Summary of Garrett v. University of Alabama
The Supreme Court's Decision on the Constitutionality of the ADA
Barry C. Taylor Legal Advocacy Director, Equip for Equality, Inc.
State Immunity under the 11th Amendment
The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment (Title I), state and local governments programs (Title II) and public accommodations (Title III). Although the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits Congress to pass laws to prevent discriminatory actions by states, the 11th Amendment has been interpreted to provide states with immunity from private lawsuits in federal court unless the federal legislation remedies or prevents a problem of unconstitutional state action, and the legislation is deemed proportional and a reasonable response to the problem it is intended to remedy or prevent. In recent years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the states' immunity under the 11th Amendment quite broadly.
The Facts of the Garrett Case
The Garrett case is the consolidation of two ADA employment discrimination cases by state employees against two separate state defendants. In one, state university employee Patricia Garrett alleged that her employer violated the ADA by demoting and then firing her from her position as a supervising nurse after she was treated for breast cancer. In the other case, Milton Ash alleged that the Alabama Department of Human Services violated the ADA by failing to reasonably accommodate his asthma by not enforcing the agency's no-smoking rule. Both sought money damages in their ADA lawsuits. In both cases, the State of Alabama argued that it is immune from suit because Congress exceeded its authority by applying the ADA to state entities.
The Supreme Court's Decision
In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that suits in federal court by state employees to recover money damages under Title I of the ADA are barred by the 11th Amendment. The majority held that although Congress clearly stated its intention for states to be subject to ADA employment discrimination suits, the ADA's legislative record fails to show that Congress identified a history and pattern of irrational employment discrimination by the states against people with disabilities. The Court stated that the legislative history indicated that Congress targeted the ADA at employment discrimination in the private sector.
Implications of the Supreme Court's Ruling in Garrett
- State employers are no longer subject to private federal ADA Title I employment discrimination suits seeking money damages. The result of the Supreme Court's decision is that employees with disabilities who work for state employers have fewer civil rights protections than employees with disabilities who work for private or local governmental employers.
- States are still subject to ADA Title I employment discrimination suits seeking non-monetary relief. The Supreme Court expressly held that state employees can bring ADA actions in federal court when seeking injunctive relief, such as reasonable accommodations, promotions or reinstatement.
- States are still subject to Title I employment discrimination suits in federal court for money damages brought by the United States. The Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can still bring ADA actions for money damages against the states.
- Private and local governmental employers are still subject to Title I employment discrimination suits in federal court. The Supreme Court did not extend the 11th Amendment immunity beyond state entities.
- States are still subject to ADA claims under Title II The Supreme Court expressly declined to address the constitutionality of Title II of the ADA, which covers programs and services provided by state and local governmental entities. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Illinois, recently ruled that states also cannot be sued for money damages under Title II, but as in Garrett, state officials can be sued under Title II in their official capacity for non-monetary relief.
- States are still subject to the Supreme Court's ruling in Olmstead. Garrett does not affect the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead that unjustified institutionalization is discrimination under the ADA. Olmstead cases typically seek non-monetary relief that Garrett said is still available under the ADA.
- States are still subject to federal disability lawsuits under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. In Garrett, plaintiffs only sued under the ADA. Although the Supreme Court did not address the Rehab Act, the Seventh Circuit has held that, unlike the ADA, private individuals can bring suits in federal court against states under the Rehab Act, as it is legislation under Congress' spending power.
- People with disabilities can still bring private suits in state court against state entities under state law and the ADA (See, Erickson v. Board of Governors, 207 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2000)), although there may be state immunity issues.
Questions? Call Equip for Equality at (800) 537-2632 (v) or (800) 610-2779 (TTY)
