University of Alabama v. Garrett

Update: Eleventh Circuit Rules on Section 504 Damage Claims

Washington, DC (Sept. 24, 2003) – On September 11, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the remanded case of Garrett v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama that individuals can sue a state agency for money damages under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Read the press release on the decision.

ADA Ruling in Garrett

On Wednesday, February 21, 2001, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that suits in federal court by state employees to recover money damages under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The case, University of Alabama v. Garrett, challenged the ADA's constitutionality.

The Alabama Attorney General had argued that parts of the federal law—known as the "Civil Rights Act for people with disabilities"—violate states' rights. In their briefs to the Supreme Court, lawyers for individuals with disabilities and friends of the court contended that states' history of discrimination based on disability was so egregious that Congress had the power to override state sovereignty.

The majority opinion makes clear that individuals with disabilities still have federal recourse against state employment discrimination. "Title I of the ADA still prescribes standards applicable to the states. Those standards can be enforced by the United States in actions for money damages, as well as by private individuals in actions for injunctive relief under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)..." (Footnote 9). A dissenting opinion by Justice Breyer explains that this decision is a major departure from past jurisprudence and misunderstands the role of Congress as opposed to the courts.

• The decision
• May 2001 issue of Ragged Edge magazine: States have begun enacting laws to undo the damage.
• Briefs in the case

The Case

The Garrett case is really two cases that were combined at the trial level. Patricia Garrett sued the University of Alabama's medical center in Birmingham for demoting and then transferring her from her position as a supervising nurse after she was treated for breast cancer. In the other case, Milton Ash, a corrections officer with asthma, sued Alabama's youth corrections agency for failing to accommodate him by enforcing the agency's no-smoking rule and servicing the cars he is required to drive, which emit noxious fumes.

In both suits, the state argued that Congress lacks the power to require states to pay money damages for injuries caused when states violate the ADA. The trial judge accepted Alabama's argument, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the trial judge's decision.⁽¹⁾  The appellate court found that Congress has the power, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to require states to pay money damages for violations of the ADA. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed after the Civil War, guarantees all citizens equal protection of the law and due process of law.

What Is at Stake

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently been attentive to arguments based on "states' rights." Last year, the court ruled in Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents that Congress lacked the power to require states to pay damages for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).⁽²⁾ Many commentators believed the Supreme Court to be poised to declare as unconstitutional similar provisions in the ADA.⁽³⁾

Although the two cases combined in Garrett involve plaintiffs with physical disabilities, the potential impact of the Supreme Court's decision is of equal—and very grave—concern to people with mental disabilities. An adverse decision could have reached beyond the ADA's protections governing public employment to eliminate all of Title II, which bans discrimination in access to public services such as education, health and mental health care, and other programs operated by states and localities. Furthermore, while Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act imposes similar obligations on states and localities when federal funds are involved, if the court were to rule against the ADA it might also, in a later case, declare Section 504 unconstitutional.

To be sure, states could adopt laws with the same protections. However, history suggests that this is unlikely. The ADA was enacted in 1990 precisely because states had refused to adopt appropriate legal protections against discrimination based on disability. People with disabilities worked too long and too hard to enact the ADA, only to see it succumb to a "states' rights" argument.

The Legal Issues

The precise question before the Supreme Court was: "Does the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bar suits by private citizens in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states?"

Under the Supreme Court's current approach, the question of whether a particular civil rights statute exceeds Congress' power largely depends on two factors: (1) whether, when the statute was enacted, there was a significant problem of unconstitutional discrimination, and (2) whether the requirements of the statute are proportionate and reasonable responses to the problem that Congress sought to remedy. We believe that the ADA passes muster under both tests.

The Bazelon Center participated in the brief for Ms. Garrett and Mr. Ash. Other amicus briefs were filed by states, advocacy groups, consumers, historians, law professors, members of Congress—even former President Bush—to present these arguments. The briefs are available online.