Mr. Ferleger provides representation before the Supreme Court of the United States for those seeking or opposing Court review. He has extensive experience before the Supreme Court. (links provided for argued cases only)
Segways at Walt Disney World. Representing Disability Rights Advocates for Technology (DRAFT), which gifts Segways to American soldiers permanently disabled in Iraq and Afghanistan, and individuals with disabilities, Mr. Ferleger challenged a Walt Disney World policy against Segway use by people with mobility disabilities. The challenge was unsuccessful in court, but the United States Justice Department later issued new generous national standards on Segway use in any public accommodation. Jerry Miller v. Walt Disney World Co. (2013).
Access to Sidewalks and Government Services. Mr. Ferleger successfully defended a landmark ruling establishing access to sidewalks and government services for people with mobility challenges; the Supreme Court declined to hear a city’s appeal. Mr. Ferleger then negotiated a first of its kind settlement providing a multi-year city construction effort, priorities for future construction, and a complaint resolution process. City of Arlington, Texas v. Richard Frame (2012).
Restaurants. Mr. Ferleger was retained as lead counsel in the Supreme Court and successfully defended a major decision guaranteeing all customers of Chipolte Mexican Grill non-discriminatory access to its food counter experience. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. Maurizio Antoninetti (2011)
Employment Discrimination. Mr. Ferleger was retained to challenge a court of appeals decision against a man with developmental disabilities who had been denied employment by Wal-Mart. The Supreme Court did not grant review. Charles Irvin Littleton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007).
Bomb Threat Evacuation from School. Mr. Ferleger was retained to challenge a court of appeals decision against a public school student, who was a dwarf, who had been left behind in a school otherwise evacuated after a bomb threat. The Supreme Court did not grant review. Shirey v. City of Alexandria Sch. Bd. (2000).
Civil Rights Damages for Exposure to Asbestos. Having first been appointed in the court of appeals, Mr. Ferleger successfully represented a prisoner seeking the right to an opportunity to recover damages for exposure to asbestos. The Supreme Court granted the request and sent the case back to the lower courts. Fontroy v. Owens, 510 U.S. 1033 (1994).
Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity. In this case which Mr. Ferleger argued two times before the Supreme Court, he represented the original plaintiff class from the outset this landmark case which had addressed the rights of people with developmental disabilities. In this Supreme Court 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the established authority of federal courts to address state law claims against state authorities. Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984).
Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act. Representing the original plaintiff class in this landmark case, Mr. Ferleger argued before the Court, defending the application of this federal law to protection of the rights and dignity of people with developmental disabilities living in institutions. The Supreme Court held otherwise. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981).
Class Action Rules. Mr. Ferleger represented the plaintiff class and argued before the Court in this case in which he had also been appointed guardian ad litem of the approximately 6,000 juvenile class members. Not addressing the merits of Due Process rights in mental health cases, The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court to consider certain class action law issues. Kremens v. Bartley, 431 U.S. 119 (1977).
Firefighter Employment Age Discrimination. Mr. Ferleger was co-counsel on a friend of the court brief in the Supreme Court in this case on age discrimination regarding firefighters. Johnson v. Balt, 472 U.S. 353 (1985).
Due Process for Children. Mr. Ferleger represented plaintiffs, and argued before the Court, in a Due Process challenge to civil commitments of children. The Court concluded that a neutral factfinder must determine whether admission is justified, and that Due Process requires periodic review. Secretary of Public Welfare v. Institutionalized Juveniles, 442 U.S. 640 (1979).