AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Legal memo format4/3/2023 ![]() Title II of the ADA provides broad protection from discrimination by public entities i against disabled persons on the basis of their disabilities. §12101 et seq., is a remedial statute designed to eradicate the long history of discrimination against disabled individuals. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. The Legal Framework of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Daniels to a more traditional hospital ward. Daniels in this setting the Maricopa County officials actually created or allowed a greater public health risk to exist than if they had committed Mr. Beyond asking whether the legal rights afforded to the inmates under both the ADA and Eighth Amendment are being violated, 9 there is an argument that by placing Mr. A jail is a particularly risky setting in which to have a person with this serious a type of TB precisely because the inmate population can be high-risk, i.e., those with HIV, hepatitis, and other immune system-attacking conditions. Daniels being subjected to unreasonable searches and handling by jail guards, could have exposed other people in the Center community to TB, i.e., guards, hospital/ward staff, and especially the jail inmates in the ward. It is also unclear, but quite possible based on these factual allegations, whether some of the conditions alleged in the complaint, such as Mr. If his health has not improved than the question may be whether the conditions of his confinement contributed to any deterioration in his health. ![]() Daniels’ condition has improved since being incarcerated. ![]() Daniels will be successful in his ADA claim 7. There are a few facts that are unknown to the plaintiff, and perhaps to the defendants as well, that could have a bearing on the strategy of the case even if they do not bear directly on the question of how likely will it be that Mr. This conduct will likely be raised by the defendants as the district court weighs his ADA claim. 5 He was committed, in part, because he failed to comply with the standard guidelines for a person with his strain of TB, i.e., not wearing a facemask in public places. Despite the conditions of his confinement, the medical reality is that he is probably better off under some type of medical isolation than he would have been had he not been confined. Daniels’ drug resistant form of TB is a serious medical condition. Daniels is not challenging his isolation/civil confinement but the conditions of confinement, which seem to be punitive in nature and do not seem related to either his medical treatment or ensuring the general health of the jail ward of the Center. Sheriff Arpaio, specifically, stated that he would not differentiate between an inmate and person with a contagious disease he would treat them in the same manner and they would be housed under the same conditions. The Center has been used in the past to house civilly confined persons under quarantine despite allegations that it was known that the treatment, specifically the punitive conditions of confinement, were the same for both those criminally incarcerated seeking medical treatment and those civilly committed due to illness. The named defendants are: Maricopa County, Robert England, James Kennedy, Marciella P. Daniels filed a complaint in May of 2007 with the District Court of Arizona challenging the conditions of his confinement pursuant to federal and state equal protection, due process, and statutory law. He suffers from a drug resistant strain of tuberculosis (“TB”) most likely acquired during incarceration in a Russian jail and was determined to require quarantine Comp. In July 2006, Robert Daniels was civil committed by an Arizona civil court on the recommendation of Maricopa County, Arizona officials to the jail ward of Maricopa County Medical Center (“Center”), Comp. 3 Secondly, he must argue that civilly incarcerated persons housed in a jail ward of hospital should be entitled to at least the same benefits and services as the criminally incarcerated and then establish what those benefits are vis-á-vis his own conditions of confinement. Daniels must successfully argue that he is an otherwise qualified individual and withstand the challenge by the defendants that he is a direct threat and therefore not qualified under the meaning of the ADA. Daniels will be able to make out a prima facie case of ADA discrimination if he can overcome two hurdles. (2000) based on establishing a prima facie case of discrimination? 1 Daniels can argue that his current conditions of civil confinement at the jail ward of Maricopa County Medical Center amount to violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. Daniels’ ADA claim challenging the conditions of his confinement.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |