As previously reported in the New World, the State of California is currently embroiled in a lawsuit against the Department of Motor Vehicles (Dare v. DMV) in which two individuals with disabilities are challenging the DMV'S right to charge the six dollar fee for disabled parking placards.
The state lost in the lower courts and has appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is unconstitutional because it violates the eleventh Amendment guaranteeing state sovereignty.
Although the Supreme court has not yet decided whether it will hear the Dare case, disability rights advocates were dismayed that California would challenge the constitutionality of the ADA. After months of intense effort by CDR and other advocacy groups, Governor Davis agreed in June to direct the attorneys for the state to try to settle the case. Unfortunately, the negotiations have gotten bogged down in legal wrangling.
The state hasn't charged for placards since 1997 and is willing to agree to permanently drop the fee, but the plaintiffs also want retroactive refunds that would cost the state $20 million plus attorneys fees. The state has proposed bringing in a mediator to help break the deadlock, but the attorneys for the plaintiffs haven't agreed. At this point, the parties haven't even met to have serious face to face negotiations.
There's probably little chance that the supreme court will take up the Dare case until it renders a decision in the case of Garrett v. University of Alabama which also raises the Eleventh Amendment immunity issue regarding the ADA. But that decision could come at any time, so it's still importantfor both sides to get serious about settling the Dare case if we want to avoid the prospect of California arguing for invalidation of the ADA before the highest court. Refunds of $6 to $18 per person won't do anyone much good, but the state could certainly afford to set aside some of the money it would otherwise shell out for refunds to help with enforcement and training disabled parking laws. That's the obvious solution--now we just need to get the stubborn folks on both sides to reach that conclusion before it's too late.
Dare Case Update: August 10, 2000
Advocates in the disability community were alarmed to learn that the State of California had challenged the constitutionality of the Americans with Disabilities Act by asking the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision in a case called Dare v. Department of Motor Vehicles.
After pressure from CDR and other advocacy groups, the Governor agreed to enter into settlement negotiations with the objective of resolving the case so the appeal could be withdrawn. However, the negotiations have become stalled over the question of whether the state should be required to pay retroactive refunds for placard fees collected between 1992 and 1997.
CDR believes jeopardizing the ADA over such refunds is foolish and has written the following letter to the attorneys for the plaintiffs urging them to drop their demand for refunds so the case can be promptly settled and removed from the ?Supreme Court docket.
August 10, 2000
Elizabeth Staggs-Wilson
Davis, Wright and Tremaine
865 South Figueroa Street
Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Dear Ms. Staggs-Wilson:
We are writing to you as the contact person identified in the recent press release issued by plaintiffs counsel in Dare v. Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The purpose of this letter is to inform you and your colleagues as to the views of our organization which we strongly believe is shared by the disability community in California concerning the settlement negotiations now ongoing in the Dare case. In fact, we anticipate that you will be receiving letters from several other statewide disability organizations that share our grave concern.
Californians for Disability Rights (CDR) is the oldest and largest grassroots, cross-disability organization of persons with disabilities in California. We have a long history of advocating for the rights of persons with disabilities and strongly support the need to see state government comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
We believe in the underlying principle you have sought to vindicate in Dare‹that public entities should not charge fees to provide accommodations required by the ADA. Indeed, our organizations worked hard to convince the Governor to change the state¹s posture and agree to settle the case. We did this because we believe that the most important issue now is to avoid having California be one of the states asking the U.S. Supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of Title II of the ADA.
However, for this same reason, we are writing to urge you to promptly conclude settlement negotiations with the state over the Dare case. In particular, we do not believe it is in the best interests of the disability community to jeopardize the ADA over the question of retroactive refunds of placard fees. Even if one believed that in the ideal world it might make sense to require the state to repay fees paid between 1992 and 1997, we are not currently in such a condition. Rather, most of our constituents would willingly forego the few dollars they might receive as a refund rather than risk a challenge to the constitutionality of the ADA.
In order to avoid that risk, the case must be settled and the appeal withdrawn by the time the Supreme Court begins its next session in October, so time is of the essence here. Whatever approach you decide to take, please understand that you will be doing a great disservice to persons with disabilities in California if you force a potentially disastrous challenge to the ADA over the issue of retroactive refunds amounting to only a few dollars per person.
Sincerely,
Chris Elms
President, Californians for Disability Rights
cc: Governor Gray Davis
Attorney General Bill Lockyer
Catherine Campisi, DR Director
Angela Sierra, Deputy Attorney General