From ADA Compliance Guide,
©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled
Feb. 22 that states may not be sued by individuals in federal court for
violations of Title I of the ADA (Board
of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 2001 WL 167628 (U.S.).
Jeffrey Rosen, the National Council on Disability´s general counsel and
director of policy, said, "We will not accept this decision passively. We will
start to mobilize and find recourses and actions to counter" the decision.
Patricia Garrett sued the
University of Alabama at Birmingham in federal district court for demoting her
due to her breast cancer, a violation, she claimed, of the ADA. Garrett´s case
was consolidated for appeal with the ADA claim of Milton Ash, who sued the
Alabama Department of Youth Services for failure to accommodate his asthma.
The district court ruled
that the claims could not be brought against Alabama in federal court because
of the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants states immunity
from such suits. The appeals court reversed, determining that Congress validly
nullified that immunity in the ADA by exercising its power under the 14th
Amendment. The 14th Amendment requires states to give equal protection of the
laws to all persons and permits the federal government to force the states to
do so. Alabama appealed this ruling.
No pattern of discrimination
In a 5-4 decision, the
Supreme Court ruled that Title I did not remedy any pattern of unconstitutional
discrimination by the states. While there
were accounts of such discrimination in a task force report submitted to
Congress before the ADA was enacted, the Court characterized them as
"unexamined" and "anecdotal."
The ADA´s reasonable
accommodation requirement far exceeds what is constitutionally required, the
Court said. In addition, the decision noted that in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (473 U.S. 432 (1985)),
the Court rejected the argument that state laws should be examined closely when
determining if they unconstitutionally discriminate against persons with
disabilities.
While states are immune from
individuals´ suits in federal court, localities are not, the Court explained.
Furthermore, the Justice Department may sue states in federal court for ADA
violations on an individual´s behalf. Other laws, including Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act and state statutes, prohibit states from discriminating
based on disability and states may be sued in state court.
Rosen
said that he was "very disappointed" by the Court´s decision, comparing it to
the "separate but equal" line of cases that preceded Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483 (1954)). "I´ve lived in
this country for 28 years prior to the ADA as a second-class citizen, which
provided me a ticket to full class citizenship. I do not take lightly"
reverting to the way things were prior to the ADA´s enactment, he remarked.
"This is a common sentiment among those in the disability rights community."
While individuals with
disabilities may sue under state statutes, Rosen said, "my ability to assert my
full breadth of citizenship now depends on where I live. ... I thought we´d
evolved from that."
In spite of the availability
of Justice Department actions and individuals´ continued ability to sue in
state courts, Rosen said the decision represents "a slippery slope" that will
encourage lower courts to interpret the ADA more narrowly. After the Supreme
Court narrowed the definition of "disability" in Sutton v. United Air Lines (527 U.S. 471 (1999)) and two other
decisions (Murphy v. United Parcel
Service, 527 U.S. 516 (1999), and Albertsons
v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999)), "there was a huge wave of negative
decisions narrowing the reach of the ADA," he noted.
However, Judith Gran,
director of disability projects at the Public Interest Law Center of
Philadelphia, predicted the decision will have a more limited impact.
"The good news is the Court limited the scope of its decision" to Title
I actions for damages against states as employers, she remarked. She noted that
the Court specifically decided not to rule on whether the nullification of
immunity under Title II of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination by
states and localities in the provision of public services, was invalid. Gran
described Title II as being by far the most "important of the ADA´s provisions
as regarding states."
Furthermore,
she emphasized that the Court´s decision does not apply to injunctive relief
against state officials. While the 11th Amendment makes nonconsenting states
immune from individuals´ lawsuits in federal courts, it does not shield state
officials who fail to comply with federal law in their official capacity.
"That´s very important," she emphasized.
The most damaging part of
the Court´s decision was not its treatment of the ADA, according to Gran, but
its assertion that there is no heightened level of scrutiny of the
constitutionality of laws affecting persons with disabilities. Previously the
Court had scrutinized laws affecting persons with disabilities more closely,
she said. Nevertheless, with the many remaining avenues of relief available to
individuals against states, Gran concluded, "I can´t say the sky has fallen."