Re: action alert ada and ncdr fair judges contact senate judiciary committee

[Guest guest]

Action Alert: Campaign for Fair Judges

ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR)

Take Action:

Contact Senate Judiciary Committee Members

Message:

1. " Oppose Judge Gene Pratter to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. "

2. " Don't Consider Controversial Judicial Nominees During Presidential

Election Year. "

Rationale:

The confirmation of extremist judicial nominees to has led to the further

weakening of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other civil rights

protections. We believe that none of the pending controversial judicial

nominations, including Judge Gene Pratter to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals,

should be acted upon.

The Senate should follow its longstanding policy that judicial nominations are

not processed in a presidential election year unless they are uncontroversial.

Federal courts have inappropriately rolled back many important rights of people

with disabilities, and the nomination of controversial nominees who are hostile

to civil rights must come to an end. Accordingly, the nominations of Judge

Pratter and all other controversial nominees should not be acted upon.

Contact Information:

Please voice your concerns to Senate Committee on the Judiciary Chairman

Senator Leahy, Ranking Member Senator Arlen Specter, and all committee

members. Contact information can be found at:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm

Background Information:

DISABILITY RIGHTS GROUPS OPPOSE THE

NOMINATION OF GENE PRATTER

ADA Watch, National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR), National Council

for Independent Living (NCIL), Liberty Resources and the Bazelon Center for

Mental Health Law oppose the nomination of Gene E.K. Pratter to the Third

Circuit Court of Appeals. We are deeply troubled by certain rulings by Judge

Pratter that demonstrate a dismissive attitude toward the rights of people with

disabilities. In light of Judge Pratter’s controversial record, her nomination

should not be acted upon in an election year.

Judge Pratter, a member of the Federalist Society, has been a federal judge in

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania since she was confirmed in 2004, after

being nominated by President W. Bush. During her several years on the

bench, Judge Pratter has authored decisions that are of grave concern to

disability rights advocates.

In v. Sheraton Society Hill,[1] Judge Pratter dismissed an ADA

employment discrimination case brought by a man with a back injury. Judge

Pratter failed to apply the federal courts’ customary solicitude for the rights

of litigants who are not represented by counsel, and dismissed the case on her

own motion because the man’s complaint did not indicate whether he had exhausted

his administrative remedies (that is, whether he had first given the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission a chance to investigate his claim). Judge

Pratter dismissed the case without permitting , who was unrepresented,

to amend his complaint to demonstrate that he had filed a complaint with the

EEOC and received a “right to sue” letter.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that dismissal was

inappropriate: “We are troubled by the fact that was given no

opportunity to amend the Complaint before the District Court sua sponte

dismissed it. ’ failure as a pro se litigant to allege exhaustion does

not warrant dismissal of this action with prejudice….We cannot assume from [his]

pro se complaint that no right-to-sue letter exists or that he failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies merely because he failed to attach a right-to-sue

letter.” The appeals court also noted that had filed a form complaint

that did not require him to affirmatively state that he had exhausted

administrative remedies. Judge Pratter’s harsh ruling suggests an indifference

to the financial realities faced by many people with disabilities, who may not

be able to afford representation in order to challenge disability

discrimination, but who may not be familiar with the procedural

requirements of federal court litigation.

In Disabled in Action v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation

Authority,[2] Judge Pratter dismissed a disability rights group’s claims seeking

to require the Philadelphia area transit authority to comply with the ADA by

making two major subway stations accessible to people with disabilities. These

stations were required to be accessible because they had undergone substantial

renovations. Judge Pratter held that the plaintiff’s ADA claims were barred

because they were filed too late. She held that the statute of limitations

began running from the time that the plaintiff and its lawyer knew that the

transit authority did not plan to make the stations accessible, rather than from

the time that the renovations were completed without making the stations

accessible. Judge Pratter’s ruling ignores the plain language of the ADA, which

provides that discrimination occurs when a public transportation facility is not

made accessible “upon completion” of renovations. As a

result of this ruling, individuals who use wheelchairs and other individuals

with mobility impairments are unable to use these stations, which are major

connection points in the local transportation system. The U.S. Justice

Department has filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiff on its appeal to

the Third Circuit, explaining that Judge Pratter’s ruling is wrong and conflicts

with the clear language of the ADA.

We are extremely concerned about the prospect of elevating a federal judge who

seems to have a disparaging attitude toward important rights of individuals with

disabilities. Both of these rulings demonstrate a willingness to dismiss claims

to enforce critical rights of individuals with disabilities based on procedural

concerns that are simply not warranted.

Moreover, we believe that none of the pending controversial judicial

nominations, including Judge Pratter’s, should be acted upon at this stage. The

Senate should follow its longstanding policy that nominations are not processed

in a presidential election year unless they are uncontroversial. Federal courts

have inappropriately rolled back many important rights of people with

disabilities, and the nomination of controversial nominees who are hostile to

civil rights must come to an end. Accordingly, the nominations of Judge Pratter

and all other controversial nominees should not be acted upon.

---------------------------------

[1] No. Civ.A. 04-5659, 2005 WL 2562724 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 2005), rev’d,

163 Fed. Appx. 93 (3d Cir. 2005).

[2] No. 03-CV-1577, 2006 WL 3392733 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 17, 2006) (appeal

pending).

---------------------------------

To unsubscribe/change profile: click here.

To subscribe: click here. National Coalition for Disability Rights

tbniesh@... wrote: Sharon-

do you have a link to the article or whatever you were talking about in

reference to the burden of proof being on the school district and not the

parents??

Is there anything that you can explain this to me further? etc

I AM in NJ

bek

**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.

http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489