Robert Leake v. Long Island Jewish Med. Ctr., 869 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Robert Leake v. Long Island Jewish Med. Ctr., 869 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
61 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Isaacs v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock, 2014 DNH 070 (D.N.H. 2014)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 131 Applying civil rights restoration act retroactively16 citing casesparallel citations omitted2 citing courts put it this way · 15 listed here
  • Isaacs v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock, 2014 DNH 070 (D.N.H. 2014).published
    (parallel citations omitted)
  • Isaacs v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock , 2014 DNH 086 (D.N.H. 2014).published
    (parallel citations omitted)
  • Zimmerman v. Poly Prep Country Day Sch., 888 F. Supp. 2d 317 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).published
    Ctr., 869 F.2d 130, 131 (2d Cir.1989).
  • Doe v. City of Chicago, 883 F. Supp. 1126 (N.D. Ill. 1994).published
    The Restoration Act requires only "that any program in an institution that receives federal financial aid, no matter how specific the purpose or program for which that aid is given, must follow the guidelines of the Rehabilitation Act.” Le…
  • Shane v. State of Conn., 821 F. Supp. 829 (D. Conn. 1993).published
    Plaintiff urges this court to follow Leake v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, 869 F.2d 130, 131 (2d Cir.1989), which held that when Congress acts to clarify a Supreme Court decision and restore the law to a previous posture, then the en…
  • Hill v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 808 F. Supp. 141 (E.D.N.Y. 1992).published
    Finally, in Leake v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, 695 F.Supp. 1414 (E.D.N.Y. 1988), aff'd, 869 F.2d 130, 131 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam), Judge Platt faced the question of whether the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 applied retro…
  • Bridges v. Eastman Kodak Co., 800 F. Supp. 1172 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).published
    Co., 909 F.2d 716, 723 (2d Cir.1990); Taub, Hummel & Schnall, Inc. v. Atlantic Container Line, Ltd., 894 F.2d 526, 529 (2d Cir.1990); Leake v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, 869 F.2d 130, 131 (2d Cir.1989), aff'g 695 F.Supp. 1414 (E.D.…
  • Kemp v. Flygt Corp., 791 F. Supp. 48 (D. Conn. 1992).published
    Leake v. Long Island Jewish Center, 869 F.2d 130, 131 (2d Cir.1989).
  • McLaughlin v. New York, Governor's Off. of Emp. Relations, 784 F. Supp. 961 (N.D.N.Y. 1992).published
    Leake v. Long Island Jewish Center, 869 F.2d 130, 131 (2d Cir.1989), aff 'g 695 F.Supp. 1414, 1417 (E.D.N.Y.1988); Mrs. W. v. Tirozzi, 832 F.2d 748 (2d Cir.1987).
  • Burchfield v. Derwinski, 782 F. Supp. 532 (D. Colo. 1992).published
    (holding that the Bradley presumption is the better rule)
Show 5 more citing cases
  • Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Cal. 1992).published
    See Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F.2d 661, 665 (11th Cir.1990) (“statutory changes that are procedural or remedial in nature apply retroactively.”); Ayers v. Allain, 893 F.2d at 754-55 ; Leake v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, 695 F.Supp. 14…
  • DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., 911 F.2d 1377 (10th Cir. 1990).published 6 cites
    Contra Leake v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, 695 F.Supp. 1414, 1416-18 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (Restoration Act applies retroactively), aff 'd, 869 F.2d 130, 131 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam); see also Bonner v. Arizona Dep’t of Corrections, 714…
  • Rothschild v. Grottenthaler, 716 F. Supp. 796 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).published 2 cites
    In Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 , 104 S.Ct. 1211 , 79 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984), and Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624 , 104 S.Ct. 1248 , 79 L.Ed.2d 568 (1984), the Supreme Court held that the prohibitions of section 50…
  • Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 931 F. Supp. 222 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).published 2 cites
    See Leake v. Long Island Jewish Medical Ctr., 869 F.2d 130, 131 (2d Cir.1989) (citing S.Rep.
  • Kenneth & Karen Rothschild v. Charles Grottenthaler, Superintendent of the Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist., & Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist., 907 F.2d 286 (2d Cir. 1990).published
    See 29 U.S.C.A. § 794 (b)(2)(B) (West Supp.1990) (“program or activity" means, inter alia, “all of the operations” of a local school system); see also Leake v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, 869 F.2d 130, 131 (2d Cir.1989).
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert LEAKE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellant
687, Docket 88-7815.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Feb 23, 1989.
Published opinion
869 F.2d 130
1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 2447
1989 WL 16217
David H. Diamond, New York City (Fredric C. Leffler, Howard Weingrad, Summit Rovins & Feldesman, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant., L. Donald Prutzman, Jr., New York City (Josiah Greenberg, Stecher Jaglom & Prutzman, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee., Ellen J. Vargyas, Janice Steinschneider, Nat. Women’s Law Center, Washington, D.C., for amici curiae Nat. Women’s Law Center, American Ass’n of Retired Persons, American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Democratic Action, Inc., Church Women United, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Disability Rights Educ. and Defense Fund, Epilepsy Foundation of America, Jewish Women’s Caucus, Justice for Women, Mental Health Law Project, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, NOW Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, New York Civil Liberties Union, Older Women’s League, People for the American Way, Project Equality, Inc., United Auto Workers Intern. Union, United Food and Commercial Workers Intern. Union, Women Employed, and Women’s Legal Defense Fund.
Meskill, Pratt, Altimari.
Cited by 45 opinions  |  Published
[*131] PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial of summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Platt, C.J. Chief Judge Platt certified the order denying summary judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Supp.IV 1986), and this Court granted permission to appeal.

We have previously affirmed the decision of the district court by summary order, and we now set forth an extended version of that order for publication.

Plaintiff Leake, who has one arm, was discharged from his employment at defendant Long Island Jewish Medical Center (LIJMC) in 1985. After pursuing his administrative remedies unsuccessfully, Leake filed this action in the district court in 1987. The amended complaint alleged that LIJMC had violated section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1982), by discriminating against Leake because of Leake’s physical handicap. At the time the complaint was filed, the Supreme Court had interpreted section 504 to apply only to specific programs that received federal financial aid, and not to programs that received no federal financial aid, even if other programs within the same institution received federal financial aid. Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 104 S.Ct. 1211, 79 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984); Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 104 S.Ct. 1248, 79 L.Ed.2d 568 (1984).

In 1988, however, Congress amended section 504 by passing the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Pub.L. No. 100-259,102 Stat. 28, 29 (1988) (the 1988 amendments), which was designed to “overturn” the holding of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Grove City and Darrone. See S.Rep. No. 64, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2, reprinted in 1988 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 3, 3-4. The Civil Rights Restoration Act mandates that any program in an institution that receives federal financial aid, no matter how specific the purpose or program for which that aid is given, must follow the guidelines of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

LIJMC argues that the 1988 amendments do not apply retroactively. The district court, however, held that Congress did intend the 1988 amendments to apply to suits pending at the time of their enactment, and that LIJMC is bound by the 1988 amendments in this instance.

We affirm the order of the district court and hold that LIJMC is subject to the provisions of the 1988 amendments, substantially for the reasons set out in Chief Judge Platt’s opinion below, dated July 13, 1988, and reported at 695 F.Supp. 1414. We remand to the district court for further proceedings.