From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cellular Phone Taskforce v. Federal Com

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Feb 18, 2000
217 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2000)

Summary

holding that the Federal Communications Commission cannot be held liable under Title II of the ADA because it does not apply to the federal government

Summary of this case from Peppers v. Moubarek

Opinion

No. 97-4328(L).

Argued: April 5, 1999.

Decided: February 18, 2000. Petition for Rehearing Filed April 3, 2000 Decided: June 06, 2000.

Petition for rehearing of decision denying petition for review of two final orders of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"): (1) Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, 11 F.C.C.R. 15123 (1996); and (2) Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Communications Act of 1934, 12 F.C.C.R. 13494 (1997). We deny the petition. 98-4003(Con); 98-4005(Con); 98-4025(Con); 98-4122(Con).

EDWARD J. COLLINS, Cambridge, Massachusetts, petitioner.

Before: NEWMAN, WALKER, and SACK, Circuit Judges.


Petitioner Cellular Phone Taskforce ("CPT") has petitioned for rehearing to reconsider our decision in Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC, 205 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000). We assume familiarity with our earlier decision.

CPT requests, inter alia, that we reconsider our determination that CPT's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. were not properly before us. In response to our decision that an FCC staff member's ruling on these claims was not an appealable final order of the FCC, CPT argues that the FCC did not issue a final order only because it impermissibly delegated its final decision to an agency staff member. We express no view as to the FCC's delegation of decisionmaking but, on reconsideration, agree that on the facts of this case CPT had done all it reasonably could to secure a final agency determination. Considering the discretion we have to review non-final agency determinations, see National Black Media Coalition v. FCC, 791 F.2d 1016, 1021 (2d Cir. 1986), we have chosen to consider the merits of CPT's claims.

CPT filed suit under Title II of the ADA, alleging that the FCC had forced states and local governments to discriminate against electrically sensitive people in violation of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132 ("[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in . . . the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity"). CPT's claim fails, however, because Title II of the ADA is not applicable to the federal government. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) ("The term `public entity' means . . . any State or local government" or "any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality" thereof). Regardless of how the actions of state and local governments may or may not be affected by the FCC's challenged guidelines, the FCC itself cannot be made liable under Title II of the ADA.

CPT's claim under the Rehabilitation Act is also unavailing. CPT argues that the FCC's guidelines violate the Rehabilitation Act by permitting the proliferation of FCC-regulated radio frequency ("RF") transmitters. This misconstrues the scope of the Rehabilitation Act's protections. In this context, the Rehabilitation Act applies only to the discriminatory denial of the benefits of a "program or activity" of the FCC. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). CPT claims that electrically sensitive people are generally being excluded from aspects of modern life by the proliferation of RF transmitters. But CPT does not allege that electrically sensitive people are being denied the benefit of, or are subject to discrimination under, any "program or activity" of the FCC. Thus, CPT's Rehabilitation Act claim against the FCC is without merit.

We have considered CPT's remaining arguments for rehearing and find them to be without merit. The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.


Summaries of

Cellular Phone Taskforce v. Federal Com

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Feb 18, 2000
217 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2000)

holding that the Federal Communications Commission cannot be held liable under Title II of the ADA because it does not apply to the federal government

Summary of this case from Peppers v. Moubarek

holding that the FCC cannot be liable under Title II of the ADA because Title II does not apply to the Federal Government

Summary of this case from Gorney v. Veterans Admin.

holding that the ADA is not applicable to the federal government because "public entity" is defined as a state or local government

Summary of this case from Duncan v. United States

holding that "Title II of the ADA is not applicable to the federal government."

Summary of this case from Sanders v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC

holding that the FCC, a federal agency, is not a "public entity" within the meaning of Title II

Summary of this case from Pudlin v. Office for (Not of) Civil Rights of the U.S. Dep't of Educ.

holding that FCC cannot be liable under Title II of ADA because Title II does not apply to the federal government.

Summary of this case from Bauerle v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

holding that the ADA is not applicable to the federal government because "public entity" is defined as a state or local government

Summary of this case from Phifer v. Secretaty United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

holding that FCC cannot be liable under Title II of ADA because Title II does not apply to the federal government.

Summary of this case from Stringer v. White

holding that Title II of the ADA is not applicable to the federal government

Summary of this case from Aquino v. Prudential Life Cas. Ins. Co.

holding that "Title II of the ADA is not applicable to the federal government."

Summary of this case from Gray v. U.S.

finding federal agency not liable under Title II of the ADA

Summary of this case from Moore v. United States

noting that “Title II of the ADA is not applicable to the federal government”

Summary of this case from O'Dell v. Hope Network W. Mich.

stating "the term 'public entity' means . . . any State or local government or any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality thereof"

Summary of this case from Brown v. Lamanna
Case details for

Cellular Phone Taskforce v. Federal Com

Case Details

Full title:CELLULAR PHONE TASKFORCE, et al., Petitioners, CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Feb 18, 2000

Citations

217 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2000)

Citing Cases

Thompson v. U.S.

(a.) Title II of ADA Plaintiff's claims under Title II of the ADA must be dismissed in their entirety…

Moore v. Capital Realty Grp.

But Moore cannot pursue any claim against HUD-a federal agency-under Title II of the ADA “because Title II .…