The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Supreme Court Limits Americans With Disabilities Act

Feature Story by Tia Sumler - 3/6/2001

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court restricted the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act, holding that state employees are not able to sue their employers under the ADA. The 5-4 ruling in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, authored by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and issued February 21, 2001, states that Congress has no constitutional authority to subject states to individuals’ lawsuits. Under the ADA, damages are an important enforcement mechanism against discrimination.

The case involved two Alabama state employees with disabilities in Alabama — Patricia Garrett, a registered nurse with breast cancer who was given a lower-paying position after seeking treatment for her cancer, and Milton Ash, a security officer with asthma and sleep apnea who asserted his requests for accommodations for his conditions resulted in poor treatment by his employers.

The conservative majority, which in addition to Chief Justice Rehnquist included Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, found that states cannot be required "to make special accommodations for the disabled, so long as their actions toward such individuals are rational" and that the ADA’s legislative record fails to show that Congress identified a history and pattern of irrational employment discrimination by the States against the disabled."

Reacting to the decision, LCCR’s Wade Henderson said, “The Leadership Conference abhors discrimination in all forms. Discrimination based upon disability, particularly by a state, is absolutely intolerable. The decision in Garrett continues a disturbing line of reasoning from recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, in which the conservative majority curbs equal protections for the disabled and the aged under the guise of ‘states rights’. Garrett only furthers this shameful erosion of civil rights for all Americans by our nation's highest court.”

Prior rulings by the Court have asserted the principle of state sovereign immunity, holding that states are sovereign entities on par with the federal government and thus cannot be sued by individuals. The Court has said that the federal government can only abrogate this rule if its intent is clear, the evidence of discrimination is substantial and the remedy created by Congress is “congruent and proportional” to the harm done by the state. In the Garrett opinion, the Court said evidence of past abuses was not sufficient to trigger Congressional intervention.

In his dissenting opinion in Garrett, Justice Breyer said, "The legislative record bears out Congress’ finding that the adverse treatment of personal with disabilities was often arbitrary or invidious…" "It is difficult to see how the Court can find the legislative record here inadequate…the record indicates that state governments subjected those with
disabilities to seriously adverse, disparate treatment…"

LCCR’s Henderson noted, “While the Garrett decision is extremely disappointing… Employees can still sue under state laws, where damages may be available. Also, state employees may still file disability discrimination complaints with the Department of Justice or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who can sue states on their behalf and can seek money damages.” However, disability rights advocates remain concerned, saying many state laws do not provide the comprehensive protections contained in the ADA and the EEOC is already overburdened and under-funded.