|
Date |
Pleading/Document |
Comments |
|
|
BACKGROUND FACTS REGARDING McNEESE'S DISCRIMINATION AGAINST COVINGTON AND OTHER
DISABLED STUDENTS |
|
|
1992-2009 |
3rd Affidavit of Collette Covington |
Affidavit explaining Collette
Covington's experiences as a disabled student at McNeese
State University at various times from
1992-2009. |
|
1/31/2001 |
|
McNeese police report
documenting Covington's January 31, 2001 accident in her wheelchair in a
non-compliant McNeese restroom. This restroom was
still non-compliant as recently as October, 2009. |
|
2005 |
|
McNeese President Dr.
Robert Hebert's January, 2005 video deposition, in which he testifies that it
is not "fundamentally important" for the disabled to attend McNeese and does not regard it as a "high
priority" to allow them access to McNeese's
campus (Dr. Hebert has since resigned). |
|
8/6/2008 |
|
National
education journal article regarding McNeese's
discrimination against Covington. |
|
2009 |
|
Affidavit of a McNeese
Physics professor explaining his experiences in a wheelchair at McNeese State University as recently as 2009. |
|
2009 |
Click
here for complete list of all known ADA violations at McNeese,
as of Summer, 2009
(opens new window with a building-by-building report) |
McNeese internal
reports documenting approximately $15 million in ADA violations on the McNeese campus even as recently as 2009, more than eight
years after Covington filed suit. Note: Many of
these buildings were constructed long after the ADA was passed. Even though they could have been fairly
inexpensively built to the proper standards the first time, they were
not. Now these
buildings must be rebuilt to comply with the law. |
|
2010-2011 |
|
Nine years after Covington filed suit,
McNeese finally requested funding to comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of
1973. Covington was in elementary
school when this law was passed.
Today, she is a grandmother. |
|
|
IN RESPONSE TO THESE CONDITIONS,
COVINGTON FILED SUIT IN 2001 AND SPENT FIVE YEARS ATTEMPTING TO PERSUADE
MCNEESE TO COMPLY WITH THE ADA. |
|
|
|
WHEN THAT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL, COVINGTON FILED FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT. |
SHE HAS ENDURED THE FOLLOWING LITIGATION. |
|
1/24/2006 |
Part one: Covington’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the
Issue of Discrimination Part two: Covington’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the
Issue of Discrimination |
This summary
judgment motion explains Covington’s position. It is lengthy and divided into two
sections. McNeese lost this
motion and lost its appeal of this motion. |
|
1/24/2006 |
|
This was attached to Covington’s
summary judgment motion. It lists and
explains just a few of McNeese’s violations. |
|
|
McNEESE’S RESPONSE |
|
|
3/23/2006 |
|
McNeese asked for
more time to respond to Covington's Motion for Summary Judgment. As a professional courtesy, Covington
agrees. |
|
4/27/2006 |
McNeese asked for
more time to respond to Covington's Motion for Summary Judgment. As a professional courtesy, Covington
agrees. |
|
|
6/23/2006 |
McNeese asked for
more time to respond to Covington's Motion for Summary Judgment As a
professional courtesy, Covington agrees. |
|
|
11/14/2006 |
McNeese’s Response to Covington’s Motion
for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Discrimination |
Nearly a year
later, McNeese attempts to defend its
discrimination with the arguments in this document. McNeese lost. |
|
|
COVINGTON'S
REPLY TO McNEESE'S RESPONSE |
|
|
12/13/2006 |
Covington’s
Reply to McNeese’s Response on the Issue of
Discrimination |
Covington
replies to McNeese’s Response. |
|
12/13/2006 |
|
This was attached to Covington’s Reply
to McNeese.
