Disability Rights - FYI

[Guest guest]

>---------- Forwarded message ----------

> >Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:39:21 -0400

> >From: " D. Ezekiel " <jezekiel@...>

> >Subject: Senator Jeffords on Disability Rights

> >

> >Advocates,

> >

> >I think we should spread the word and welcome Senator Jefford's help

> >in stemming the attack on disability/civil rights.

> >

> >Jon

> >===========

> >

> >http://www.nsclc.org/jeffordsOSI.pdf

> >Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

> >Hearing on: States Rights and Federal Remedies: When are Employment

> >Laws Constitutional?

> >April 4, 2001

> >Statement of M. Jeffords

> >

> >Good Morning. I would like welcome all of our witnesses and guests to

> >today's hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor

> >and Pensions. We are meeting today to examine a very important issue

> >-- the recent spate of Supreme Court decisions affecting Congress'

> >ability to redress employment discrimination and other unfair

> >treatment of state employees

> >

> >As I have often stated, there is simply no place for discrimination

> >in our workplaces. And it is my fervent hope that the day will come

> >when all American workers will be secure in their fundamental right

> >to be protected against discrimination in their workplaces

> >

> >We have made great strides in this direction. The enactment of the

> >Civil Rights Act over 30 years ago served to codify this Nation's

> >commitment to fundamental principles of equal opportunity and

> >fairness in the workplace. We followed along this path with the

> >subsequent enactment of a number of important laws protecting against

> >discrimination and unfair treatment of employees; for example the Age

> >Discrimination and Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities

> >Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. We are here today because

> >of a growing concern that as a result of recent Supreme Court

> >decisions, we seem to be moving away from our goal rather toward it

> >...

> >

> >This past February the Court issued another sovereign immunity ruling

> >that narrowed protections for state employees. The case, Board of

> >Trustees of the University of Alabama v

> >

> >Garret, involved complaints brought by 2 separate Alabama employees:

> > Garrett who claimed she was transferred to a lesser position

> >after undergoing breast cancer treatment, and Milton Ash who claimed

> >his asthma was exacerbated because his employer failed to enforce its

> >non-smoking policy. The Supreme Court held that state workers such as

> > Garrett and Milton Ash do not have the ability to sue their

> >employers under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act

> >(ADA)*While I was not a member of Congress when it passed the ADEA, I

> >certainly was involved during the development and the ultimate

> >passage of the ADA. During the consideration of the ADA, we heard

> >extensive evidence regarding discrimination experienced by people

> >with disabilities, including state employees. Congress, in enacting

> >the ADA, intended to prevent and remedy this conduct. Unfortunately,

> >the Garrett Court found that we exceeded our Constitutional authority

> >

> >The Supreme Court's recent decisions reflect a growing jurisprudence

> >governing the interaction between the federal government and the

> >states. These decisions have a direct impact on Congress' ability to

> >enact legislation, particularly labor laws that apply to state

> >employees

> >

> >As a result of these decisions, state employees, who may be victims

> >of discrimination based on age or disability, no longer have the

> >remedies that are available to individuals who happen to work in the

> >private sector, or for a local government or for the federal

> >government. Indeed, unless a state chooses to waive its sovereign

> >immunity or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decides to

> >bring a suit, state workers may now find themselves with no federal

> >remedy for their claims of discrimination. In effect, these decisions

> >have transformed state employees into second class citizens

> >

> >I am deeply concerned by these decisions. Employees should not have

> >to lose their rights simply because they happen to work for a state

> >government. And a considerable portion of our workforce has been

> >impacted. In Vermont, for example, the State is one of the largest

> >employers

> >

> >It is my hope that this hearing will give us a better understanding

> >of why the Court has ruled the way it has and what we can do to

> >remedy these constitutional hurdles when we are enacting legislation

> >in the future.

>

>

Telesca

hometown.aol.com/suzannat

www.abilitymagazine.com

www.abilityhouse-dc.intranets.com (visit as Guest)