूजा में भाग लेने की अनुमति मांगने वाली 10 वर्षीय लड़की की रिट याचिका को खारिज कर दिया, जिसमें सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की एक बड़ी पीठ के समक्ष इस मुद्दे की लंबित प्रकृति पर जोर दिया गया। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अनिल के. नरेंद्रन और न्यायमूर्ति हरिशंकर वी. मेनन की खंडपीठ द्वारा पारित किया गया
Youngest c m in India- Pema Khandu BiographyVoterMood
Pema Khandu, born on August 21, 1979, is an Indian politician and the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh. He is the son of former Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Dorjee Khandu. Pema Khandu assumed office as the Chief Minister in July 2016, making him one of the youngest Chief Ministers in India at that time.
13062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
1999 Bartlett V. New York State Board Of Law Examiners
1. N o.9 7 -9 1 6 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
MARILYN BARTLETT,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
AS AMICUS CURIAE
MARY JO WHITE BILL LANN LEE
United States Attorney Acting Assistant Attorney
for the Southern District General
of New York
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY JESSICA DUNSAY SILVER
Assistant United States MARIE K. McELDERRY
Attorney Attorneys
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66078
Washington, D.C. 20035-6078
(202) 514-3068
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ARGUMENT:
THIS COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT BARTLETT IS
AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY UNDER TITLE II
OF THE ADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. The Record Is Clear That Bartlett Lacks
Automaticity In Her Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Bartlett Is Substantially Limited In
Reading Even When Taking Into Account
Her Self-Accommodation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. This Court’s Determination That Bartlett Has A Disability
That Causes Substantial Limitations
In The Major Life Activity Of Reading Is
Consistent With The Supreme Court’s Decisions
In Sutton, Murphy, And Albertsons . . . . . . . . . . 11
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
- i -
3. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES: PAGE
Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 119 S. Ct. 2162 (1999) . . passim
Bartlett v. New York State Bd. of Law Exam’rs, 970 F. Supp.
1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), reconsideration denied,
2 F. Supp. 2d 388 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d in part,
vacated in part, 156 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 1998),
vacated and remanded, 119 S. Ct. 2388 (1999) . . . . . passim
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 119 S. Ct.
2133 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 119 S. Ct.
2139 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d
296 (3d Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
STATUTES:
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Title II, 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
RULES AND REGULATIONS:
29 C.F.R. 1630.2(j)(3)(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
MISCELLANEOUS:
Jeanne S. Chall, Stages of Reading Development (1983) . . . . . . 4
135 Cong. Rec. 8519 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Patricia R. Dahl, A mastery based experimental program
for teaching high speed word recognition skills
(abstract), 11 Reading Res. Q. 203 (1975-1976) . . . . . . . 4
Sally E. Shaywitz, Current Concepts: Dyslexia,
338 New Eng. J. Med. 307 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
- ii -
4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 97-9162
MARILYN BARTLETT,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
AS AMICUS CURIAE
On June 24, 1999, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a
writ of certiorari in New York State Board of Law Examiners v.
Bartlett, No. 98-1285, vacated this Court's September 14, 1998,
decision, and remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration
in light of Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 119 S. Ct. 2139
(1999), Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 119 S. Ct. 2133
(1999), and Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 119 S. Ct. 2162
(1999). On July 30, 1999, this Court issued an order directing the
parties to file supplemental briefs to consider the effect of those
three decisions. Having previously filed a brief as amicus curiae
in this appeal, the United States hereby submits this supplemental
brief to address the issue presented by the Supreme Court's remand.
5. - 2 -
ARGUMENT
THIS COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT BARTLETT IS AN
INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY UNDER TITLE II OF THE ADA
The Supreme Court determined in Sutton that "if a person is
taking measures to correct for, or mitigate, a physical or mental
impairment, the effects of those measures -- both positive and
negative -- must be taken into account when judging whether that
person is 'substantially limited' in a major life activity and thus
'disabled' under the [Americans with Disabilities] Act." 119 S.
Ct. at 2146.1/ In so holding, the Court relied in part upon the
fact that the ADA requires an individualized inquiry into the
question whether an individual has a disability. Id. at 2147.
