Moshenko v. State University of New York (at Buffalo) et al

Filing 96

DECISION AND ORDER denying 81 defendant's Motion in Limine. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 11/18/2010. (JMB)

Wharton v. State University of New York at Buffalo

Doc. 96

analysis, it appears that in formulating the language in Title II's anti-retaliation p ro vis io n s , Congress recognized that disabled individuals may require assistance fro m others to defend their rights.") (citing Innovative Health). Here, the Court fin d s the enforcement provisions of Title II and of the Rehabilitation Act to be b ro a d enough to cover plaintiff's allegations. Plaintiff has alleged, inter alia, that d e fe n d a n t discriminated against her in several ways, including through te rm in a tio n and the creation of a hostile work environment, because it resented h o w openly she advocated for disabled university students. W h e th e r plaintiff can e s ta b lis h her claims in front of a jury by a preponderance of the evidence is a n o th e r matter; for now, there is no reason for this Court to attempt to give the e n fo rc e m e n t provisions of Title II and of the Rehabilitation Act a more narrow c o n s tru c tio n than the Second Circuit has given them. F o llo w in g the broad interpretation of the enforcement provisions in question th a t is set forth in Innovative Health and Barker, the Court hereby denies d e fe n d a n t's motion in limine (Dkt. No. 81). SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard J. Arcara
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: November 18, 2010

3

Dockets.Justia.com