It lists and explains each of McNeese’s
arguments and why they are wrong. |
|
|
McNEESE'S PROCEDURAL
COMPLAINTS |
|
|
12/18/2006 |
Dilatory Exception of Unauthorized Use
of Summary Judgment |
After Covington began oral arguments, McNeese filed a "Dilatory Exception of Unauthorized
Use of Summary Judgment", which McNeese later
withdrew. |
|
|
ORAL ARGUMENTS |
|
|
12/14/2006 |
|
Seth Hopkins, Covington’s attorney,
explains McNeese’s discrimination at oral
arguments. |
|
12/14/2006 |
Seth Hopkins,
Covington’s attorney, explains McNeese’s
discrimination at oral arguments. The
Court schedules the continuation of arguments. |
|
|
1/4/2007 |
|
McNeese explains its
position and answers questions from the Court. |
|
1/4/2007 & 1/24/2007 |
|
Both parties answer
questions from the Court. The Court
begins its ruling. |
|
1/24/2007 |
|
The Court finishes its ruling. |
|
1/24/2007 |
McNEESE LOSES THE MSJ |
|
|
10/4/2007 |
|
The Court signs this judgment against McNeese. |
|
|
McNEESE’S APPEAL |
|
|
5/2008 |
McNeese’s Original Appellate Brief |
McNeese appeals. |
|
6/2008 |
Covington’s Original Brief in Response to McNeese’s Appeal (huge file with hyperlinks—some computers will not open) Covington's Original Brief in Response to McNeese's Appeal (smaller file without hyperlinks) |
Covington
files this multi-media response to McNeese’s
appeal. This file was submitted via
paper and electronic format and includes links to video deposition testimony,
a Powerpoint presentation, and most of the
supporting evidence in the record (Note:
this is a very large file that may take a few minutes to load; the second
file is smaller and does not contain hyperlinks) |
|
7/2008 |
|
McNeese files a reply
to Covington’s Response. |
|
|
McNEESE’S APPEALLATE
MOTIONS |
|
|
6/2008 |
McNeese Motion to
Strike and Motion to Supplement the Record |
McNeese moves to
strike portions of Covington’s brief because it believes Covington was too
harsh in describing McNeese’s discrimination. McNeese also asked to
supplement the record with evidence that was never introduced at the trial
court. |
|
7/2008 |
Covington’s Response to McNeese’s
Motion to Strike and Motion to Supplement the Record |
Covington
strongly opposes McNeese’s Motion to Strike and Supplement
the Record |
|
7/2008 |
|
McNeese moves a
second time to supplement the record. |
|
8/2008 |
Covington’s
Response to McNeese’s Second Motion to Supplement
the Record |
Covington
again responds to McNeese. |
|
|
McNEESE
LOSES ITS MOTIONS |
|
|
9/19/2008 |
Order denying McNeese's Motions |
The appeals
court denies McNeese’s motions. |
|
|
McNEESE
LOSES ITS APPEAL |
|
|
11/5/2008 |
|
This 33-page
opinion is the longest civil opinion of the year in the Louisiana 3rd
Circuit. Highlights include: "We cannot fathom
that McNeese felt no need, regardless of whether it
was required by law, to upgrade a single women's restroom into ADA compliance
in a building that houses, inter alia, the two main student cafeterias on
campus, offices for student government and activities, and a state-of-the-art
computer laboratory. McNeese's decision to ignore a
federal mandate is reminiscent of the intolerance of the past. We had hoped
that the days where a court has to step in to ensure that people were treated
equally under the laws of this country were gone. Yet, still, McNeese is emboldened enough to bring such a case to an
appellate court where a published, written opinion will forever memorialize its discrimination
against this country's disabled citizens.