In its September 14, 1998, decision, this Court held that
plaintiff Marilyn Bartlett is an individual with a disability
protected by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131, et seq. Bartlett v. New York State
Bd. of Law Exam'rs, 156 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 1998).2/ In reaching
that conclusion, this Court stated that a disability should be
assessed without regard to the availability of mitigating
measures. Id. at 329. As a result, the Supreme Court granted
the Board's petition, vacated this Court's decision, and remanded
1/
Plaintiffs in Sutton had severe myopia, but with the use
of corrective lenses, their vision was 20/20 or better. 119 S.
Ct. at 2143.
2/
As relevant to this case, the statutory definition of
disability is "a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more of the major life activities of [an]
individual." 42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A).
6. - 3 -
the case to this Court for reconsideration under the legal
standard announced in Sutton, Murphy, and Albertsons.
Although in reaching its decision in this case this Court
endorsed a principle that has subsequently been rejected by the
Supreme Court, the Court’s conclusion that Bartlett is an
individual with a disability remains correct. Following Sutton
and the related cases, the appropriate inquiry in determining
whether an individual has a disability within the meaning of the
ADA is whether, notwithstanding the use of a corrective device or
mitigating measures, the "limitations an individual with an
impairment actually faces are in fact substantially limiting."
119 S. Ct. at 2149. As discussed below, the record in this case
demonstrates that, despite her efforts at self-accommodation,
Bartlett is substantially limited in the major life activity of
reading. 156 F.3d at 329. The self-accommodation techniques
used by Bartlett do not mitigate the crucial element of her
dyslexia: her lack of automaticity in reading. Accordingly, even
when taking her attempts at self-accommodation into account,
Bartlett is substantially limited in the major life activity of
reading. Because that is the only conclusion that can be drawn
from the record, together with the district court’s findings, the
district court’s judgment should be affirmed on that basis.
7. - 4 -
A. The Record Is Clear That Bartlett Lacks
Automaticity In Her Reading
Experts recognize that the skill of reading has at least two
major components3/: accuracy of word identification and
“automaticity”--the ability to "recognize[] a printed word and
[be] able to read it accurately, and immediately; in other words,
automatically and without [conscious effort]." Bartlett v. New
York State Bd. of Law Exam'rs, 970 F. Supp. 1094, 1107, 1113
(S.D.N.Y. 1997). The Board of Law Examiners took the position in
the district court that Bartlett's scores on the Word Attack and
Word Identification subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test
(Woodcock subtests) were alone sufficient to determine whether
Bartlett has a learning disability. The Woodcock subtests used
by the Board’s expert, however, measure only one of the
components of reading, i.e., the ability to identify words
accurately and not the major component underlying adult reading,
i.e., automaticity. Automaticity has to be assessed by a reading
measure that includes time; the scores on the Woodcock subtests
did not measure Bartlett’s lack of automaticity because those
tests are untimed and do not reflect the great difficulty she has
in deciphering each word. As the district court recognized, the
principal problem with using the scores on psychometric testing
as the sole determinant of whether an individual has a learning
3/
See, e.g., Pl.'s Ex. 129, Jeanne S. Chall, Stages of
Reading Development 119 (1983), citing Patricia R. Dahl, A
mastery based experimental program for teaching high speed word
recognition skills (abstract), 11 Reading Res. Q. 203, 209 (1975-
1976).
8. - 5 -
disability is the fact that "no test measures automaticity
directly." 970 F. Supp. at 1113. The Board’s complete reliance
on Bartlett’s scores on the Woodcock subtests to determine
whether she has a learning disability therefore presents an
incomplete and misleading picture. Accordingly, the district
court properly rejected the Board’s position that the Woodcock
subtests scores should be determinative, finding that “[b]y its
very nature, diagnosing a learning disability requires clinical
judgment,” and “is not quantifiable merely in test scores.” Id.
at 1114.
