|
|
Read more about the Tennessee v. Lane case
Tennessee is claiming "sovereign immunity" -- what is "sovereign immunity and how does its argument affect disability rights? READ MORE.
|
EDITOR'S NOTE: Six people from Tennessee who had to crawl or be carried up steps in their county courthouses argued their case before the Supreme Court last January. ANN-MARIE ZAPPOLA, one of the six respondents, says she hopes the Court rules on May 17 -- the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that said "separate is not equal."
TenNOSee v. Lane:
By
Ann-Marie Zappola
May 17th is the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. I am hoping that the ruling in our case, Tennessee v. Lane, is handed down on that date as well. I hope the Justices affirm our right to access.
poster by Ann-Marie Zappola
Our case is no different than the cases brought by black people seeking to enforce their civil rights. Fifty years later, discrimination against disabled people is an issue before the Court. It makes you wonder how far we've really come. For today cannot truly say, "Equal Justice for All" -- because we cannot say "Equal Access for All."
Our attorney Bill Brown, our voice throughout our struggle, said to the Justices in January, "An elevator to an individual with disabilities is no different than the stairs are to me as a person without a disability." This simple statement sums it up.
Just last week my co-respondent Beverly Jones, who's a court reporter, had to be carried up and down set of rickety, old treacherous steps in Clay County, Tennessee. Four times she had to be carried up and down, just last week.
The restrooms for this courthouse are outside the building, down a long flight of steps. She couldn't get to that restroom. She had to get in her car and drive to a doctor who had an accessible office, just so she could go to the restroom during her workday.
Clay County is still in the 1800s. So is the mentality of so many counties in Tennessee.
. . . If the additional expense for constructing the buildings in a manner that would render them accessible to all handicapped persons is excessive, it's not a constitutional violation. Now, it may be a very bad idea, but we've never held that that's a constitutional violation. ...
[George Lane] has a constitutional right for the state to provide him the means of being present at his trial. Now, does the means have to be an elevator or could it be someone assisting up the stairs? Now, it may be less dignified in the latter situation, but is it a constitutional violation, so long as the state assures that he can be present at his trial? ...
[An i]naccessible voting place proves nothing at all. It just proves that the state did not go out of its way to make it easy for the handicapped to vote, as it should, but as it is not constitutionally required to do. To simply say many voting places are inaccessible proves nothing at all. . . . They're not saying you can't vote, they're saying we don't have facilities for you to get to the voting place.
-- Justice Antonin Scalia, during oral
Our recent survey shows that 95 county courthouses in Tennessee are still in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, fourteen years after it became law. What an amazing disgrace!
My co-respondent in this case, George Lane, is not the only person who had to be carried to his own trial. A man in my county did as well -- so did a person serving on a jury -- he had to be carried in on a gurney.
In Houston County, Tennessee -- my own county -- all county meetings are held upstairs in the courtroom. You have to climb 98 steps to get there. In Houston County, you have to climb 45 steps to the office that issues "handicap parking" placards.
In my town's City Hall, the accessible restroom is a toilet propped up by a 2 x 4 (see photo).
The attitude that access isn't important is pervasive throughout Tennessee.
Our case addresses the broad issue of accessibility -- which should start with courthouses. For courthouses, of all places, where laws are carried out and upheld, to still be inaccessible is truly an outrage. If a courthouse doesn't have to be accessible, why should any other building or program? If a state is allowed to discriminate against disable people, then private businesses should be allowed to discriminate as well.
It is sad that Tennessee openly discriminates against disabled people. The state will pay lawyers a ton a money to defend the indefensible rather than using the money to simply obey the federal law. How can our states' attorneys sleep at night? Doesn't it bother their consciences to attack the disabled? If they became disabled, they couldn't get into courtrooms to do their work -- don't they realize that? Their arguments suggest Ms. Jones has no right to be a court reporter. Would they be willing to give up their right to be lawyers? Tennessee and its attorneys should be ashamed.
Our case has been going on for so many years, it seems unimaginable to me that we could possibly lose. But of course we could.
Justice Scalia thinks that carrying a disabled person up and down steps is OK [see box]. This is frightening.
I am trying to believe that the Justices will vote in our favor. Surely their humanity will drive their thinking; surely they will see that even they are not immune to becoming disabled.
If we lose, the message will be that not only are we second-class citizens, but that we simply don't matter.
Tennessee is claiming "sovereign immunity" -- what is "sovereign immunity" and how does its argument affect disability rights? READ MORE.
Posted May 10, 2004. Ann-Marie Zappola is one of 6 respondents in the Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Lane. Originally from Philadelphia, she now lives in Houston County, TN. WHAT DO YOU THINK of what you've just read? Click to tell us.
|
