State Employees May Not Bring ADA Suit in Federal Court

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court, held that two employees could not sue the State of Alabama in federal court for handicap discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. sections 12111 through 12117. [Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 2001 WL 173556].

The Plaintiffs sued two state agencies, alleging discrimination in violation of the ADA. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the issue of whether an individual may sue a State for money damages in federal court under the ADA.

Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, nonconsenting states may not be sued by private individuals in federal court. However, Congress may negate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity “when it unequivocally intends to do so and acts pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority.” Therefore, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether Congress acted within its constitutional authority by subjecting the states to suits in federal court for money damages under the ADA.

The Supreme Court looked to the Fourteenth Amendment to see if the ADA is appropriate legislation. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from denying a person equal protection. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce Section 1 by enacting appropriate legislation. Therefore, the Supreme Court had to determine whether the ADA is appropriate legislation under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In determining that the ADA is not appropriate legislation under section 5, the Supreme Court first noted that Congress’ authority under section 5 can only be exercised in response to state transgressions. However, the Supreme Court determined that the legislative record does not show that Congress identified a pattern of irrational state discrimination in employment against the disabled. Although Congress made a general finding regarding employment of persons with disabilities and referred to specific incidents of discrimination, the Supreme Court determined that the incidents for the most part did not deal with the activities of states. Furthermore, even though a few of the incidents did deal with states, the Supreme Court determined that the incidents fell short of suggesting the pattern of unconstitutional discrimination necessary for section 5 legislation.

The Supreme Court, therefore, held that, because there was not a pattern of discrimination by the States which violates section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could not impose liability against Alabama for employment discrimination under the ADA in federal court.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court limited its ruling to ADA claims against states; local government units may be subject to private federal claims for damages under the ADA. Additionally, California has its own statutory version of the ADA, which applies to school districts and other local agencies.