Recognizing the importance of clinical judgment, the
district court relied on the experts’ clinical observations of
Bartlett when she read aloud. The opinion of all three experts
who observed her noted her "stark lack of automaticity" under
those circumstances. 970 F. Supp. at 1113. In his trial
affidavit, Dr. Richard Heath testified that Bartlett "reads aloud
in a hesitant manner, slowly and without automaticity." Id. at
1107. He stated that, "[i]n particular, [Bartlett] had a great
deal of difficulty reading polysyllabic words, vowels (especially
diphthongs, digraphs and in ascertaining differences between long
and short vowels), consonant blends and silent consonant
conventions." Ibid. He reported (ibid.) that
on the more complex reading passages, Dr. Bartlett
typically read the passages over two or three times
before she could respond to that test item. She uses
contextual cues to facilitate her decoding. She reads
very slowly. She will reread a phrase or sentence to
make sure she gets it. You can often see her lips move
or hear her read quietly to herself and when she does
this, you can hear the mispronunciations. When she is
9. - 6 -
faced with an unfamiliar polysyllabic word she is very
slow to break down the word to different parts and she
will mispronounce parts of the word. She is slow to
synthesize the morphemes into a word.
Dr. Heath administered the same Woodcock subtests used by
the Board, and his opinion was that the results of that testing
confirmed Dr. Phillip Massad’s earlier diagnosis of learning
disability. 970 F. Supp. at 1107. His clinical observation of
Bartlett revealed her difficulties in arriving at answers. Dr.
Heath described the fact that Bartlett "had to make several
attempts to sound out words which should have been second nature
to her,” and her "reading was full of hesitations, and self
corrections.” Ibid. (quoting Heath affidavit). As an example,
Dr. Heath stated (ibid.):
[P]laintiff will attempt to read a word such as
"instigator" as "investigator." Since she will hear
that it sounds incorrect she will start over and often
corrects her reading of the word after several
attempts. On the Woodcock, this would be credited as a
correct response, even though it took her three
attempts to get it right and took more time than it
would have taken a person who did not have to read in
this fashion.
Dr. Heath also stated that, although “[w]ord attack skills are
generally well formed by junior high school age,” Bartlett's
“pattern of word attack is indicative of someone whose decoding
skills are not fully formed,” and that she “decodes pseudo-words
at a fourth grade level.” Id. at 1107-1108.4/
4/
The district court also credited the studies of adult
dyslexics conducted by Dr. Maggie Bruck, on which the Board’s
experts relied to support their testimony. Dr. Bruck stated, and
(continued...)
10. - 7 -
During the hearing, the district court also directly
observed the condition and manner used by Bartlett to read and
write, including using her fingers to keep her place in the text,
spelling errors, and mirror writing. She read aloud, "haltingly
and laboriously," at 40 words per minute and took approximately
ten minutes to write a 48-word passage that was dictated to her.
970 F. Supp. at 1110.5/
This Court agreed with the district court in rejecting the
Board’s argument that scores on the Woodcock subtests are the
"dispositive measure" of whether an adult has a learning
disability, 156 F.3d at 329, and nothing in the Supreme Court’s
decisions in Sutton and the related cases calls that conclusion
into question.
B. Bartlett Is Substantially Limited In
Reading Even When Taking Into Account Her
Self-Accommodation Techniques
4/
(...continued)
the district court found, that the Woodcock subtests are "poor
discriminators" for measuring whether an adult has a learning
disability "unless the subject’s reaction time [i]s measured."
970 F. Supp. at 1113-1114. In addition, Dr. Rosa Hagin testified
that, because the Woodcock subtests do not test automaticity or
reading rate, "they are poor indicators of a decoding problem in
individuals like plaintiff who function at higher cognitive
levels." Id. at 1110.
5/
The record also contains test data from the Diagnostic
Reading Test (DRT). 970 F. Supp. at 1108. Bartlett’s reading
rate was compared with the highest grade norm for that test,
which is college freshmen. Ibid. (table). The test results show
that Bartlett’s slow reading rate is comparable to the 4th
percentile of college freshmen when timed, while her
comprehension was at the 50th percentile. When she took the test
untimed, her comprehension was at the 98th percentile, but, at
the same time, that required her to read at an even slower rate,
comparable to the 1st percentile of college freshmen. Ibid.
11. - 8 -
The Board does not appear to dispute the finding that
Bartlett reads without automaticity.6/ Rather, the Board’s
principal argument here (Defendants-Appellants’ Supplemental Br.
