No. 21-1011

Derwin Patten, et al. v. District of Columbia

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2022-01-18
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: ADA administrative-exhaustion administrative-remedies americans-with-disabilities-act disability-discrimination exhaustion public-entity-discrimination randolph-sheppard-act Rehabilitation-Act state-antidiscrimination-statute
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration SocialSecurity ERISA DueProcess HabeasCorpus WageAndHour Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-02-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a federal statute that requires an exhaustion of administrative remedies bar a public entity discrimination claim under the ADA, Rehabilitation-Act, state-antidiscrimination-statute when the plaintiff files the discrimination claim in court without exhausting administrative remedies, but does so on the basis of the state's statutory waiver of its federal right to exhaust such remedies?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED As legislated by Congress, the Randolph Sheppard Act of 19386 requires an exhaustion of administrative remedies by blind people aggrieved by a Randolph Sheppard Vending Facilities Program (“Randolph-Sheppard program”). As provided for in the act, the U.S. Department of Education authorizes state governments and the District of Columbia to establish Randolph-Sheppard programs, which license blind citizens to be self-employed retailers or “blind vendors” inside government buildings. However, the Randolph Sheppard Act does not bar state governments and the District of Columbia from discriminating against the blind. In this case, the questions presented, which should be settled by this Court, and which the D.C. Circuit decided in a way that conflicts with this Court’s reasoning in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 137 S.Ct. 7483 (2017), and which conflicts with the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Randolph v. Rogers, 253 F.3d 342 (2001), may be stated as follows: 1. Does a federal statute that requires an exhaustion of administrative remedies bar a public entity discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and a state antidiscrimination statute when the plaintiff files the discrimination claim in court without exhausting administrative remedies, but does so on the basis of the state’s statutory waiver of its federal right to exhaust such remedies? ii 2. With its requirement for an exhaustion of administrative remedies, does the Randolph Sheppard Act preclude relief under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and state antidiscrimination statutes for public entity discrimination against blind vendors and other disabled persons in the Randolph-Sheppard program?

Docket Entries

2022-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2022-02-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-31
Waiver of right of respondent District of Columbia to respond filed.
2022-01-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 17, 2022)

Attorneys

Derwin Patten, et al.
Thomas Turner Ruffin Jr.Ruffin Legal Services, Petitioner
Thomas Turner Ruffin Jr.Ruffin Legal Services, Petitioner
District of Columbia
Carl James SchifferleDistrict of Columbia Office of Attorney General, Respondent
Carl James SchifferleDistrict of Columbia Office of Attorney General, Respondent