Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/vermont/supreme-court/2006/op2004-503.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:03:58+00:00

Document:
Robert Appel, Executive Director, Montpelier, for Respondent-Appellee.
PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.
establishment that provided benefits or services to the general public.
applies to all public entities, including state prisons.
requested are material to the complaint.  Id. § 4553(a)(5).
Department's request for a stay, and this appeal followed.
& Protective Order of Elks, 2003 VT 104, ¶ 13, 176 Vt. 125, 839 A.2d 576.
Statutory Construction § 60:1, at 183 (6th ed. 2001)).
owns, leases, leases to or operates a place of public accommodation."  Id.
of "place of public accommodation."
standards, duties or requirements than that act.
"unmistakably includes State prisons and prisoners within its coverage."
local enforcement scheme provided in the Act.
basis of disability with respect to the services or benefits they offer.
Id. §§ 12181(7), 12182.  Thus, the ADA covers all public (i.e.
governmental) entities and all private entities serving the public.
owns, leases, leases to or operates a place of public accommodation."
set forth above.  Id. § 5.
hearing before the Senate General Housing and Military Affairs Committee.
include governmental entities as a place of public accommodation.
bill would make that clearer as well.
format, they had "telescoped" the provisions into one bill.
not be subject to differing state and federal standards.
public accommodations law, as the dissent suggests.
entities are places of public accommodation, consistent with the ADA.
would apply to them in general.
committee testimony that convincingly illustrated legislative intent).
as it has been amended over the years..
and evolution of the law.  As noted, Vermont's statute dates back to 1957.
covered by definition."  Order of Elks, 2003 VT 104, ¶ 15; see Roberts v.
"progressively broadened the scope of [their] public accommodations law . .
exclusively on dictionary definitions of the words "general" and "public"
Vt. 613, 833 A.2d 829 (mem.) (quoting Perry v. Med. Practice Bd., 169 Vt.
purpose and spirit of the law to determine legislative intent.").
determining which governmental entities are public.  Government is public.
Sutherland Statutory Construction § 48.01, at 302 (5th ed. 1992).
entertainment, as well as retail establishments and state facilities"
benefits or accommodations are offered to the general public.
public accommodation as defined by the statute.
Coll. Sales and Use Tax, 137 Vt. 28, 31, 400 A.2d 965, 967 (1979).
does not allow us to stretch the language beyond legislative intent."
Elkins v. Microsoft Corp., 174 Vt. 328, 331, 817 A.2d 9, 13 (2002).
or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, nation, or municipality."
duties and requirements" were to be construed consistently with the ADA.
Just as explicitly, however, the same declaration of "legislative intent"
statute's reach to facilities open to or serving "the general public."
the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7), but it did not do so.
Corrections commissioner), and the courts.
word or a phrase on behalf of the entire Legislature.
authorized to state that Chief Justice Reiber joins in this dissent.
refusing to serve any member of the general public.  See Hurley v.
Right to Exclude: Public Accommodations and Private Property, 90 Nw. U. L.
accommodations common law and listing state statutory enactments).
prisons fall squarely within the statutory definition of 'public entity,' "
their benefits.  See Chisolm v. Manimon, 97 F. Supp. 2d 615, 621-22 (D.N.J.
would find jails and prisons to be places of public accommodation); cf.
(holding that state correctional facilities are places of "public service"
incarcerated individuals are not members of the general public).
serving and providing benefits to the general public.
(2006).  See, e.g., Charbonneau v. Gorczyk, 2003 VT 105, ¶ 8, 176 Vt.
complaint against Commissioner of Corrections was governed by Title II).
the open community." 28 V.S.A. § 1(b).
Legislature may always revisit and revise its legislation.
FN6.  Vermont would not have been unique in making this distinction.
not fall within the jurisdiction of the state Human Rights Commission.
public."  Id. at 41.  In Blizzard v. Floyd, 613 A.2d 619, 620-21 (Pa.

References: § 4553
 § 60
 § 5
 v.

 v. 
 § 48
 v. 
 § 12181
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v.