 |
|||||
 |
|||||
| [Click here to unsubscribe] | |||||
 |
|||||
PLEASE WRITE AND CALL YOUR SENATOR AND TELL THEM TO OPPOSE SUTTON
|
|||||
 |
By the narrowest of margins (5-4), the Supreme Court ruled on February 21, 2001 that state employees can no longer sue their employers for money damages under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case, University of Alabama v. Garrett, had challenged the constitutionality of the ADA. In ruling in favor of the state of Alabama, the Court held that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to waive the state’s “sovereign immunity,” which is protected by the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. ADA WATCH is joining the effort to encourage states to voluntarily waive their immunity. This will allow state employees with disabilities to share the same employment protections that all other Americans are afforded under the ADA.
List of Organizations & Individuals Demanding State Compliance with the ADA Sign the Petition and Tell States to Comply with the ADA
ADA WATCH is gathering the names of organizations and individuals in who want states to comply with the ADA.
Add your name and/or the name of your organization to this petition.
Sign the Petition and Tell States to Comply with the ADA
Put your name and/or organization on the list of national, state and local groups asking states to waive “sovereign immunity” and comply with the ADA. Sign the Petition to the States.
Supreme Court Issues Ruling in University of Alabama v. Garrett
(Prepared by the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems)
By the narrowest of margins (5-4), the Supreme Court ruled on February 21, 2001 that state employees can no longer sue their employers for money damages under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case, University of Alabama v. Garrett, had challenged the constitutionality of the ADA. In ruling in favor of the state of Alabama, the Court held that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to waive the state’s “sovereign immunity,” which is protected by the Eleventh Amendment.
The Decision
The Garrett case involved two Alabama state employees – Patricia Garrett, a registered nurse with breast cancer, and Milton Ash, a corrections officer with severe asthma. Both suffered job discrimination because of their disabilities, and both sued the state for money damages. In concluding that Congress did not have the authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to waive the states' immunity, the Court applied a two-part test: (1) whether the ADA was designed to remedy a history of unconstitutional conduct, and (2) whether the remedy contained in the statute -- for example, requiring states to make reasonable accommodations -- was "proportionate" to the history of constitutional violations. The Court first found that at the time the ADA was enacted, there was insufficient evidence before Congress of unconstitutional employment discrimination by the states to justify Congress’ exercise of its 14th Amendment powers. According to the majority, it was not enough for Congress to take account of general societal discrimination against people with disabilities. Instead, Congress needed to demonstrate that the states themselves had been engaged in a "pattern of unconstitutional discrimination." The Court dismissed the massive legislative record compiled by Congress as “unexamined, anecdotal accounts” that were not entitled to the status of “legislative findings.”
The Court further found that even if there had been a sufficient record of discrimination, the remedies set forth in the ADA far exceeded that which was required to remedy unconstitutional state conduct. The Court noted that in determining what constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, discrimination on the basis of disability is only entitled "rational basis" scrutiny. Moreover, according to the Court, differential treatment on the basis of disability generally has at least some "rational" basis and, therefore, would not violate the Constitution. As Chief Justice Rehnquist explained, it would be "entirely rational and therefore constitutional for a state employer to conserve scarce financial resources by hiring employees who are able to use existing facilities" without the accommodations that the ADA requires for those who need them.
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Breyer found that "the legislative record bears out Congress' finding that the adverse treatment of persons with disabilities was often arbitrary or invidious . . . [and] indicates that state governments subjected those with disabilities to seriously adverse, disparate treatment. . . " The dissent also found that the majority opinion "improperly invade[d] a power that the Constitution assigns to Congress."
The Implications
The Garrett decision continues this Supreme Court's trend of chipping away at federal civil rights protections in the name of states' rights. As a result, it raises disturbing questions regarding the future validity of Title II and other disability rights statutes. Nevertheless, the immediate implications of the decision are somewhat limited. While the decision rolls back the protections afforded by Congress, it affects only the ability of people with disabilities to sue state employers in federal court for money damages in employment discrimination cases.
– The decision does not prevent individual suits against a state employer for injunctive relief. Under a legal doctrine called Ex Parte Young, individuals may still sue state employers to remedy violations of Title I. Examples of injunctive relief might be a court order reinstating an employee who was fired in violation of Title I; a court order requiring an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation; or a court order requiring the employer to change a policy that violates Title I.
– The decision does not bar suits initiated by the federal government for money damages. The United States may still bring enforcement actions against state employers for violations of Title I, and it may still seek money damages.
– The decision likewise does not bar suits for money damages against local governments or private employers. The Court made clear that the Eleventh Amendment does not extend its immunity to units of local government. Individuals may still file Title I damage actions against local government employers (e.g., counties, cities, and their departments). In addition, the decision in no way affects suits against private employers.
– The decision does not currently affect the validity of Title II of the ADA. The Garrett Court explicitly declined to rule on the constitutionality of Title II, which applies to state and local government programs or activities. While we anticipate future challenges to the constitutionality of Title II, the Olmstead decision and other similar decisions were not directly impacted by the Supreme Court’s ruling.
– There continue to be other legal avenues for pursuing employment discrimination claims against the state. Individuals are still able to bring employment discrimination claims for money damages under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance. In addition, individuals may still bring actions in state court under state anti-discrimination laws. Note, however, that state law protections may not be as broad as those in the ADA.
In sum, while Garrett represents a significant blow to the rights of people with disabilities, the majority of legal prohibitions against disability discrimination remain. Garrett's long term implications, however, are far less clear. Defendants have challenged -- and will continue to challenge -- the constitutional underpinnings of Title II of the ADA and Section 504, as well as the ability to seek relief under Ex Parte Young. Given the Garrett Court's analysis, it is possible that some of these challenges will prevail.