by Charles S.P. Hodge
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had accepted for review two ADA cases which, taken together, raised a constitutional challenge to both Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Both of the cases (one from Florida and the other from Arkansas), however, settled out of court, and the two cases were subsequently removed from the high court’s docket. Unfortunately, however, on April 17, the Supreme Court accepted two separate cases from Alabama which were consolidated for Supreme Court review and which once again raise the issue of whether Congress has gone beyond its proper authority (under Section Five of the 14th Amendment), by subjecting entities of state and local government to private party lawsuits in the federal courts under both Titles I and II of the ADA, in derogation of the states’ immunity under the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These consolidated cases are under the case name of University of Alabama et al v. Garrett et al.
The first of the two consolidated appeals involves a woman who, because of diagnosed breast cancer, was absent from her job at the University of Alabama while she went through about four months of chemotherapy to treat her illness. When she returned to work following the chemotherapy, she was involuntarily demoted and transferred to another job with less remuneration and diminished professional responsibilities and status.
The second case involves a long-time employee of the Alabama Department of Youth Services who was plagued with chronic asthma. After several unscheduled absences from work, the state agency dismissed the plaintiff.
In both cases, the state of Alabama was successful in having the plaintiffs’ ADA lawsuits dismissed at the trial court level on 11th Amendment grounds, but in both cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, Georgia, reversed the decisions of the trial courts and held that both Titles I and II of the ADA were constitutional.
The state of Alabama then sought Supreme Court review of the consolidated cases. The cases have been briefed over this summer, and oral arguments will be heard by the high court upon its return from summer recess, probably in late October or November. The cases will then be decided by the high court, with an opinion being anticipated about late March or April of 2001.
Stay tuned for further developments in this ADA legal melodrama. ACB will have a role to play in this ongoing saga, and we will keep you updated about developments as they occur, through the pages of “The Braille Forum,” and the Washington Connection, online and via phone.
An Editor’s Note: Further Developments
As “The Braille Forum” went to press, Melanie Brunson, ACB Director of Government Relations and Advocacy, posted the following information on ACB e-mail lists:
On August 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down a decision in Lavia v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, in which they held Congress lacked the power to abrogate the states’ 11th Amendment immunity when it enacted the ADA.
One quote that was forwarded to me earlier today is indicative (of their thinking): “While at times, states may have faltered in their efforts to eliminate discrimination against the disabled in employment, the broad sweep of the ADA is out of proportion to the discrimination to be remedied.”
The report which I received indicates that the opinion emphasizes that Congressional investigations have failed to prove significant state violations of the 14th Amendment rights of disabled people.
Brunson also noted ACB’s active involvement in defending the ADA in the Garrett case. The brief we signed onto in the Garrett case, she said, deals with the first of these contentions. It argues that, contrary to the claims being put forth by state petitioners, the state action prohibited by the ADA is also prohibited by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution itself. The “sweep” of the ADA is not as “broad” or “excessive” as the states contend. If this case is making the same argument that Alabama et al did in Garrett, the concept of “broad” is interpreted as being “in excess of” what would be prohibited by the Constitution. The brief argues that this is a wholly incorrect view of the law.