It is hoped that McNeese will reassess its
attitude toward its disabled students. It is also hoped that McNeese will prepare and publish a transition plan as
required by the ADA." (page 31). Court calls McNeese's attack on
Covington's status as disabled "frivolous" "Further, in
essence, McNeese's sole basis for not conceding
that Covington has a record of her impairments is that Covington, prior to
this alleged incident, endured two knee surgeries, walked with forearm
crutches for over a year, used a wheelchair for a month, and continues to use
a wheelchair to this day, all so that she could fake an injury and bring this
suit. This is completely unfathomable, especially when one considers that for
McNeese's concoction to have merit, with respect to
the seizure disorder, Covington would have had to have faked seizures since
1991 all the while fooling Dr. Shamieh. Moreover,
this hypothesis is completely unsupported by any evidence in the record. . . . This testimony
unmistakably reveals that Delaney, McNeese's employee
who deals with disabled students daily, regarded Covington "as having
such impairment." Yet, still, McNeese has the audacity to not only fight this issue at
the trial level, but also to contest it on appeal. Had Covington brought an
action for frivolous appeal on this particular issue, it would seem that this
court would have granted such a request." General comments on McNeese arguments. "This argument is
completely irrational." "This defense is
absurd. . . " page 24. "This position
must fall . . ." page 22. "Plainly, the
cases McNeese cites have no weight in the view of
this court, as they are either easily distinguishable and/or actually hinder McNeese's position."?page 25. "It is clear that
McNeese has failed to heed Congress' direction in
this regard. As such, it is not reasonably contestable that Covington was
denied the benefits and services of the computer laboratory or anything else
located in the Old Ranch." page 29. "Finally,
Covington must prove that she was discriminated against because of her
disability. We find that she has done so, unequivocally." page 29. |
|
|
McNEESE MOTION FOR
REHEARING BY THE APPEALS COURT |
|
|
11/2008 |
|
McNeese moves for a
rehearing of the loss of its appeal. |
|
11/2008 |
|
Covington opposes the rehearing on the
grounds that the case has already been adequately litigated. |
|
|
McNEESE LOSES ITS REHEARING APPLICATION |
|
|
12/10/2008 |
3rd
Circuit Denies McNeese’s Rehearing Application. |
McNeese’s Application
for Rehearing is denied. |
|
|
INVESTIGATION BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE |
|
|
9/18/2008 |
|
The U.S. Department of Justice Civil
Rights Division initiates an independent ADA investigation and site
inspection of McNeese. The results will be available in early
2009. |
|
11/2008 |
Press release
issued by McNeese regarding DOJ investigation. |
McNeese issues a
press release regarding the investigation. |
|
|
McNEESE SUPREME
COURT APPEAL |
|
|
1/9/2009 |
McNeese’s Writ
Application to the Louisiana Supreme Court. |
McNeese appeals to
the Louisiana Supreme Court. |
|
1/26/2009 |
Covington’s
Response to McNeese Writ Application to the
Louisiana Supreme Court. |
Covington responds to McNeese’s Supreme Court appeal. |
|
|
McNEESE LOSES ITS SUPREME COURT WRIT |
|
|
3/6/2009 |
|
McNeese again loses
an appeal. A total of 11 judges,
including 7 Supreme Court Justices, have ruled against McNeese,
and none have ruled for McNeese. |
|
|
SIX MOTIONS TO COMPEL (To order McNeese to provide documents, some of which are four
years past due) |
|
|
5/17/2009 |
Six Consolidated Motions to Compel the
Production of Discovery |
Covington also asks the trial court to
instruct McNeese to produce documents that it
should have produced years ago. |
|
7/21/2009 |
|
McNeese asks for more
time before the court makes it produce documents that it should have produced
years ago. As a professional courtesy,
Covington agrees. For reasons
discussed below, Covington has not been allowed her hearing. |
|
|
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (So that Covington can return to McNeese) |
|
|
10/1/2009 |
3rd Affidavit of Collette Covington Photo
attachments to affidavit |
Covington
returns to McNeese in 2009, only to be forced to
urinate on herself again due to inaccessible facilities. |
|
110/1/2009 |
|
A McNeese
physics professor in a wheelchair supports Covington's claim that McNeese discriminates against those with disabilities. |
|
110/1/2009 |
|
Covington asks
the trial court to order McNeese to comply with the
