[nagdu] Woman with guide dog says civil rights were violated

[Angie Matney]

Hi Jenine,

I could be wrong, but I think Marion was talking about a possible criminal
case. I think he was suggesting that an attorney might argue that an access
denial was not a crime if it didn't happen to a team from The Seeing Eye.
(Having said that, I don't remember if Texas has criminal access-denial
statutes or not.) In a criminal case, the ADA terminology wouldn't matter,
but as I said in my other email, I don't think an attorney could win an
argument on a technicality like that. 

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Jenine Stanley
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:00 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Woman with guide dog says civil rights were violated

Interesting logic, Marion, but federal law trumps state and local laws and
there's no such mention of the term "Seeing eye" in the ADA. Now I suppose
if a person just stuck with remedies provided under state law or local law
and such a term was still in place then it would matter, but hopefully a
good attorney could also argue against it as well as for it.


_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gmail.
com