6-7) is that Bartlett’s "self-accommodation permits her to read
at an average level compared to the average person in the general
population," and thus that she "does not have a reading or
learning disability that would entitle her to accommodations" for
taking the New York bar examination. That argument is based upon
the district court's finding that, when compared to the general
population, Bartlett has achieved "roughly average reading skills
(on some measures)." 970 F. Supp. at 1120.
The Board’s reliance on this aspect of the district court’s
finding is at odds with this Court’s clear rejection of the
Board’s argument that scores on the Woodcock subtests are the
"dispositive measure" of whether an adult has a learning
disability. 156 F.3d at 329. The district court’s finding was
specifically qualified by the court as being based on “some
measures.” Those measures were the Woodcock Word Attack and Word
Identification subtests. As noted above, this Court clearly
found that those measures were not adequate to judge whether
Bartlett has a learning disability. Since the Woodcock subtests
measure only her ability to identify words, without regard to the
time it takes or the mistakes she makes before arriving at the
correct answer, Bartlett's average scores on those subtests do
6/
Indeed, as the district court noted, the Board’s expert
"acknowledge[d] the Woodcock’s weakness with regard to
discriminating for lack of automaticity." 970 F. Supp. at 1114.
12. - 9 -
not identify the substantial limitations she experiences in the
reading process. As discussed below, Bartlett’s self-
accommodation techniques provide a degree of mitigation with
respect to the word identification component of the reading
process; they do not, however, provide mitigation with respect to
Bartlett’s lack of automaticity in her reading.
Dr. Rosa Hagin, an expert who testified during the hearing
in the district court, described the "set of personal skills"
that Bartlett has "evolved * * * to compensate for her
disability." 970 F. Supp. at 1109. The "cues" Bartlett used to
assist her were "slowing down the rate of response, verbal
rehearsal of rote sequencing items, [and] pointing cues to assist
in keeping her place on visual text." Ibid. She “use[d] her
finger to keep her place,” and read the more complex passages
over several times as a means of obtaining “contextual cues to
facilitate her decoding.” Id. at 1107 (internal quotation marks
omitted). She "had to sound out the words repeatedly before
coming to an answer." Id. at 1113. Dr. Hagin credited
Bartlett’s "earlier work as a school teacher where phonics were
stressed" in allowing her to attempt to develop "self-
accommodations." Id. at 1109. Significantly, however, Dr. Hagin
noted that those self-accommodations, which permit her to decode
words if she has a sufficient amount of time, "account for her
ability to spell better and to perform better on [the untimed
Woodcock] word identity and word attack tests than would be
expected of a reading disabled person," ibid., because, as this
13. - 10 -
Court noted, 156 F.3d at 329, both of those subtests allow
Bartlett unlimited time to identify a word. They do not measure
the fact that she reads without automaticity. Ibid. Thus,
although Bartlett has developed methods that permit her, with
additional time, to decipher the written words, the record shows
that the essential component of automaticity continues to be
absent in her reading.
Accepting the district court's subsidiary findings, this
Court found, in essence, that Bartlett's barely average scores on
the Woodcock subtests are only a part of the picture and that
lack of automaticity is the crucial element in her dyslexia.
This Court therefore rejected the district court’s conclusion
that Bartlett was not substantially limited in the major life
activity of reading, Bartlett v. New York State Bd. of Law
Exam'rs, 2 F. Supp. 2d 388, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), making a legal
determination that the district court’s finding concerning
Bartlett’s average scores on the Woodcock subtests was not a
sufficient basis for that conclusion. Instead, this Court
properly relied upon the record and subsidiary findings made by
the district court in concluding that Bartlett was substantially
limited in the major life activity of reading, and her impairment
significantly restricts the condition and manner of her reading
“as compared to the manner and conditions under which the average
person in the general population can read or learn.” 156 F.3d at
329.
