violating the ADA, any more than an employer’s refusal in the past to construct a women’s restroom would justify a refusal to hire female employees. The ADA allows an employer to adjust the workplace environment on a case-by-case basis, adopting only those changes that are reasonably necessary to refrain from discriminating against the disabled individual or individuals in question. The ADA hardly broke new ground when it incorporated this type of affirmative duty. The Equal Protection Clause often requires states to take affirmative measures to eliminate or prevent discriminatory systems. For example, states with racially discriminatory reapportionment plans must redraw their congressional districts. See, e.g., Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 652, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The logic of the University’s argument here
holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause holding that the states reapportionment plan might violate the equal protection clause holding that the cap does not violate equal protection holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection