Identify an employment law case pertaining to National Origin and Disability

I would highly recommend you go to your school library/ a local law school library and figure out how to get access to westlaw.com. On westlaw, u can ask the reference librarian for help, you should do in the cases section using the search terms, disability law and national origin.
Westlaw will give you the case summary, it will also give a list of the law/ regulations/ statutes relied on to make the decision.

_____________________________________________________________________________

I. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW GENERALLY
_____________________________________________________________________________

a) Here's a link on an overview of employment discrimination law: Employment Discrimination:

b) Here's a piece from the link on "national origin discrimination" that I have cut and pasted:
"Overview
Since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, federal and state governments have enacted a number of laws that bar an employer from discriminating against employees on almost any grounds, aside from the quality of the employee's work or the nature of his or her personality. Following is an introduction to the law of discrimination in employment.
Race, National Origin, Gender, and Religion
The best known of employment anti-discrimination laws, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits an employer with fifteen or more employees from discriminating on the basis of race, national origin, gender, or religion. Under Title VII, it is illegal for an employer to take any of the following actions against an employee based upon his or her race, national origin, gender, or religion:
* Refuse to hire;
* Discipline;
* Fire;
* Deny training;
* Fail to promote;
* Pay less or demote; or
* Harass.
In addition, it is illegal for an employer to adopt a policy or practice that has a "disparate impact" on a protected class, such as by adopting hiring criteria that tend to screen out women or minority group members, or by instituting a required test for promotion on which a particular class tends to score badly. Such a policy or test, like a specific policy that only men or women can have certain jobs, is legal only if it can be deemed a "bona fide occupational qualification." An example is a strength test that tends to screen out women, but is a necessary test for fire fighters who must be able to carry victims down tall ladders."

c) here's a part from the next page (same link as above) but on disability discrimination:
"Disability Discrimination
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act bar discrimination against those who are disabled. The ADA bars discrimination by private employers with more than fifteen employees, and the Rehabilitation Act applies to all government entities and federal contractors. Unlike other civil rights laws which protect easily-identifiable classes such as race or gender, in order to be protected by the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, an employee or applicant must show that he or she is, in fact, disabled, has a history of being disabled, or was regarded by the employer as being disabled. Once the employee or applicant makes this showing, however, he or she is not only protected from discrimination, but is also entitled to "reasonable accommodation" for the disability if necessary. Reasonable accommodation may include a modified work schedule or work duties, unpaid time off, or special devices that will help the employee in the performance of his or her job duties."

______________________________________________________________________________

II. Federal Laws Prohibiting Employment Discrimination
____________________________________________________________________________

a) Here's a link to federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, u can go through them for a better idea of the laws out there, and if you find a case that u think is relevant to your research and it quotes the law then u can refer back to this page and look up that law, and summarize it.

b) the link on findlaw is: http://employment.findlaw.com/employment/employment-employee-discrimination-harassment/employment-employee-discrimination-harassment-federal-laws.html

____________________________________________________________________________

III. CASES
______________________________________________________________________

a) cases are hard to find - westlaw.com and lexisnexis are the best way to do this research. Again i recommend u either go to your library/ your local or closest law school library and ask them if u can look up cases on national origin and disability based discrimination in employment. If you dont know how to do the research, u can ask them to help you.

b) here is a list of a lot of cases (each case is pretty long, so u might want to "find" (by pressing the control/ "Ctrl" key and the "F" key together) words like "employment discrimination" or "national origin" etc, within each case.
link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?cirestriction=%22employment+discrimination%22+near+%22national+origin%22+and+disability&court=us

c) I am sending u an attachment, if you go through that attachment you will see that I have taken the cases from the link above, and basically listed the name of the case, and the type of discrimnation next to each - that should make it easier, i hope) what u can do is try and clik the link in the word document, maybe that will take u to the website, otehrwise the link is listed below the case, u can cut and paste it, when u are on the internet, and get to the website for the case that way)

d) Here's an example of what u have to do. U basically look at the cases u like/ are relevant to your assignment, as an example I am picking one that is called PGA tour inc. v. Martin ( thats #4 in the attached document, and it can also be found as #4 in the link for cases that i gave u above in section (b). link to the case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/00%2D24.html