C. This Court’s Determination That Barlett
Has A Disability That Causes Substantial
14. - 11 -
Limitations In The Major Life Activity Of
Reading Is Consistent With The Supreme
Court’s Decisions In Sutton, Murphy, And
Albertsons
Nothing in the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sutton, Murphy,
or Albertsons calls into question this Court’s conclusion that
Bartlett is a person with a disability. Bartlett's “history of
self-accommodations” does not foreclose a finding that she has a
disability. 156 F.3d at 329. In Sutton, the Supreme Court made
clear that the "use or nonuse of a corrective device does not
determine whether an individual is disabled; that determination
depends on whether the limitations an individual with an
impairment actually faces are in fact substantially limiting."
119 S. Ct. at 2149 (emphasis added). Because, with the use of
corrective measures, the plaintiffs in Sutton reached 20/20
visual acuity and could "function identically to individuals
without a similar impairment," ibid., the Court held that they
were not substantially limited in any major life activity.
Thereafter, in Murphy, the Supreme Court accepted the Tenth
Circuit’s conclusion that "when medicated, petitioner’s high
blood pressure does not substantially limit him in any major life
activity." 119 S. Ct. at 2137. In Murphy, the Court was
presented solely with the question whether mitigating measures
should be considered in determining whether an individual’s
impairment substantially limits a major life activity; the Court
was not presented with the question whether the Tenth Circuit’s
conclusion as to substantial limitation was correct.
Specifically, the Supreme Court in Murphy had "no occasion * * *
15. - 12 -
to consider whether petitioner is ‘disabled’ due to limitations
that persist despite his medication." Ibid. (emphasis added).
Finally, in Albertsons, the Supreme Court amplified its
ruling in Sutton, holding that mitigating measures undertaken
within the body’s own systems, just as those undertaken with the
use of artificial aids like medications and devices, must be
considered in determining whether an individual is disabled under
the ADA. 119 S. Ct. at 2169. The Supreme Court did not consider
whether plaintiff, who had monocular vision, was disabled under
the ADA, but merely held that the statute requires "monocular
individuals, like others claiming the Act’s protection, to prove
a disability by offering evidence that the extent of the
limitation in terms of their own experience * * * is
substantial." Ibid.
The Supreme Court’s holdings in Sutton, Murphy, and
Albertsons do not, therefore, compel a different conclusion than
the conclusion reached by the Court in this case: that Bartlett
is substantially limited in the major life activity of reading.
The record in this case amply demonstrates that the limitations
Bartlett "actually faces are in fact substantially limiting."
Sutton, 119 S. Ct. at 2149. As discussed above, on the basis of
the district court’s findings concerning (1) the shortcomings of
reliance on the Woodcock subtest scores alone, and (2) the
extensive expert testimony, based upon clinical observation,
concerning the manner in which Bartlett reads, this Court
concluded (156 F.3d at 329):
16. - 13 -
In this case, Dr. Bartlett suffers from a
lack of automaticity and a phonological
processing defect that significantly
restricts her ability to identify timely and
decode the written word, that is, to read as
compared to the manner and conditions under
which the average person in the general
population can read or learn.
Accordingly, the "extent of the limitation in terms of"
Bartlett’s "own experience * * * is substantial." Albertsons,
119 S. Ct. at 2169.
Nor do the attempted self-accommodation techniques employed
by Bartlett change this result: reading remains slow, effortful,
and extremely time-consuming. The record in this case is clear
that the self-accommodations that Bartlett has developed do not
mitigate the crucial element in her dyslexia: her lack of
automaticity in reading. Unlike the situation in Sutton, where
corrective lenses brought the plaintiffs' eyesight to 20/20,
there is no medication or corrective device that can permit
Bartlett to read with automaticity. As this Court found,
individuals with dyslexia suffer a persistent, chronic deficit in
their ability to “decode the written word.” 156 F.3d at 329. As
a result of that impairment, Bartlett always experiences a lack
of automaticity when she reads. Without automaticity, Bartlett
will never be able to read at a rate and in a manner that
approaches the norm, even with her attempts at using the self-
accommodation techniques she has learned. Deciphering words
without automaticity requires an enormous amount of conscious
effort. As the district court noted, Bartlett reads “slowly,
haltingly, and laboriously.” 970 F. Supp. at 1099. “She simply
17. - 14 -
does not read in the manner of an average person.” Ibid.
Accordingly, Bartlett experiences substantial "limitations that
persist despite [the mitigating measure]." Murphy, 119 S. Ct. at
2137.
