[nfb-talk] {Disarmed} Federal law preempts blind flyers'claims over airport kiosks

[Brian Miller]

Hi Steve,

Absolutely, and I totally understand why we chose to pursue this case in the
California court jurisdiction .  However, as you know well, the question is
when can you lean on state law and when does federal law take precedence.  

It is true, however, that typically state laws that are stricter on
regulations are not a problem, it is when they are looser than federal laws
-- such as in the case of emissions standards, again, such as in California.


I would have to think it depends on the degree to which a federal law or
governing regulations are silent on certain matters, and allow for states to
interject their own preferences.  An example of this is in the case of the
Rehabilitation Act -- federal law trumps state laws in most instances with
the implementation of the VR programs, however, in the case of procurement,
state laws take precedence -- not on the nature of VR services, just how the
purchases are processed.  

I guess the judge in this case read the Air Carrier Act as not allowing for
this degree of flexibility.  

Thanks,
Brian M

-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Jacobson
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:02 PM
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] {Disarmed} Federal law preempts blind flyers'claims
over airport kiosks

Ryan,

I am also not a lawyer, but from what I know, California law is often more
strict than federal law on some of these issues, and even if a victory were
to only apply in California, it can stil influence other cases.  If the
federal law is not as strong, filing there might well be irrelevant because
the law may not have been strong enough to win on, so our best chance of
winning may have been under California law.  .  Deciding how to approach
something like this is always a bit of a gamble, and if one knew ahead of
time how a judge was going to rule, one could always make the right choice.
<smile>  

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson


On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:58:01 -0600, Ryan O wrote:

>I'm not a lawyer so someone please help me out here. If I'm reading 
>this ruling correctly, it looks as if our lawsuit was dismissed on a 
>technicality. The judge dismissed it because it is invalidated by the ACAA.
>United is not responsible for accessibility of airport terminal kiosks. 
>That issue would fall under federal purview. If this is the case, did 
>we not make a tactical error in the filing? Should this not have been a
federal suit?



>RyanO


>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfb-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40
visi.com





_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfb-talk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/brian-r-miller%40u
iowa.edu