It is the policy of the Commonwealth to encourage and enable persons with disabilities to participate fully and equally in the social and economic life of the Commonwealth and to engage in remunerative employment. To these ends, the General Assembly directs the Governor; the Virginia Board for People with Disabilities; the Departments of Education, Health, Housing and Community Development, Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, and Social Services; the Departments for Aging and Rehabilitative Services, the Blind and Vision Impaired, and the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing; and such other agencies as the Governor deems appropriate to provide, in a comprehensive and coordinated manner that makes the best use of available resources, those services necessary to assure equal opportunity to persons with disabilities in the Commonwealth.
The provisions of this title shall be known and may be cited as "The Virginians with Disabilities Act."
1985, c. 421, § 51.01-1; 1990, c. 458; 1991, c. 563; 2002, c. 572; 2009, cc. 813, 840; 2012, cc. 803, 835; 2013, c. 571.
Notes of Decisions
Bradick v. Grumman Data Sys. Corp., 486 S.E.2d 545 (Va. 1997).
· cites it 8× “However, it is not disputed that both the VHRA and the Virginians with Disabilities Act (VDA), Code §§ 51.5-1 to 51.5-52, contain clear expressions of Virginia's public policy opposing discrimination against disabled persons.”
Progress Printing Co., Inc. v. Nichols, 421 S.E.2d 428 (Va. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Nichols filed a bill of complaint alleging, inter alia, that Progress Printing terminated him because of his hypertensive condition in violation of the Virginians with Disabilities Act, Code §§ 51.5-1 -.5-52, and that Progress Printing breached his employment contract because it…”
Mannell v. Am. Tobacco Co., 871 F. Supp. 854 (E.D. Va. 1994).
· cites it 3× “Defendant argues that this claim fails to state a cause of action because the Virginians with Disabilities Act (“VDA”), Va.Code § 51.5-1, sets forth Virginia’s policy on the prohibition of discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals.”
Winborne v. Virginia Lottery, 677 S.E.2d 304 (Va. 2009).
· cites it 2× “In this case, we consider whether the Virginia Lottery offers a program, service, or activity within the meaning of the Virginians with Disabilities Act, Code § 51.5-1 et seq. ("VDA") and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.”
Leverton v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 486 (E.D. Va. 1998).
· cites it 3× “Compare The Virginians with Disabilities Act, Va.Code § 51.5-1 (emphasis added) (providing that “[i]t is the policy of this Commonwealth to encourage and enable persons with disabilities to participate fully and equally in the social and economic life of the Commonwealth and to…”
Flippo v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 59 F. Supp. 2d 572 (E.D. Va. 1999).
· cites it 2× “State statutes applicable to Plaintiff's claim would include the Virginians with Disabilities Act (the "VDA”), see Va.Code Ann. § 51.5-1, et seq., and the Virginia Human Rights Act (the "VHRA”), see Va.”
Wright v. St. Charles Water Auth., 59 Va. Cir. 244 (2002).
· cites it 2× “” According to the complainant’s pleaded allegations, citing the Virginians with Disabilities Act, Virginia Code §§51.5-1 through 51.5-52, the Town Manager of St.”
Hinch v. Duncan, 941 F. Supp. 62 (W.D. Va. 1996).
· cites it 3× “(“ADA”) and the Virginians with Disabilities Act, 2 Va.Code § 51.5-1 et seq. (‘VDA”). 3 I. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex (“Security Complex”) as a correctional officer from November 1, 1988 to August 31, 1992.”
Bacon v. City of Richmond, 419 F. Supp. 2d 849 (E.D. Va. 2006).
· cites it 2× “§ 794 (the “RA”); and the Virginians with Disabilities Act of 1985, Virginia Code § 51.5-1 et seq. (the ‘VDA”). Each of the plaintiffs is either disabled or has a disabled child and is a member of C-FAIR, an organization comprised of citizens of Richmond who are concerned with…”
Lamb v. Qualex, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 374 (E.D. Va. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Lamb’s State Law Claim Count V of the Complaint alleges that Qualex wrongfully terminated Lamb in violation of the public policy expressed in the Virginians with Disabilities Act, Va.”
Fox v. Rich Prods. Corp., 34 Va. Cir. 403 (Winchester Cir. Ct. 1994).
“; Virginians with Disabilities Act, §§ 51.5-1 et seq.; Virginia Occupational Safety and Health Act, §§ 40.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.