Bartlett’s situation is analogous to the individuals
described by the Court in Sutton who use a prosthetic limb or a
wheelchair for mobility. The Court noted that such individuals
“may be mobile and capable of functioning in society but still be
disabled because of a substantial limitation on their ability to
walk or run.” 119 S. Ct. at 2149. The ADA “addresses
substantial limitations on major life activities, not utter
inabilities.” Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 641 (1998).7/
The fact that an individual such as Bartlett has succeeded
in obtaining advanced educational degrees in other fields and has
completed law school does not prevent her from being an
individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA.
Although individuals with dyslexia such as Bartlett have a
deficit in phonological processing impairing the manner and ease
with which they are able to decipher words, the “higher-order
cognitive and linguistic functions involved in comprehension,
such as general intelligence and reasoning, vocabulary, and
syntax, are generally intact.” Sally E. Shaywitz, Current
Concepts: Dyslexia, 338 New Eng. J. Med. 307, 308 (1998)
7/
See Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 309
(3d Cir. 1999) (individual with bipolar disorder who takes
lithium to control most severe aspects of disorder can still be
substantially limited in major life activity of thinking because
of effect of uncontrolled symptoms and side effects of the drug).
18. - 15 -
(footnotes omitted). This “pattern” helps to explain the
“paradox of otherwise intelligent people who experience great
difficulty in reading.” Ibid.
One of the chief purposes of the ADA is to remove barriers
that prevent persons with disabilities from reaching their full
potential and to allow them to participate fully in society. See
135 Cong. Rec. 8519 (1989) (remarks of Sen. Cranston). In order
for Bartlett to access her higher-order cognitive abilities, she
needs more time than an individual without a phonological
processing deficit to decode and identify the printed word and
she needs other accommodations that would help to compensate for
the effects of that deficit. Just as a person in a wheelchair
can use an above-ground entrance to gain access to a building if
a ramp is available, an individual with a learning disability can
draw meaning from high level text if she is allowed the time she
requires to slowly decipher each word. To such an individual,
time is her ramp. The record demonstrates that Bartlett’s
achievements thus far have come as a result of extraordinary
efforts not required by individuals without disabilities. She
should not be excluded from the protections of the Act because of
accomplishments made despite her disability.
As we have argued, the record is sufficient for this Court
to reaffirm its earlier decision. The fact that Bartlett’s lack
of automaticity is not susceptible to self-accommodation means
that this Court’s conclusion that she is substantially limited in
the major life activity of reading is correct, even when she is
19. - 16 -
compared with the average person in the general population. 29
C.F.R. 1630.2(j)(3)(i). The Supreme Court’s remand does not
compel this Court to reach a different conclusion because
Bartlett’s lack of automaticity is not improved by any self-
accommodation or mitigation.8/
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should reinstate its
earlier determination that Bartlett is an individual with a
disability who is entitled to accommodations for taking the New
York bar examination. Alternatively, if this Court believes that
further findings by the district court are necessary, it can
8/
Since the record demonstrates that Bartlett is
substantially limited in reading, we agree with this Court’s
determination, see 156 F.3d at 329, that it is unnecessary to
decide whether she is substantially limited in the major life
activity of working.
20. - 17 -
remand the case to the district court for a determination whether
Bartlett’s lack of automaticity results in a substantial
limitation in reading.
Respectfully submitted,
MARY JO WHITE BILL LANN LEE
United States Attorney Acting Assistant Attorney
for the Southern District General
of New York
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY JESSICA DUNSAY SILVER
Assistant United States MARIE K. McELDERRY
Attorney Attorneys
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66078
Washington, D.C. 20035-6078
(202) 514-3068
21. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing
Supplemental Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae by
mailing two copies, first-class, postage prepaid on counsel of
record at the following addresses:
Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General of the
State of New York
Preeta D. Bansal
Solicitor General
Deon J. Nossel
Assistant Solicitor General
120 Broadway
New York, New York 10271
Jo Anne Simon
Patricia Ballner
257 Dean Street
Brooklyn, New York 11217
This day of November, 1999.
Marie K. McElderry
Attorney