City of Boerne vs Flores
The case was between a catholic bishop Flores and City of Boerne after the city authority denied the bishop the building permit to expand his missionary that had outgrown the current Structure. The bishop said that the city authority violated RFRA. The court withheld Boerne decision affirming that RFRA was against the constitution and its provision based on the bishop argument RFRA stands against contributing property law (Tobin, 2008).
The court was right to invalidate the civil right in this case. This is because the provision of any civil right Act should be in line with the constitution. The RFRA was struck by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional employment of congruence’s enforcement power. The enacted of RFRA did not follow the right constitutional procedure and that makes the enacted Act as unconstitutional. Court is guided by the constitution and thus, anything against it is against the law.
Gina like many other acts is employed to challenge the unfairness that has been imposed for a long time to the public. The appropriateness of this decision is also based on GINA purpose. GINA is developed to safeguard the public against unfair discriminations that are not mentioned in the constitution but can interfere with other laws protected by the constitution. Therefore just like RFRA GINA can be challenged by use of a constitution in the court of law (EEOC, 2008).
Kimel vs Florida Board of Regents,
The case was between Kimel Florida Board of regents for discriminating him and others on bases of age. Kimel sued the Board under ADEA act of 1967. However, the court ruled in favor of the board. The judge considered the enactment of ADEA by the congress as intent to subject states to suits for money destruction by private individuals. The court also quoted equal protection jurisdiction, which is in the constitution and which was supposed be observed at all cost (Tobin, 2008).
The court judgment in this case seems to be discriminative. The court seems to be undermining the congress effort of liberating the oppressed in the society. However, the court argument is highly based on the constitution and thus, it is hard to challenge the court. Although there is right for equal protection jurisdiction, the jurisdiction also creates a room for the most oppressed in the society based on gender, age and disabilities and thus, it would not be hard to include the old in the special group.
The appropriateness of this decision is also based on the purpose of GINA, especially it can also be viewed as a way of congress to allow for money destruction by private people. Enactment of GINA can be considered as a way of congress to oppress employers by making them maintain less resourceful works, and it can as well be ruled out under equal protection right jurisdiction (EEOC, 2008).
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama vs Garrett
This was a law suit between two university employees who considered themselves as disabled based on the ADA and discriminated by their employer based on their disabilities. However the suit was dismissed based on the claim that while enacting this act the congress lacked congruency and proportionality needed when it exercises its power under 14th amendment (Tobin, 2008).
The judgment in this case was discriminative. Although discrimination based on ones disability is recognized by the constitution, the judge dismissed the case based on inappropriateness of the congress while enacting the case and when scrutinizing disability. The court seems to disregard public civil rights which are relevant to show its supremacy over the congress.
GINA also seems to be more likely to suffer the same fate. The congruency and appropriateness of the congress while enacting the Act is very likely to be challenged based on other constitution ground that protects the employer and the insurance company from unnecessary liabilities, under equal rights jurisdiction (EEOC, 2008).