Wharton v. State University of New York at Buffalo, No. 1:2007cv00116 - Document 96 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER denying 81 defendant's Motion in Limine. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 11/18/2010. (JMB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
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 provisions, Congress recognized that disabled individuals may require assistance from others to defend their rights. ) (citing Innovative Health). Here, the Court finds the enforcement provisions of Title II and of the Rehabilitation Act to be broad enough to cover plaintiff s allegations. Plaintiff has alleged, inter alia, that defendant discriminated against her in several ways, including through termination and the creation of a hostile work environment, because it resented how openly she advocated for disabled university students. W hether plaintiff can establish her claims in front of a jury by a preponderance of the evidence is another matter; for now, there is no reason for this Court to attempt to give the enforcement provisions of Title II and of the Rehabilitation Act a more narrow construction than the Second Circuit has given them. Following the broad interpretation of the enforcement provisions in question that is set forth in Innovative Health and Barker, the Court hereby denies defendant 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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
