If Ct h/n declared the group of the legislation a suspect class, then the law c/n be remedial. Under substantive theory, all these cases would’ve upheld the legislation.
Kimel p. 973: State employees c/n sue states for dmgs for violations of the Age Discrimiantion in Employment Act (ADEA). Unconst b/c age isn’t suspect class, so legislation isn’t remedial but exceeds the req of Equal Protection. Congress must render it suspect class before can remedy it under the “congruence and proportionality” test (need to show widespread irrational discrim)
Garrett p. 974: Congress c/n abrogate sovereign immunity for state-employer violations of Title I of the ADA. Congress has failed to show a history and pattern of unconst. employement discrm by states vs. the disabled to show irrational/intentional discrim. Disability discrim isn’t suspect class (Cleburne). But qualified by Lane which allows suits against the states for money under Title II of the ADA when it involves rts of access to states cts (finds special fund rt there and enough evidence of inadequate provision of public services and access to public facilities).
Hibbs on p. 980 (Family Medical Leave Act of 1993): legislation is upheld b/c gender is a suspect class (although intermediate). Congress may have reasonably found that women should have rt to work and care for children. Relieves wt of gender stereotypes on men and women so is remedial b/c is narrowly tialroed to do this. (But see Morrison)
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
