Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:09:30.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disability and the ADA: Learning Impairment as a Disability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Brian J. Winner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , Winter 2000 , pp. 410 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See No. 99–1931, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21128, at *28 (6th. Cir. Aug. 22, 2000).Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id. at *17, citing 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. B (1999).Google Scholar
Gonzales, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21128, at *24. The lower court had also held that Gonzales' contention that the application of the term “substantially limits” should be read in comparison to an individual at his age level, i.e., a comparison to college-level students was erroneous. Id. The lower court held that the correct standard was to compare the impairment to pooled norms; it found that under the proper comparison Gonzales' scores “are squarely in the average to superior range.” Gonzales v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 60 F. Supp. 2d 703, 708 (1999). The Court of Appeals reiterated this view in reviewing the testimony and agreed with the conclusions of the lower court. See Gonzales, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21128, at *24.Google Scholar
Pazer v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, 849 F. Supp. 284 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (speculating that in some circumstances an inference that an individual has a learning disability could be drawn from a disparity between inherent capacity and performance on a test).Google Scholar
Gonzales, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21128, at *26, citing 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101(a) (West 1995).Google Scholar
Id. at *27, citing Bercovitch v. Baldwin School, Inc., 133 F.3d 141, 155–156 (1st Cir. 1998) (holding that a diagnosis of ADHD was not a disability when the learning disability did not affect academic success).Google Scholar
See Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999); Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999); Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999).Google Scholar
See Gonzales, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21128, at *31–32.Google Scholar
Id. at *29, citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (1999).2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See id. at *30.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Gonzales, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21128, at *30, citing Sutton, 527 U.S. 471; School Board of Nassau Co. v. Arline, 481 U.S. 1024 (1986); and 29 C.F.R pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2(j) (1999).Google Scholar
Id. at *34.Google Scholar
See supra text accompanying note 6.Google Scholar
See Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, No. 97–9162, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22212 (2d Cir. N.Y. Aug. 30, 2000) (dissenting opinion).Google Scholar
See Krueger, M.M., “The Future of ADA Protection for Students with Learning Disabilities in Post-Secondary and Graduate Environments” (Comment), Kansas Law Review, 48 (2000): 607.Google Scholar