*so what u are looking to do, is take a case and discuss how that case is interpreting the law. Basically our laws are made by politicians. The judicial branch, (i.e. our courts) interpret those laws. So where there are nuances that are not specifically defined and tailored to accommodate every single situation that can arise in real life, the court will define the law and make it so that it will accommodate that particular situation. Politicians can not possibly think about all the different situations that might arise in regard to any law they make, so when situations come up where the law has holes and interpretation is necessary to figure out how it would apply to a specific situation (that the politicians did not envision when they made the law) the courts tep in to interpret it. A huge part of the law is based on judicial decisions. Lawyers can not look at statutes alone, they have to refer to the cases that interpret that statute to figure out what are the other limitations, and how that law is applied. For instance in this case alone, they are trying to figure out if gold courses are "public accommodation's".
*go to this case, scroll down for the actual opinion, the stuff on the top is just an intro of sorts, if u scroll down u will see the name of the case in big leters again, thats kinda where the opinion of the court begins. it looks like this "PGA TOUR, INC., PETITIONER v. CASEY MARTIN
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
[May 29, 2001]"

*here's cut and pasted bit to elaborate on what u need to be looking for:
"This case raises two questions concerning the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 328, 42 U. S. C. §12101 et seq., to a gifted athlete: first, whether the Act protects access to professional golf tournaments by a qualified entrant with a disability; and second, whether a disabled contestant may be denied the use of a golf cart because it would "fundamentally alter the nature" of the tournaments, §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii), to allow him to ride when all other contestants must walk." [*PS; note how here they very clearly indicate the law they are applying, also the "holes" in the law that they will interpret to accomodate ths particular issue before the court. Note also that they have very clearly listed what the issue/ question the court is deciding on is. This is normally the way cases are set up. what the issue/ question is, then the rules, then the analysis of the rules (i.e. what they really mean for the sake of this case) and then the conclusion (i.e. who wins)]
underneath this then there is section "I" this is basically the facts on PGa tours, section "II" facts on Martin, section "III" a history of the lower courts' decisions. (yup each case begins at the lowest courts, and then gets appealed up to higher courts,if the higher courts approve of listening to your case, then it gets heard there, otherwise you are stuck with the lower courts decision) in section "III" notice how the lower court interpreted the law - they said "golf course" is not "public accommodations. The reasons they mentioned below - i am going to cut and paste the first one of these reasons: "District Court, petitioner moved for summary judgment on the ground that it is exempt from coverage under Title III of the ADA as a "private clu[b] or establishment[t],"10 or alternatively, that the play areas of its tour competitions do not constitute places of "public accommodation" within the scope of that Title.11 The Magistrate Judge concluded that petitioner should be viewed as a commercial enterprise operating in the entertainment industry for the economic benefit of its members rather than as a private club."
notice also here that the at the lower court level the petitioner (i.e. the golf course here) did not say that the condition of Mr Martin did not meet the ADA rule requirement for "disabled" (see this is one of the issues the court is clarifying). so he is as per the law "disabled" (note again these are the nuances of the law the court must interpret - so the rule can say disabled people have such and such rights...but then the court had to figure out if a person is "disabled"). so here's the quote from the case on the "disability" (i.e. if Mr. Martin is disabled) issue" At trial, petitioner did not contest the conclusion that Martin has a disability covered by the ADA, or the fact "that his disability prevents him from walking the course during a round of golf." 994 F. Supp. 1242, 1244 (Ore. 1998). Rather, petitioner asserted that the condition of walking is a substantive rule of competition, and that waiving it as to any individual for any reason would fundamentally alter the nature of the competition."

