The first, second, and fourth factor weigh against standing. Regarding the first factor, Plaintiff states that he lives and resides in Childress, Texas; which is over 500 miles from Red Rocks. Generally, "[c]ourts have consistently maintained that a distance of over 100 miles weighs against finding a reasonable likelihood of future harm." Jones v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 05-0535, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86613, 2006 WL 3437905, at *3 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 29, 2006). Moving to the second factor – Plaintiff’s past patronage – Plaintiff admits that he has no history of visiting Red Rocks, other than the concert which lead to this instant action. With respect to the fourth element, Plaintiff’s residence being so far away from Red Rocks is not dispositive …show more content…
Other jurisdictions that have taken up the issue have concluded such plaintiffs have standing. The Ninth Circuit recognizes the “deterrent effect doctrine” which means that an ADA plaintiff has Article III standing when the plaintiff encounters accessibility barriers and would return to the property if not for the barriers because the plaintiff “has been injured by the deterrent effect of the barriers actually encountered.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 571 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2009). See also, Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008); Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods, 293 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2002). The Fifth Circuit has held that ADA plaintiffs “need not engage in futile gestures before seeking an injunction; the individual must show only that” the inaccessible property “affects his activities in some concrete way.” Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 236, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1561, 182 L. Ed. 2d 168 (5th Cir. 2011). Some district courts interpreted this as the Fifth Circuit endorsing the deterrent effect doctrine and courts applied it in their cases. Kramer v. Lakehills South, LP, No. A-13-CA-591 LY, 2014 WL 51153, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2014); Gilkerson v. Chasewood Bank, 1 F. Supp. 3d 570, 584 (S.D. Tex. 2014). In fact, in a recent Colorado …show more content…
Family Dollar Stores of Colo., Inc., as support to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim, arguing that the court in Garcia rejected the deterrence theory. (ECF No. 71 at 6). This is an incorrect interpretation. The court did not reject the theory, it assumed, for the purposes of the order, that the Tenth Circuit would adopt this theory and then went on to explain why the plaintiff could not even satisfy that broader standing theory. Garcia v. Family Dollar Stores of Col., Inc., No. 16-cv-02348-RM-KLM, 2017 WL 3498955, at *3 (D. Colo. Aug. 16, 2017). Furthermore, this instant case is distinguishable from Garcia in several respects. First, the alleged discriminatory behavior in Garcia came from employees at the Pueblo Family Dollar store. Id., at *6. Here, the alleged discrimination comes from Denver’s ticketing practices and the physical condition of Red Rocks. Second, in Garcia the plaintiff “fail[ed] to plausibly allege that discriminatory conditions are continuing at any Family Dollar store.” Id. The two complained of employees no longer worked at the Pueblo Family Dollar store and the plaintiff could not make any showing that the behavior of those employees was a corporate policy. In this case, Plaintiff has alleged that the ticketing practices are still in place and that Red Rocks has not made any changes to their seating arrangements or ramps. Finally, in Garcia the plaintiff only alleged he had a fear of returning to any Family Dollar because he feared he
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination based upon their disability (Bennett-Alexander, 2001). The protection extends to discrimination in a broad range of activities, including public services, public accommodations and employment. The ADA's ban against disability discrimination applies to both private and public employers in the United States.
4. Facts: It was the time of August in 1986, when William Geringer with his family was on vacation at the Wildhorn Ranch Resort located in Teller County, Colorado. Due to some defective Paddleboating boat two of the family members (William Geringer and his minor son Jared Geringer) were drowned. Mr. Watters, a defendant, was formerly the owner of the resort, but he stated that he handed over the possession to Wildhorn Ranch Inc. “The other defendant, Les Bretzke, was a contractor with an autonomous company that endow with repair services and repair construction to the resort.” During the whole trial the main focus was on the maintainability issues of
Marty Anderson was an employee for Family Auto Repair (FAR) in Memphis and was transfer to their Jackson store, which was an hour and a half from his house. The company allow Marty to use a company vehicle to make his long commute, although he had his own vehicle. The terms of the explicit permission to use the vehicle were: to and from work, during lunch breaks, and to deliver and transfer items between FAR’s two facilities either before work or on his way home. Marty Anderson became a victim of the dilemma when he fell asleep at the wheel and injured a man, Steve Spritzer, in the company vehicle, at a time when he did not have explicit permission to be using the vehicle. Marty Anderson’s case can be argued in his favor or in FAR’s favor,
Three strikes laws have been predominantly used in the state of California since 1994. Three strikes laws are set forth for a “tough on crime” approach to attempt to reduce crime rates by methods of deterrence and incapacitation. Several states have followed suit on implementing this type of policy. However, research on three strikes laws have not had a consensus on the actual effects on crime rates within a city, county, or state level. For this reason, the importance of knowing the actual results of implementing this policy are of utmost importance for the proper management of funding in our criminal justice system. Due to the limited resources that states have are very real, we should focus on funding programs that result
The best solution to an increase in crime rates in New Mexico would be to implement a stronger three strikes law because putting the repeat offenders behind bars for committing the violent crime that is dangerous to the society, which is one step closer to improving the problem. The tougher three strikes law would have the mandatory longer prison time for the criminals which is definitely needed to reform the three strikes law in New Mexico. However, if we do not happen to make the three strikes law tougher in New Mexico, we will significantly see an increase in the violent crime rate in the future which might become difficult to control later as it will become so wider than before. I believe it is still better to make the law harsher because
Frank Kaytek (Defendant), sole shareholder and owner, of Frankie’s Fun Festivals, Inc. has a long-standing tradition of hosting an annual Polish Festival in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This year’s festival was held on April 1st, at a church located on the corner of Elm and Maple Streets. The festival featured many fine arts and crafts open to the public, with Jake’s Polka Monkeys providing music for dancing. The heart of this festival is, and always has been, the original ethnic Polish food served. Being Polish, Mr. Kaytek knows and appreciates true ethnic Polish food and is very particular when choosing food suppliers for this event. After considerable research, defendant contacted Walter Magaleski (Appellant), sole owner of Foxey’s Ethnic Foods,
In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.
