Dis-qualified immunity for discrimination against the disabled

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In his article Professor Gildin challenges the applicability of the qualified immunity defense in actions brought under the federal disability statutes. Specifically, he contends that the qualified immunity defense should not be available in actions for damages brought under the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Although these acts are very powerful tools to protect the rights of disabled individuals, lower courts have slowly eviscerated a key enforcement mechanism - the remedy of money damages - by transferring the qualified immunity defense permitted in § 1983 actions to actions brought under these acts. In support of his thesis, Professor Gildin analyzes the text and legislative histories of these acts and argues that neither of these supports the existence of the qualified immunity defense. He also finds that there is no historical linkage between § 1983 and the disability statutes that justifies borrowing qualified immunity from § 1983. Finally, Professor Gildin argues that judges should not legislate this defense as Congress at the time it enacted the disability statutes did not intend for this defense to be available.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)897
Number of pages1
JournalUniversity of Illinois Law Review
Issue number3
StatePublished - 1999

Fingerprint

immunity
discrimination
disability
statute
university teacher
act
damages
remedies
rehabilitation
money
history
education

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Law

Cite this

@article{3043225cd5454a43b6cf0e1b5cea8697,
title = "Dis-qualified immunity for discrimination against the disabled",
abstract = "In his article Professor Gildin challenges the applicability of the qualified immunity defense in actions brought under the federal disability statutes. Specifically, he contends that the qualified immunity defense should not be available in actions for damages brought under the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Although these acts are very powerful tools to protect the rights of disabled individuals, lower courts have slowly eviscerated a key enforcement mechanism - the remedy of money damages - by transferring the qualified immunity defense permitted in § 1983 actions to actions brought under these acts. In support of his thesis, Professor Gildin analyzes the text and legislative histories of these acts and argues that neither of these supports the existence of the qualified immunity defense. He also finds that there is no historical linkage between § 1983 and the disability statutes that justifies borrowing qualified immunity from § 1983. Finally, Professor Gildin argues that judges should not legislate this defense as Congress at the time it enacted the disability statutes did not intend for this defense to be available.",
author = "Gildin, {Gary S.}",
year = "1999",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "897",
journal = "University of Illinois Law Review",
issn = "0276-9948",
publisher = "University of Illinois College of Law",
number = "3",

}

Dis-qualified immunity for discrimination against the disabled. / Gildin, Gary S.

In: University of Illinois Law Review, No. 3, 1999, p. 897.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dis-qualified immunity for discrimination against the disabled

AU - Gildin, Gary S.

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - In his article Professor Gildin challenges the applicability of the qualified immunity defense in actions brought under the federal disability statutes. Specifically, he contends that the qualified immunity defense should not be available in actions for damages brought under the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Although these acts are very powerful tools to protect the rights of disabled individuals, lower courts have slowly eviscerated a key enforcement mechanism - the remedy of money damages - by transferring the qualified immunity defense permitted in § 1983 actions to actions brought under these acts. In support of his thesis, Professor Gildin analyzes the text and legislative histories of these acts and argues that neither of these supports the existence of the qualified immunity defense. He also finds that there is no historical linkage between § 1983 and the disability statutes that justifies borrowing qualified immunity from § 1983. Finally, Professor Gildin argues that judges should not legislate this defense as Congress at the time it enacted the disability statutes did not intend for this defense to be available.

AB - In his article Professor Gildin challenges the applicability of the qualified immunity defense in actions brought under the federal disability statutes. Specifically, he contends that the qualified immunity defense should not be available in actions for damages brought under the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Although these acts are very powerful tools to protect the rights of disabled individuals, lower courts have slowly eviscerated a key enforcement mechanism - the remedy of money damages - by transferring the qualified immunity defense permitted in § 1983 actions to actions brought under these acts. In support of his thesis, Professor Gildin analyzes the text and legislative histories of these acts and argues that neither of these supports the existence of the qualified immunity defense. He also finds that there is no historical linkage between § 1983 and the disability statutes that justifies borrowing qualified immunity from § 1983. Finally, Professor Gildin argues that judges should not legislate this defense as Congress at the time it enacted the disability statutes did not intend for this defense to be available.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0346390441&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0346390441&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

SP - 897

JO - University of Illinois Law Review

JF - University of Illinois Law Review

SN - 0276-9948

IS - 3

ER -