Replies

I am a disabled veteran and I found three of a particular agency Virginia offices where I was assigned were not in compliance with Government Regulations governing the handicap.

You sail past the constitutional issues. Can the federal government require the states to comply with acts such as the ADA? Constitutionally, no. There is no way to stretch the Commerce Clause (the usual basis for placing burdens on private employers) to cover the sovereign state governments.

The only way to coerce the states is through the spending powers. And even there, it is only coercion; the states can't be forced to go along.

See, for example, Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (201) " We decide here whether employees of the State of Alabama may recover money damages by reason of the State’s failure to comply with the provisions of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 330, 42 U.S.C. § 12111—12117.1 We hold that such suits are barred by the Eleventh Amendment."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1240.ZO.html

"We have recognized, however, that Congress may abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it both unequivocally intends to do so and “act[s] pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority.” 528 U.S., at 73. The first of these requirements is not in dispute here. See 42 U.S.C. § 12202 (“A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in [a] Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter”). The question, then, is whether Congress acted within its constitutional authority by subjecting the States to suits in federal court for money damages under the ADA.

"Congress may not, of course, base its abrogation of the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity upon the powers enumerated in Article I. See Kimel, supra, at 79 (“Under our firmly established precedent then, if the [Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967] rests solely on Congress’ Article I commerce power, the private petitioners in today’s cases cannot maintain their suits against their state employers”); Seminole Tribe, supra, at 72—73 (“The Eleventh Amendment restricts the judicial power under Article III, and Article I cannot be used to circumvent the constitutional limitations placed upon federal jurisdiction”); College Savings Bank, supra, at 672; Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 636 (1999); Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 730—733 (1999). In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), however, we held that “the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 456 (internal citation omitted). As a result, we concluded, Congress may subject nonconsenting States to suit in federal court when it does so pursuant to a valid exercise of its §5 power. See ibid. Our cases have adhered to this proposition. See, e.g., Kimel, supra, at 80. Accordingly, the ADA can apply to the States only to the extent that the statute is appropriate §5 legislation.3"

These are federal offices under the auspices of the US Government. They have steadfastly refused to comply to ADA laws and regulations. I did not mention that in one instances where I was required to have two wheelchairs (I could not get in the door and had to switch into the other chair) that someone vandalized my chair. This was a card secured building, meaning one had to use their personal card to gain entry to the building. Regular employees were barred entry after hours, holidays and weekends. The amount of damage to the chair made it clear the damage was not done during the day when employees were present. The agency stopped the MP’s from investigating and refused to reply for FOIA’s from the press and myself.