Justices Limit Disability Law
Jo Nagels
Description
Collection
Title:
Justices Limit Disability Law
Creator:
Jo Nagels
Date:
2/23/2001
Text:
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:45 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court limited
the reach of the Americans With Disabilities Act, ruling Wednesday that
state workers cannot file employment-discrimination lawsuits against their
employers under the federal disability-rights law.
The 5-4 ruling, a further cutback of the
federal government's power over the states, said Congress exceeded its
authority when it let state workers file such claims under the 1990 law.
The federal law does not trump states' 11th
Amendment immunity against being sued in federal courts, the justices said.
``We decide here whether employees of the
state of Alabama may recover money damages by reason of the state's failure
to comply with the (employment discrimination) provisions of Title 1 of the
Americans With Disabilities Act. We hold that such suits are barred by the
11th Amendment,'' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.
The ruling in an Alabama case added to the
court's series of decisions that have increasingly tipped the federal-state
balance of power toward the states.
Those decisions have all featured the same
5-4 split among the justices, and that lineup was repeated in Wednesday's
decision.
Joining Rehnquist were Justices Sandra Day
O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Dissenting
were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
Stephen G. Breyer.
Writing for the four, Breyer said, ``The
court ... improperly invades a power that the Constitution assigns to
Congress.''
In January 2000, the justices barred state
workers from suing their employers in federal court under the federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act. That ruling said the law could not
override states' immunity against being sued in federal court.
The ADA is perhaps best known for requiring
wheelchair ramps in buildings across the country.
The law bans job discrimination against the
disabled, requiring employers to offer reasonable accommodations to disabled
people who are otherwise qualified to perform a job. It also bans
discrimination in the provision of government programs and services.
The law was signed by former President Bush,
who filed a court brief supporting two Alabama state employees who sued the
state. Bush said the ADA let disabled people ``pass through once-closed
doors into a bright new era of equality, independence and freedom.''
Wednesday's ruling reversed a federal
appeals court decision that let Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash sue over
alleged bias in their state jobs.
Garrett had been a University of Alabama
nurse for 17 years when she took a four-month leave to undergo surgery,
radiation and chemotherapy for breast cancer. When she returned, she said
she was ordered to take a lower-paying job or quit.
Her lawsuit said her supervisor made
negative comments about her illness. She took the lower-paying job and later
retired.
Ash, a security guard for the Alabama
Department of Youth Services, said his severe asthma was aggravated by the
agency's refusal to enforce its no-smoking policy or repair exhaust problems
on a vehicle he had to drive.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
the two could sue under the ADA, saying the law canceled the states'
constitutional immunity from being sued in federal court against their will.
The Supreme Court said Wednesday the appeals
court was wrong.
Rehnquist said examples offered in the case
of discrimination by states ``fall far short of even suggesting the pattern
of unconstitutional discrimination'' to justify legislation based on the
Constitution's 14th Amendment equal-protection guarantee.
``In order to authorize private individuals
to recover money damages against the states, there must be a pattern of
discrimination by the states ... and the remedy imposed by Congress must be
congruent and proportional to the targeted violation. Those requirements are
not met here,'' the chief justice said.
In contrast, Rehnquist wrote, Congress found
a ``marked pattern'' of racial discrimination by states when it enacted the
Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Breyer's dissent said Congress had found
about 300 examples of discrimination by state governments. ``Congress
expressly found substantial unjustified discrimination against persons with
disabilities,'' he said.
The case is University of Alabama v.
Garrett, 99-1240.
Filed at 10:45 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court limited
the reach of the Americans With Disabilities Act, ruling Wednesday that
state workers cannot file employment-discrimination lawsuits against their
employers under the federal disability-rights law.
The 5-4 ruling, a further cutback of the
federal government's power over the states, said Congress exceeded its
authority when it let state workers file such claims under the 1990 law.
The federal law does not trump states' 11th
Amendment immunity against being sued in federal courts, the justices said.
``We decide here whether employees of the
state of Alabama may recover money damages by reason of the state's failure
to comply with the (employment discrimination) provisions of Title 1 of the
Americans With Disabilities Act. We hold that such suits are barred by the
11th Amendment,'' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.
The ruling in an Alabama case added to the
court's series of decisions that have increasingly tipped the federal-state
balance of power toward the states.
Those decisions have all featured the same
5-4 split among the justices, and that lineup was repeated in Wednesday's
decision.
Joining Rehnquist were Justices Sandra Day
O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Dissenting
were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
Stephen G. Breyer.
Writing for the four, Breyer said, ``The
court ... improperly invades a power that the Constitution assigns to
Congress.''
In January 2000, the justices barred state
workers from suing their employers in federal court under the federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act. That ruling said the law could not
override states' immunity against being sued in federal court.
The ADA is perhaps best known for requiring
wheelchair ramps in buildings across the country.
The law bans job discrimination against the
disabled, requiring employers to offer reasonable accommodations to disabled
people who are otherwise qualified to perform a job. It also bans
discrimination in the provision of government programs and services.
The law was signed by former President Bush,
who filed a court brief supporting two Alabama state employees who sued the
state. Bush said the ADA let disabled people ``pass through once-closed
doors into a bright new era of equality, independence and freedom.''
Wednesday's ruling reversed a federal
appeals court decision that let Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash sue over
alleged bias in their state jobs.
Garrett had been a University of Alabama
nurse for 17 years when she took a four-month leave to undergo surgery,
radiation and chemotherapy for breast cancer. When she returned, she said
she was ordered to take a lower-paying job or quit.
Her lawsuit said her supervisor made
negative comments about her illness. She took the lower-paying job and later
retired.
Ash, a security guard for the Alabama
Department of Youth Services, said his severe asthma was aggravated by the
agency's refusal to enforce its no-smoking policy or repair exhaust problems
on a vehicle he had to drive.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
the two could sue under the ADA, saying the law canceled the states'
constitutional immunity from being sued in federal court against their will.
The Supreme Court said Wednesday the appeals
court was wrong.
Rehnquist said examples offered in the case
of discrimination by states ``fall far short of even suggesting the pattern
of unconstitutional discrimination'' to justify legislation based on the
Constitution's 14th Amendment equal-protection guarantee.
``In order to authorize private individuals
to recover money damages against the states, there must be a pattern of
discrimination by the states ... and the remedy imposed by Congress must be
congruent and proportional to the targeted violation. Those requirements are
not met here,'' the chief justice said.
In contrast, Rehnquist wrote, Congress found
a ``marked pattern'' of racial discrimination by states when it enacted the
Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Breyer's dissent said Congress had found
about 300 examples of discrimination by state governments. ``Congress
expressly found substantial unjustified discrimination against persons with
disabilities,'' he said.
The case is University of Alabama v.
Garrett, 99-1240.
Citation
Jo Nagels, “Justices Limit Disability Law,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 16, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/215909.
