Abstract
Other contributors to this volume have focused primarily on what “can” be done and what “ought to” be done to help people with handicaps cope with those handicaps. I would like to discuss what “must” be done—that is, what are some of the legal rights of persons with handicaps?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
References and Notes
Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F.Supp, 866 (D.C. Cir., 1972).
Mass. G.L.A. ch. 71B.
U.S.C. §§1401 et seq.
E.g., Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 F.Supp. 387 (M.D. Ala. 1972), affirmed in pertinent part sub nom. Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1974).
See., e.g., Halderman v Pennhurst, 446 F.Supp. 1295 (E.D. Pa. 1977); P.L. 95–602, Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, §111.
U.S.C. §794. The portion following the words, “Federal financial assistance,” was added by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978. 92 Stat. 2982.
See, e.g., Howard S. r Friendswood Independent School District, 454 F.Supp. 634 (S.D. Tex. 1978); Lora v Neie York Board of Education, 456 F.Supp. 1211 (E.D. N.Y. 1978); Mattie T. v, Holladay, (A. No. 75–31-S (N.D. Miss., Consent Decree, Feb. 22, 1979). (Previous summary’ judgment held that lack of educational programs for handicapped children was a violation of Section 504.).
N.Y. State A.R.C v. Carey, C A, No. 72-C-356 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 28, 1979).
Camenisch v. Univ. of Texas, C.A. No. A-78-CA-061 (W.D. Tex, May 17, 1978); Crawford v. Univ. of North Carolina, 440 F.Supp. 1047 (M.D. N.C., 1977).
Borden v. Rohr, C.A. No. 75–844 (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 31, 1975).
See, e.g., Snowden v. Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority, 407 F.Supp. 394 (N.D. Ala. 1975), affirmed 551 F.2d 862 (5th Cir. 1977); Vanko v. Finley, 440 F.Supp. 656 (N.D. Ohio 1977); Atlantis Community v. Adams, 453 F.Supp. 825 (D. Colo. 1978).
Fed. Reg. 31442 (May, 1979).
One unusual employment opinion, which runs counter to the general trend, is that ofTrageser v. Libbie Rehabilitation Center 590 F.2d 87 (4th Cir. 1978), cert, denied, 47 U.S.L.W. 3811 (1979), in which the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a visually handicapped nurse could not maintain a private action under Section 504 to redress her dismissal without showing that the primary purpose of the federal financial assistance was to provide employment. It is uncertain whether this line of reasoning will be followed in the other federal circuits. See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 47 U.S.L.W. 4549 (May 14, 1979).
Gurmankin v. Costanzo, 556 F.2d 184 (3rd Cir. 1977).
Duran v. City of Tampa, C.A. No. 76–863 Civ. T-K (M.D. Fla. June 15, 1978), previously reported at 430 F.Supp. 75 (M.D. Fla., 1977).
U.S.L.W. 4689 (1979).
Id., at 4693.
Id., at 4692.
Id., at 4691.
Id., at 4691.
Id., at 4693.
Id., at 4692.
Id., at 2691–92.
“Prohibiting Discrimination Against Developmentally Disabled Persons: Statutory Survey; Model Statute,” Commission on the Mentally Disabled, American Bar Association (Nov. 1978).
C.F.R. §§84.6, 84.22.
C.F.R. §84.52.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1981 Aubrey Milunsky
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Beyer, H.A. (1981). Law and the Handicapped. In: Milunsky, A. (eds) Coping with Crisis and Handicap. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3231-2_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3231-2_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-3233-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-3231-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive