Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)

Citation
A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Parent Document
A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Effective Date
2011-08-24

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text

702 chars
Perhaps recognizing that its fallback argument lacks any doctrinal support, VCU principally argues that ASWAN’S retaliation claim fails because ASWAN assertedly had no “reasonable, good faith belief’ that the ADA had been violated. Freilich v. Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc., 313 F.3d 205, 216 (4th Cir.2002). Specifically, VCU contends that ASWAN could not have reasonably believed that “[1] a hill is a ‘barrier’ under the ADA; [2] filing this suit years later could prevail; [3] a donor of land can be treated like a segregating zoning authority; or [4] segregating someone from ‘the downtown mainstream’ segregates them because of a disability.” Appellee’s Br. at 14. Each of these contentions fail.