ADA, in keeping with the rulings issued by the Appellate and Supreme Courts. |
|
10/12/2009 |
McNeese's Opposition to
Covington's Preliminary Injunction |
McNeese opposes
Covington's preliminary injunction. |
|
|
McNEESE'S MOTION TO
RECUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE (Only hours before her hearing for a preliminary
injunction and six motions to compel, McNeese again
prevented Covington from having her day in court—this time by claiming that
the judge was unfair) |
|
|
10/13/2009 |
State of
Louisiana Attorney General Criminal Division (McNeese's)
Motion to Recuse the Trial Judge |
48 hours before the injunction
hearing, McNeese, through the Louisiana Attorney
General Criminal Division in Baton Rouge, tries to have the trial judge,
Judge Carter, removed from the case, claiming that he is biased. No attorney with the Criminal Division is
even enrolled in the Covington case. |
|
11/15/2009 |
Criminal
Division (McNeese's) Motion to Consolidate |
The Criminal
Division (McNeese) attempts to consolidate the Covington case with 13 other cases for
purposes of the recusal. A different
judge, Judge Ware, is assigned to consider the evidence and decide whether
Judge Carter should be recused. |
|
12/8/2009 |
Covington's
Initial Opposition to Recusal and Consolidation |
Covington opposes the consolidation
and recusal because it impermissibly will delay the case. |
|
1/18/2010 |
|
Covington
files a supplemental brief opposing the Criminal Division (McNeese's) attempt to recue
Judge Carter. |
|
1/18/2010 |
|
Covington files two exhibits
explaining McNeese's burden in having a judge recused and the inaccurate statements of law made by the Criminal
Division (McNeese). |
|
1/20/2010 |
Criminal Division (McNeese's) Supplemental Motion to Recuse
the Trial Judge |
The Criminal
Division files a supplemental brief attacking Judge Carter. |
|
1/22/2010 |
|
The hearing was so passionate that the
Lake Charles newspaper's headlines the next day mentioned that Judge Ware
called a recess to prevent attorneys from fighting. |
|
1/21/2010 |
Judge
Ware Denies McNeese's Motion to Recuse
Judge Carter |
After a full
day in which numerous witnesses testified, Judge Ware issued a
strongly-worded oral opinion in which he denied the Criminal Division (McNeese's) Motion to Recuse
Judge Carter and held that Judge Carter is a duly-elected judge who is
presumed to be impartial and should be allowed to hear Covington and the other cases.
|
|
|
McNEESE
LOSES ITS ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE JUDGE REMOVED FROM THE CASE |
|
|
|
McNEESE FILES AN
EMERGENCY APPEAL OF ITS UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE JUDGE REMOVED FROM THE
CASE |
|
|
1/22/2010 |
Criminal Division (McNeese's) Emergency Writs and Stay Request to the 3rd
Circuit
|
After failing to have Judge Carter
removed from the Covington case,
the Criminal Division (McNeese) filed emergency
writs with the 3rd Circuit, arguing that they should not allow Judge Carter
to rule on Covington's preliminary injunction or motions to compel. |
|
1/25/2010 |
Covington's Response to Criminal
Division (McNeese's) Emergency Writs and Stay
Request |
Covington
prepares a 28 page, detailed response to McNeese's
emergency appeal of its failed attempt to have the judge removed from the Covington case. Covington argues that the recusal and the
subsequent emergency appeal are designed to further delay litigation in this
nine-year-old case. |
|
1/27/2010 |
3rd Circuit denies McNeese's Emergency Writs and Stay Request |
The appeals court denies the Criminal
Division (McNeese's) emergency writs, and the trial
judge remains on the case. |
|
|
McNEESE LOSES ITS EMERGENCY APPEAL OF ITS
UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE JUDGE REMOVED FROM THE CASE |
|
|
|
McNEESE FILES AN
EMERGENCY APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT, COMPLAINING THAT THE APPEALS COURT
SHOULDN'T HAVE DENIED ITS APPEAL OF ITS UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE
JUDGE REMOVED FROM THE CASE |
|
|
1/29/2010 |
Criminal Division (McNeese's)
Emergency Writ and Stay Request to the Supreme Court |
The Criminal
Division/McNeese appeals to the Louisiana Supreme
Court, arguing that Judge Carter, Judge Ware, and the appellate court all
incorrectly concluded that the Criminal Division/McNeese
did not have grounds to force Judge Carter's removal from the case |
|
2/1/2010 |
|
Covington argues to the Supreme Court
that these tactics are improper efforts to delay litigation |
|
|
|
|