Darren Chaker ADA

Darren Chaker agrees there’s a constitutional right to the judicial system. Thomas R. Phillips, The Constitutional Right to a Remedy, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1308, 1311-1312 (2003). California passed Rule of Court Rule 1.100 is to allow meaningful involvement by all participants in a legal proceeding to the fullest extent practicable. Biscaro v. Stern, 181 Cal. App. 4th 702, 703, 104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 817, 819, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 102, *1 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2010) Indeed, “It is the policy of the courts of this state to ensure that persons with disabilities have equal and full access to the judicial system.” Rule 1.100(b).

In passing the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Congress found in 42 USCS § 12101 (1) (a) that “physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a person's right to fully participate in all aspects of society…” A Court is public entity under 42 U.S. Code § 12131.

The ADA is a comprehensive remedial statute designed “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). See also, PGA Tour, Inc. v. Casey Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 675, 121 S. Ct. 1879 (2001) (One of the “most impressive strengths” of the ADA is its “comprehensive character.” The Act has a “sweeping purpose” and was designed “to eliminate discrimination against disabled individuals and to integrate them into the economic and social mainstream of American life.”). One part of ‘American life’ is the right to address the Governmental violation of civil rights in court and to participate in the judicial process, which includes the appellate system.

Darren Chaker notes, There is an exception under 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 that a public entity need not take any action that would result in an undue administrative burden. But even if an action would result in an undue administrative burden, the public entity must take any other action that would not result in such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity. 28 C.F.R. § 35.164. Robertson v. Las Animas County Sheriff's Dep't, 500 F.3d 1185, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21706 (10th Cir Sept. 10, 2007).

California law further established, “It is the policy of the courts of this state to ensure that persons with disabilities have equal and full access to the judicial system.” Cal Rules of Court, Rule 1.100 Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a public entity has a duty to ensure that individuals with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in the program, 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b). Jordan v. Greater Dayton Premier Mgmt., 9 F. Supp. 3d 847 (S.D. Ohio 2014) A public entity has the burden to prove that a proposed action would result in undue burden or fundamental alteration. 28 CFR 35.164 K.M. v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 1088, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16228 (9th Cir Aug. 6, 2013), writ of certiorari denied by 134 S. Ct. 1494.

Courts will continue to wrestle with how to apply constitutional safeguards to the judicial system, while making sure the judicial process is not delayed for either party.