Case: Hart v. County of Alameda

3:79-00091 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Jan. 17, 1979

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Clarence Hart, an applicant for employment as a group counselor with the Alameda County Probation Department (ACPD), brought suit under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§793-794, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the ACPD refused to hire him based on his disability for discriminatory reasons. In addition, Hart alleged that the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, 31 U.S.C. §1242, prohibited discrimination by recipients of federa…

Clarence Hart, an applicant for employment as a group counselor with the Alameda County Probation Department (ACPD), brought suit under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§793-794, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the ACPD refused to hire him based on his disability for discriminatory reasons. In addition, Hart alleged that the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, 31 U.S.C. §1242, prohibited discrimination by recipients of federal revenue sharing funds. Hart was represented by the Employment Law Center of San Francisco and the Disability Law Resource Center of Berkeley.

Hart, a "controlled" epileptic, had for several years volunteered his services as a group counselor with the ACPD through its "Volunteers in Probation" program. In May, 1977, Hart applied to the ACPD for permanent employment as a group counselor. He claims that, although he passed the civil service examination and was placed on the eligibility list, he was refused employment solely because of his handicap. The ACPD moved to dismiss the complaint by arguing that handicapped persons may not enforce, through a private cause of action, the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act or the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act.

The District Court (Judge William Horsley Orrick, Jr.) denied the motion to dismiss by holding that Congress fully intended the statutory provisions to be privately enforced. Hart v. County of Alameda, 485 F.Supp. 66 (N.D.Cal. 1979). Judge Orrick held that the section of the Rehabilitation Act forbidding discrimination against qualified handicapped individuals in a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance was enforceable by Hart who had satisfactorily pursued his available administrative remedies. Judge Orrick found that the section of the Rehabilitation Act requiring that a contractor take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified handicapped individuals implicitly authorized handicapped individuals to maintain private enforcement actions. Judge Orrick also found that the plaintiff was not required to allege that federal funds received by the county were primarily intended to provide employment for handicapped persons in order to maintain an action for alleged violation of the Revenue Sharing Act.

The docket for this case was not available on PACER, and accordingly, we have no further information on the case.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (12/9/2007)

People


Judge(s)

Orrick, William Horsley Jr. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Funk, Robert J. (California)

Hecht, Kenneth (California)

Poppink, Prudence Kay (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Moore, Richard J. (California)

Judge(s)

Orrick, William Horsley Jr. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Funk, Robert J. (California)

Hecht, Kenneth (California)

Poppink, Prudence Kay (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Moore, Richard J. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:79-00091

Reported Opinion

485 F.Supp. 66

Sept. 6, 1979

Sept. 6, 1979

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 14, 2022, 3:12 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 17, 1979

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

an applicant for employment as a group counselor with the Alameda County Probation Department

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Unknown

Class Action Outcome: Unknown

Defendants

Alameda County Jail (Alameda), County

Case Details

Availably Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 1979 - None

Issues

General:

Counseling

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Type of Facility:

Government-run