Below are two letters which were sent by Equip for Equality to the 50 disability-related organizations which signed onto earlier letters sent by EFE to Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan:May 12, 2000
Re: Constitutional Challenges to the ADA
Dear Colleague:
Previously, your organization, along with 50 other organizations, agreed to join in a letter that Equip for Equality sent to Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan asking that he not sign onto a Supreme Court amicus brief that supports a finding that the ADA is unconstitutional. As we reported in our March 9th letter to you, our request became moot because the two cases pending before the Supreme Court settled.
As you may be aware, the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear another ADA case, Garrett v. University of Alabama, that calls into question the constitutionality of the ADA. Garrett is actually two consolidated employment discrimination cases filed against the state of Alabama, one involving a woman with breast cancer and the other involving a man with severe asthma. At issue is whether Congress had the constitutional authority under the 14th Amendment to enact the ADA. If the Supreme Court says Congress did not, individuals may no longer be able to use the ADA to challenge in federal court employment discrimination by the state. A negative ruling could also call into question the constitutionality of Title II of the ADA, as well as other disability rights statutes. Oral argument will take place in the fall, but the case will be briefed this summer.
We have learned that the Minnesota Attorney General will be filing an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of the plaintiffs in Garrett arguing that states should not be immune from ADA employment discrimination suits. We are planning to send a letter to Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan, as we did for the other Supreme Court cases, asking that he sign onto this "pro-ADA" brief. We will also be asking him to decline to sign onto any brief that supports Alabama's efforts to undercut the protections of the ADA.
(A draft of our letter to the Attorney General is attached.)
As you may have read, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued two decisions similar to Garrett that held that states are immune from ADA employment discrimination suits in federal court. In one of those cases, Stevens v. Illinois Department of Transportation, the Illinois Attorney General served as counsel and successfully raised the 11th Amendment immunity defense. We, along with others in the disability community, were unaware of this case until the opinion was issued by the 7th Circuit. In response to this decision, Chicago ADAPT conducted an action in the lobby of the Attorney General's office expressing their displeasure with his actions. As a direct result of this action, the Attorney General agreed to meet with Chicago ADAPT and other disability advocates to discuss his actions in the Stevens case.
The meeting with the Attorney General took place on May 11th and was a very productive meeting. The Attorney General acknowledged that his General Litigation office had not consulted with Disability Policy Advisor Elaine Hoff before making the 11th Amendment argument. Mr. Ryan also expressed his support of the ADA and his interest in working closer with the disability community. We asked him for a variety of commitments, including a request that he sign onto the Minnesota Attorney General's amicus brief. He agreed to carefully consider our request and advise accordingly.
Our letter to the Attorney General will reaffirm the issues raised in the May 11th meeting, as well as emphasize that over 50 disability organizations are concerned about the impact the Stevens case will have on the viability of the ADA. We will be sending this letter on May 19th. Unless we hear from you before May 19th, we will keep your organization on the list of those supporting the letter we are sending.
In addition to the letter we are sending, organizations and individuals should feel free to send their own letters to the Attorney General's office and request that he sign onto the Minnesota Attorney General's amicus brief, or at least, not sign onto to any brief supporting the state of Alabama.
Thank you again for your support of this effort to preserve the protections of the ADA. As we prepare to celebrate the 10th Anniversary of the ADA, it would be heartening to get a positive response from the Attorney General on this important issue.
If you have any questions about the letter to the Attorney General, the case before the Supreme Court or the 7th Circuit cases, feel free to contact Legal Advocacy Director Barry Taylor or Litigation Director Karen Ward.
Sincerely, Zena Naiditch Equip for Equality
Via Facsimile (217) 785-2551May 19, 2000
Attorney General Jim Ryan 500 South Second Street Springfield, IL 62706-1771
Re: Amicus Brief in Support of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Dear Attorney General Ryan:
The purpose of this letter is to request that you sign onto an amicus brief by the Minnesota Attorney General to be submitted to the United States Supreme Court in Garrett v. University of Alabama. The brief will urge the Supreme Court to hold that Title II of the ADA is constitutional. It is our understanding that the brief will be focused narrowly on the issue of the constitutionality of the ADA, and will certainly preserve a state's right to raise 11th Amendment challenges in other contexts.
We also want to thank you for meeting with Chicago ADAPT and other disability rights advocates on May 11th. As we discussed at that meeting, the disability community is very concerned that the protections of the ADA are at serious risk in the Garrett case. You agreed to carefully consider signing onto the Minnesota Attorney General's brief. You also indicated that you would consider our request to not sign onto a brief that supports the state of Alabama's efforts to undercut the protections of the ADA.
As in our previous letters to you about the 11th Amendment, this letter is written on behalf of over 50 disability and civil rights organizations across the state of Illinois. A list of all of these organizations is attached to this letter. The large number of participants demonstrates the seriousness of this issue to the disability community.
As we outlined in our previous correspondence, the ADA provides vital uniform federal protection for people with disabilities throughout the country. Depending on the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling, states may no longer be required to comply with the ADA's mandate against employment discrimination, the ADA's integration mandate, or the requirement that state programs be accessible. This would have disastrous results for people with disabilities, and may also result in overburdening state systems currently in place to address disability issues.
If you have any questions about our request, please have your staff contact Legal Advocacy Director Barry Taylor or Litigation Director Karen Ward at (312) 341-0022 so that we can discuss this issue in more detail. We would also ask that you provide us with a written response to our request so that we can forward your decision to all of the organizations supporting this letter.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely, Zena Naiditch Equip for Equality
cc: Joel D. Bertocchi, Esq. Elaine Hoff