Delaware Assistive Technology Initiative

	Vol. 9, No. 1 Winter 2001	Previous Issues Subscribe to AT Messenger Download PDF Viewer
	PDF Version (for printing) Text Version

U.S. Supreme Court Scrutinizes Americans with Disabilities Act

by Daniel Atkins, Legal Advocacy Director
Disabilities Law Program, Community Legal Aid Society, Inc.

In a case that was argued in the United States Supreme Court on October 11, 2000, the validity of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") was called into question. The ADA is the federal law passed in 1990 which protects people with disabilities from discrimination in employment (Title I), the receipt of government or public services (Title II), and places of public accommodation (Title III). University of Alabama v. Garrett involves two lawsuits against the state of Alabama that were consolidated. Both cases were filed pursuant to Title II of the ADA-the public services provision-and both involve people with physical disabilities. However, the scope of the Court's decision will certainly reach people with mental disabilities, and may go beyond just Title II, as well.

The Cases

The first lawsuit against Alabama was filed by Patricia Garrett, a nurse director of The University of Alabama Medical Center's Women's Division, who developed breast cancer and alleged that her employer violated the ADA and the Family Medical Leave Act. Ms. Garrett underwent surgery for removal of a lump and lymph nodes and endured two months of radiation treatment and nine months of chemotherapy. Believing that work was an important part of her recovery, Ms. Garrett scheduled radiation treatments in the early mornings and chemotherapy on Friday afternoons, in order to minimize disruption to her work schedule. Her supervisor, however, pressured her to take a leave of absence, and ultimately forced Ms. Garrett to transfer to a position that resulted in a demotion and a decrease in salary of $13,000 per year.

In the second lawsuit, Morton Ash sued Alabama under the ADA for failing to accommodate his disability. Mr. Ash, a correctional officer, suffered from severe asthma for more than 30 years. He also has obstructive pulmonary disease, sleep apnea and diabetes mellitus. He has been hospitalized several times during the last five years as a result of asthma attacks and regularly has to use a respirator and oxygen mask. Mr. Ash's employer was made aware of his conditions when he was hired, and soon after he began work, Mr. Ash complained that vehicles he was required to drive were leaking carbon monoxide and causing him respiratory distress. Mr. Ash also complained that failure to enforce a no-smoking policy was harming him.

The state of Alabama argues that it is immune from suit under the ADA by Garrett and Ash because, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the ADA cannot subject states to suits for money damages by private individuals. Garrett and Ash argue that there exists a legacy of discrimination against individuals with disabilities and a long history of states' failure to protect individuals with disabilities from that discrimination. Congress, therefore, explicitly and appropriately waived states' sovereign immunity pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees all citizens equal protection and due process of law.

Implications of the Case

If Alabama prevails, at the very least the public employment provision of Title II of the ADA could cease to be enforceable by private citizens through damage actions. However, a more sweeping decision could reach 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 Garrett plaintiffs it might also, in a later case, declare Section 504 unconstitutional. Even more disturbing is the possibility, however remote, that the Court could call into question the constitutionality of the entire ADA. A recent Supreme Court decision, Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, just struck down the private enforcement mechanism of the Age Discrimination Enforcement Act because the Court was not convinced that age discrimination is pernicious nor sufficiently related to state conduct to warrant Congressional action under the Fourteenth Amendment. Alabama, of course, is arguing that the ADA and discrimination against people with disabilities is identical in nature and degree to discrimination against the elderly.

Consumers and advocates for people with disabilities have a whole lot to lose in Garrett, and not a whole lot to gain. The best that can be hoped for when the Court issues its decision in 2001 is an affirmance of the validity of the ADA. However, that will not provide people with any additional rights, but will merely maintain the status quo. The worst is almost unfathomable. To think that the Supreme Court could eviscerate an important enforcement mechanism of the ADA, and grant states immunity from lawsuits when they are violating the ADA, is disquieting. Individuals with disabilities could be left at the mercy of states to voluntarily comply with the law, or pass beefed-up state laws offering protection. That is not a good position to be in, not in the 21st century, when we all may have taken for granted that the ADA was here to stay. With one Supreme Court opinion, people with disabilities may be forced to take one long roll backwards.