Loading Table of Contents...
 
 
 
 
 
 

Monday, October 19, 2009

Opposition To State Preferences For Disability, Sex, Race

Libertarian Fred Mangels of Eureka blogs today:
There's a meeting in Sacramento today that will be taking a look at bottom feeding lawyers (like Eureka's very own Jason Singleton) that are abusing the system of American's with Disabilities Act regulations. They even mention Singleton's aborted attempt to burn the Squeeze Inn earlier this year.

Mom and pop shops and other small and mid-sized businesses say a cottage industry has sprung up in the Golden State in which trial lawyers are filing lawsuits over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and state disability access laws. [...]

Among business owners planning to attend the state Capitol hearing is Travis Hausauer, whose Squeeze Inn restaurant in Sacramento has been the target of two lawsuits that alleged violations of state law and the ADA. The federal lawsuit, which has since been dropped, was filed in July by Kimberly Block of Sacramento. The 41-year-old wheelchair-bound woman has sued at least three other small businesses for ADA violations this year.
In a separate story, the Pacific Legal Foundation said on Oct. 16 that it
filed a lawsuit today against a number of California agencies and officials including Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown.  The lawsuit alleges that the recently enacted Assembly Bill 21 (AB 21), grants preferences on the basis of race and sex in public contracting.  You can read PLF's petition here.

AB 21 reauthorized several Public Contract Code provisions that had previously been declared unconstitutional in Monterey Mechanical v. Wilson.  In Connerly v. State Personnel Board, the Third District Court of Appeal recognized the unconstitutionality of those statutes, and on remand to the trial court, the trial court issued a writ of mandate forbidding the state from enforcing the unconstitutional provisions of the Public Contract Code.

No comments:

Post a Comment

This is a letters-to-the-editor area, where LPCA members and guests can expect us to publish only civil and constructive commentary related to the page's contents. To be published, comments must 1) unambiguously identify the commenter, 2) be related to the article or the comments on it, 3) not conflict with the editorial mission, and 4) reflect the traditional civility and constructiveness of letters to the editor in the print edition of California Freedom.  Submitting a comment releases it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License, thus allowing it to be published in print editions of California Freedom. Comments about this comments policy, or its application here, will only be accepted at the editorial mission page.