hi everyone,,,
just want to ask what is the difference between apraxia and asd...or
is there a relationship between the two...
thanks so much,,
jennifer
nsapraxianet@
>
> Action Alert: Campaign for Fair Judges
> ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR)
> Take Action:
> Contact Senate Judiciary Commithe 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 Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member Senator Arlen Specter,
and all committee members. Contact information can be found at:
> http://judiciary.
>
> 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 George W.
Bush. During her several years on the bench, Judge Pratter has
authored decisions that are of grave concern to disability rights
advocates.
>
> In Phillips 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
Phillips, 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
Phillips was given no opportunity to amend the Complaint before the
District Court sua sponte dismissed it. Phillips' 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 Phillips 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/
> 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
>
> ************
> http://body.
NCID=aolcmp00300000
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential,
proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact
the sender and delete the material from all computers.
>
> Sharon Lang
>
> ------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
Try it now.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
New book on late talking! http://www.speechville.com/late.talker.html
Information shared here is the personal opinion of each member. CHERAB accepts no responsibility for the opinions and information posted on the list by its members.
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar