Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019)

Citation: Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019)
Parent Document: Adjartey v. Cent. Div. of the Hous. Court Departmentand, 120 N.E.3d 297 (2019)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2019-04-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7178223/adjartey-v-cent-div-of-the-hous... ↗

Full Text

907 chars

In various sections of their brief, the petitioners assert that the Housing Court violated their rights under Title II of the ADA. In Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533-534, 124 S.Ct. 1978, 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004), the United States Supreme Court held that "Title II, as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts," is constitutional. Because the question of the obligation of Massachusetts courts under the ADA has not been adequately briefed, however, we do not address our courts' obligations under the ADA here. Instead, we rely on MERA, on the Massachusetts Constitution, and on our own superintendence power to confirm Massachusetts courts' obligation to provide reasonable accommodations. See McDonough, 457 Mass. at 518 & n.16, 930 N.E.2d 1279 (declining to address scope of courts' obligations under ADA where question could be resolved under MERA).

Other Sections in This Document (125)

Full Text