Deterrence theorists view murder as rational behavior, and assume that in calculating the gains and losses from killing, potential offenders are aware of the death penalty and regard it as a more severe sanction than imprisonment. Because the threat of one's own death presumably outweighs the rewards gained from killing another, murder is not an option for most people and always discouraged. In addition, some noted proponents assert that capital punishment provides an important educative function in society by validating the sanctity of human life (Berns, 1979; van den Haag, 1975; van den Haag & Conrad, 1983). Despite this logic, some challenge the applicability of deterrence to murder. Rather than being a product of deliberation and calculation, it is known that most murders are emotionally charged and their crimes are spontaneous events; they are "acts of passion" or result from a situated transaction rather than from deliberation (Bowers & Pierce, 1980; Chambliss, 1967; Luckenbill, 1977). Indeed, a significant proportion of homicides may not be intended. The situation escapes calm discussion, or due to some extraneous factor, an assault victim dies. Under such conditions, it is unlikely that perpetrators ("killers") give serious thought to whether they reside in a death penalty jurisdiction, or the possibility of execution.
The Curious Confusion Surrounding Escobedo v. Illinois. (1965). The University of CHicago Law Review, 560-580.
The 2002 crime figures for England and Wales comprised of two separate reports, brought together for the first time: (i) Crime statistics recorded by constabularies and (ii) The British Crime Survey (BCS), based on 33,000 interviews. The BCS is regarded as a more reliable measure of actual levels of crime because it includes experiences of crime that go unreported. The British crime survey of 2002 revealed:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is one of the most significant laws in American History. Before the ADA was passed, employers were able to deny employment to a disabled worker, simply because he or she was disabled. With no other reason other than the person's physical disability, they were turned away or released from a job. The ADA gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion. The act guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, State and local government services, and telecommunications. The ADA not only opened the door for millions of Americans to get back into the workplace, it paved the road for new facilities in the workplace, new training programs, and created jobs designed for a disabled society (Frierson, 1990). This paper will discuss disabilities covered by the ADA, reasonable accommodations employers must take to accommodate individuals with disabilities, and the actions employers can take when considering applicants who have disabilities.
The ADA was passed in an effort to end discrimination and prejudice in American society, and to better accommodate the disabled. While the act gives a clear outline of what rights a disabled person is entitled to; it does not clearly enough define who exactly is allowed these rights or protections, because of the use of vague language, and diagnosis’ being assigned by judges rather than doctors the disabled have seen little change as a result of the ADA.
There are several aspects within deterrence that are important to understand when discussing the theories of deterrence and labeling. According to the deterrence theory, there are two different classifications of deterrence—specific and general. First, specific deterrence is defined as apprehending an offender and punishing him or her which will refrain them from repeating crimes if they are caught and punished by the criminal justice system (Akers and Sellers, 16). Secondly, general deterrence is defined as the states way of punishing society for a crime that they have not committed, while using a certain group of people who have committed that crime. By doing so, those who are in charge of punishment, inflict fear on members
The American prison system has long touted the principal of deterrence – meaning that crime can be controlled by giving very harsh sentences to those who are caught, hoping that future crimes will be avoided because a would be perpetrator sees and fears what the potential punishment of following through with such an act might be. The idea that a single person’s punishment is going to keep others from committing a crime a key argument for our system of crime and punishment. This paper is going to focus on this currently failing policy of deterrence, examining its true nature, and then discuss its place, if any, that it has in our law enforcement system.