SSA Medicare Medicaid expansion of rehab programs grants to states for special

Ssa medicare medicaid expansion of rehab programs

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 45 pages.

– SSA = Medicare + Medicaid; expansion of rehab programs (grants to states for “special education services” no entitlement, but giving $$$ IF they provide such services) 1968 – Architectural Barriers Act 1972 – Supplemental Security Income 1988 – FHA Amendments Act added disability Two advances in definition of ‘equal treatment’ important (1) similarly-situated or similarly-qualified individuals ought to be treated in same manner irrespective of race, color, national origin, sex McDonnel Douglas v. Green (1973) (2) identical treatment, in some instances, is not equal treatment Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) – concluded consistent application to African American + white job applicants of facially- neutral selection criteria, even absent intent to discriminate, could violate Title VII b/c of disparate impact Adopted principle that consistent application of neutral criteria isn’t inherently sufficient to satisfy Title VII o CJ Burger – articulated the test that’s the central doctrine to employment discrimination law
Image of page 4
o“Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. Good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as built-in headwinds for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability”Legal treatment of students who’re non-English speakers under Civil Rights law = set stage for development of ‘reasonable accommodations’ concept under disability lawo1970:U.S. Dep’t of Health, Education, + Welfare issued Memo interpretive guidance for public elementary + secondary schools re: non-English speaking minority childrenSchools violated Title VI if provided non-English speaking language-minority groups w/ just same services as their non-minority, English-speaking peersSchools must offer special programs or combine w/ bilingual educationoValidity of Memo directly tested in Lau v. Nichols (1974) 1800 students of Chinese ancestry in San Francisco School District didn’t speakEnglish, received no supplemental services to learn EnglishDistrict court + 9thCir. concurred w/ School District that was providing childrenw/ same services as others, wasn’t violating 14thAmend. or Title VISCOTUS, in set of concurring opinions, declined to reach 14thAmend. questionBUT concluded Dep’ts Title VI regulation + interpretations w/ regard tonon-English speaking children were validSchool District not in compliance w/ requirementsJustice Douglas: “no equality of treatment merely by providing studentsw/ the same facilities, books, teachers, etc.,oStudents who don’t understand English effectively foreclosed from any meaningful educationoBasic English skills are at core of what public schools teachoSeems obvious that Chinese-speaking minority receive fewer benefits than English-speaking majority from respondents’ school system which denies them meaningful opportunity to participate in educational program = discrimination
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 45 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • AmandaSisselman
  • Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court of the United States, United States Supreme Court, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Civil Rights Act of 1964

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture