Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T18:15:08.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fourth Circuit Limits §504 Employment Rights of the Handicapped

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Kent Hull
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Trageser v. Libbie Rehabilitation Center, Inc., has severely limited the use of §504 in combating employment discrimination, and the United States Supreme Court has refused to review the case. Fortunately, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (hereafter DHEW), the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California disagree with the Fourth Circuit's finding.

This decision is ironic considering the purpose of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Traditionally, the overriding objective of federal and state rehabilitation programs has been to put handicapped people to work. And there can be little doubt, from the legislative history of the Rehabilitation Act, that Congressional sponsors of the law viewed the probability of increased employment opportunities as a major justification for the civil rights provisions of the Act.

Type
Article
Information
Medicolegal News , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , June 1980 , pp. 8 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Trageser v. Libbie Rehabilitation Center, Inc., 590 F.2d 87 (4th Cir. 1978), cert, den., 47 U.S.L.W. 3811 (June 19, 1979). This paper has benefited from research on the Trageser case undertaken by Paula Wiseman, a legal intern for the National Center for Law and the Handicapped, Inc.Google Scholar
The Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et. seq. (1973).Google Scholar
Trageser v. Libbie Rehabilitation Center, Inc., 462 F. Supp. 424, 426 (E.D. Va. 1977).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. § 794(a)(2).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 2000d–3.Google Scholar
See cases cited in the Fourth Circuit opinion at 590 F.2d 87, 89, n.6 and n.7.Google Scholar
Other provisions, particularly at the state and local level, might be available to fight employment problems. Nevertheless, the enforcement of these laws has been very uncertain and sporadic.Google Scholar
4 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News 6390 (1974).Google Scholar
Ibid.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. §§84.11–84.14.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. §§85.52–85.55.Google Scholar
430 F. Supp. 75 (M.D. Fla. 1977) (petition for preliminary injunction denied); 451 F. Supp. 954 (M.D. Fla. 1978) (police department was ordered to hire plaintiff).Google Scholar
451 F. Supp. 791 (E.D. Pa. 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
411 F. Supp. 982 (E.D. Pa. 1976), aff d 556 F.2d 184 (3d Cir. 1977).Google Scholar
428 F. Supp. 809 (E.D. Pa. 1977).Google Scholar
485 F. Supp. 66 (N.D. Cal. 1979); See also Scanlon v. Atascadero State Hospital, CV 79–453 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 1980).Google Scholar
Ibid.Google Scholar
44 Fed. Reg. 54950 (Sept. 21, 1979). See also final regulations promulgated by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 45 Fed. Reg. 14533 (March 6, 1980) (agency refused to follow Trageser).Google Scholar
Ibid. at 54953 (citations omitted).Google Scholar
Ibid. (citations omitted).Google Scholar
S. Rep. No. 96–316, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 12–13, (1979). A letter dated May 21, 1979 from Senators Bayh and Cranston to Solicitor General McCree, urging the Government to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the petition for certiorari, similarly criticized the Trageser interpretation of legislative history. (Unpublished — in the author's possession.)Google Scholar
Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 99 S. Ct. 2361 (1979).Google Scholar