If u keep reading you realize the case went up from the lower district court to the court of appeals. the district court basically rejected the PGA tour (petitioner's) claim that golf course is not "public accommodation". so now PGA tours appeals this decision, i.e. asks the higher court that this decision was wrong and ask them to decide another way. Now on appeal u see that the PGA tours argument now is ..okay maybe the decision that golf course is "public accommodation" they will not challenge - but what they contest now is that the portion behind the ropes is not public accomodation b/c the public can not enter it (again u might want to go back and see what the lower district court said - probably something like golf course is public accomodation b/c public can enter it ...or something like that). Here's a quote from this discussion: "On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, petitioner did not challenge the District Court's rejection of its claim that it was exempt as a "private club," but it renewed the contention that during a tournament the portion of the golf course " `behind the ropes' is not a public accommodation because the public has no right to enter it." 204 F. 3d 994, 997 (2000)."

So i guess even if you just stick with one case, and just one piece of this argument. if you just focus on "public accommodation" Thats part of the rule/ law/ statute. Now u can go through this case, and see how it was defined. You can say at trial in the district court - PGA tours defined it and argued that golf course is not "public accommodations" and Martin said it was. You can then scroll down and quot what the court said. you can say the district court concluded that it was "public accommodations" and it relied on the following cases/ rules/ analysis to make this decision. (go through the case under the district courts decision and see what they relied it, i quoted some of it above for you.
Then u can go on to another paragraph and say later it was appealed to the court of appeals (9th circuit - double check this i think its 9th circuit) and here PGA tours argued this, and the court decided this. again u can refer to my quoted piece above, and scroll down a bit more in the case and u will find what the court decided and why.
then u can keep reading and look at what the final decision was, and what the court based its decision on. so you can say finally the (i guess in this case it went up as far as the supreme court - double check this) u can say finally the US supreme court decided that "golf course"...is/ is not.."public accomodation" because......

Notice though even in this case, they point how 2 circuit courts ( so that means two courts who are equal to one another decided differently - this is one reason the higher courts get involved, b/c now there are 2 interpretations of the same law, and u cant have that, so the higher court has to resolve the issue and decide one way or the others, so notice how after the discussion on the court of appeals decision, there is discussion on how another court of appeals the next day decided differently. here is a quote of that: "The day after the Ninth Circuit ruled in Martin's favor, the Seventh Circuit came to a contrary conclusion in a case brought against the USGA by a disabled golfer who failed to qualify for "America's greatest--and most democratic--golf tournament, the United States Open." Olinger v. United States Golf Assn., 205 F. 3d 1001 (2000).19 The Seventh Circuit endorsed the conclusion of the District Court in that case that "the nature of the competition would be fundamentally altered if the walking rule were eliminated because it would remove stamina (at least a particular type of stamina) from the set of qualities designed to be tested in this competition." Id., at 1006 (internal quotation marks omitted). In the Seventh Circuit's opinion, the physical ordeals endured by Ken Venturi and Ben Hogan when they walked to their Open victories in 1964 and 1950 amply demonstrated"

Section "IV" is where the supreme court discusses its opinion. If u want this paper to be shorter, u might want to go straight here. u can say the law is such and such. (see section IV. and the issue before the court is to resolve (see my quote above - on what the issue's are i.e. deciding if Mr. Martin is disabled, and if the gold course is "public accommodation" as per th law prohibiting discrimination.

Here's a section on how the court interprets the law - now this is the Supreme court analysis:
quote: "Title III of the ADA prescribes, as a "[g]eneral rule":

"No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." 42 U. S. C. §12182(a).

The phrase "public accommodation" is defined in terms of 12 extensive categories,24 which the legislative history indicates "should be construed liberally" to afford people with disabilities "equal access" to the wide variety of establishments available to the nondisabled.25 "

in nay event, u get the idea. so thats really what u need to do. Thats what case analysis is, you have to go through the decision and see how the statues and other old cases are being interpreted. sometimes older cases are overturned, sometimes statutes are declared unconstitutional.
I think this case maybe a good one for you. you can just use this case. Although its not employment as we generally know it, it does effect the ability of a player to do what he professionally does - i.e. professional golf player - plays golf! so it does effect employment is the sense that it effects this players ability to play.

Otherwise go through the case i listed, in the document attached, and in the link of list of cases i mentioned above, and find another case, that u can do similar work with.

e) Driggs v. Duke Power Company seems to be a big case u might want to consider. Link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=401&invol=424

please see the attached file.