Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment
Hardie v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 27, 2017No. 15-55576Published
1Concurring in the judgmentFaber, District Judge
I agree with the Court that under Title II, Appellant Dominic Hardie has not stated a cognizable claim. Yet the Court skirts a key issue that this case squarely presents: Whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under Title II.
In my view, Title II’s text does not recognize disparate-impact liability, and we should clearly say so.1 Title II recognizes only disparate-treatment claims: claims involving intentional discrimination. Even if Title II did recognize disparate-impact liability, the “business! Jnecessity” defense, as the Court makes clear, requires us to reject Hardie’s claim.…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Brown v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. CyrSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Bolling v. SharpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property ImprovementCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.