Summary of Garrett v. University of Alabama -
The U. S. Supreme Court's Review of the Constitutionality of the ADABarry C. Taylor
Legal Advocacy Director
Equip for Equality, Chicago, ILA. State Immunity under the 11th Amendment
The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities by private employers (Title I), state and local governments (Title II) and public accommodations (Title III). However, recent decisions by the Supreme Court and several circuit courts of appeals have called into question the continued viability of bringing ADA claims in federal courts against state entities. These decisions rely upon the 11th Amendment, which provides States with immunity from private lawsuits in federal court. Although the 14th Amendment permits Congress to pass laws to prevent discriminatory actions by States, such legislation will only be deemed valid when it remedies or prevents unconstitutional state action, and the legislation is deemed proportional to the evil it is intended to remedy or prevent.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the States' immunity under the 11th Amendment quite broadly. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court held that the 11th Amendment bars federal claims of age discrimination against State defendants. Relying on this decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, recently held that people with disabilities could not bring ADA claims against State entities in federal court. In Garrett v. University of Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether States are subject to ADA suits in federal court.
B. The Facts of the Garrett Case
The Garrett case is the consolidation of two ADA employment discrimination cases against two separate state defendants. In one, state university employee Patricia Garrett alleges 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 alleges 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. In both cases, the State of Alabama has argued that the ADA is unconstitutional because Congress exceeded its authority by applying the ADA to state entities. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the 11th Amendment bars ADA suits by private citizens in federal court. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in this case on October 11, 2000. The Court's decision could come anytime between the completion of oral argument and the end of the Court's term in June 2001.
C. � � The Work of Advocates in Illinois
To support the plaintiffs' claims in the Garrett case, the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota agreed to write an amicus (friend of the court) brief arguing that the 11th Amendment does not provide States with immunity from ADA suits in federal court. The Minnesota Attorney General wanted as many States as possible to sign onto the brief to demonstrate to the Supreme Court that even though State Attorneys General are responsible for defending States in ADA cases, a significant number of them believe that the ADA applies to State entities.
Equip for Equality, in conjunction with 50 other organizations, sent a letter to Illinois Attorney General Ryan requesting that he sign onto the Minnesota brief. Also, Chicago ADAPT staged an action that led to a meeting of disability advocates with the Attorney General on this important issue. On July 26th, the 10th anniversary of the ADA, Attorney General Ryan announced that Illinois would sign onto the Minnesota brief in the Garrett case. Ultimately, a total of 14 States signed onto the Minnesota brief.
D. Implications of an Adverse Supreme Court Ruling
The Garrett case addresses ADA employment discrimination claims against the State. Depending on the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling in Garrett, the Court's decision could mean:
� � � � State employers may no longer be subject to federal ADA suits for failing to comply with the ADA's mandate against employment discrimination. � This would lead to the absurd result that employees who work for private employers or for local or federal government employers would have more civil rights protections than state governmental employers. As a result, state employers would not be subject to federal ADA lawsuits for refusing to hire people with disabilities or failing to provide employees with disabilities with reasonable accommodations.
� � � � States may no longer be subject to federal ADA suits for failing to comply with the ADA's integration mandate. People who are unjustifiably institutionalized in state hospitals and nursing homes may no longer have recourse against the State under the ADA in federal court. In short, the Supreme Court's decision in Garrett could undo its prior ruling in Olmstead.
� � � � States may no longer be subject to federal ADA suits for failing to make its buildings and services accessible. State capitols, state courts, and state universities that do not provide wheelchair ramps, sign language interpreters and materials in accessible formats would be immune from federal ADA lawsuits.
Questions? Call Equip for Equality at (800) 537-2632 (V) or (800) 610-2779 (TTY)