Supreme Court Limits ADA Application to States

February 2001

You've probably heard that the Supreme Court recently ruled to limit the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to state governments. This decision is a blow to all people with disabilities, including those with hearing loss. But given the recent conservative tendencies of the Supreme Court in most decisions, it was not unexpected.

There have been various reports in the press regarding this decision and what it means. Some stories contend that this law forbids state workers from suing their employers or from filing employment discrimination suits. When the smoke finally clears on this, I think the consensus will be that this decision only prevents state employees from suing the state for monetary damages. As I understand it, state workers will retain their right to sue without seeking financial damages, and the Federal government can still sue the states to enforce the ADA.

Note that this decision has nothing to do with the applicability of the ADA to private organizations.

(BTW, I'm not an attorney, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. If one of the attorneys on this list would like to comment or clarify, I'd be happy to publish your remarks).

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reader Response to Supreme Court ADA Decision

March 2001

Editor: Last week's newsletter contained an article on the recent Supreme Court decision that eliminates the ability for individuals to sue states for monetary damages under the ADA. Patricia Cook, DMD (User699832@aol.com) was involved in a suit that was impacted by this decision. Here are her comments:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am not an attorney either. However, I just had a case that was to go to trial against the State of Florida. It was settled one week before trial. It was a discrimination case.

The fear of this Supreme Court ruling was a contributing factor for my settling for substantially less than my case was worth. The state attorney vowed to appeal should I have won in trial and my case would still be on appeal at this time. Should that had happened, my entire case would have been thrown out. I would have gotten nothing...nada....zilch.

From what my attorney told me, I could have still sued in state court rather than federal. The problem with that is that should I lose, I would automatically be responsible for the other side's attorney fees and court cost. This is mandatory. In a sense, it wouldn't have been worth it to me as that expense alone would have left me worse off than the actual discrimination did. Further, the cap in the state of Florida was $100,000 as opposed to $350,000 in Federal court.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reader Response to Supreme Court Limiting ADA Application to States

March 2001

Ken Kresse, the Legal Director for the California Center for Law and the Deaf, provided his insight on the importance of the recent Supreme Court ruling that limits the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to the states. He confirmed the summary presented in our article two weeks ago; state employees may still sue state governments under the ADA, but they may not sue for monetary damages.

Ken also pointed out that state employees may still sue for monetary damages under Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act if their agency receives Federal funding - which many state agencies do. He adds that virtually all states have their own laws that prohibit employment discrimination; some of the laws are weaker than the ADA, while others are stronger.

Ken also expressed concern that the Supreme Court at some point could rule the same way for Title II of the ADA, which covers discrimination and access involving state and local government services (as opposed to employment). He added that the Supreme Court recently refused to review two such cases, but he thinks it may eventually accept such a case.

NAD Statement on Garrett Decision

Editor: We've recently reported on the Garrett Decision, which limits the application of the ADA to state workers. Here's the NAD's statement on this recent decision.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On February 21, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the rights of state employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, the Court held that an individual cannot recover money damages from a state government for employment discrimination under the Title I of the ADA.

Although other parts of the ADA remain enforceable, this is a blow to people with disabilities. The ruling represents another step by a conservative majority of the Court to strike down acts of Congress and to restrict the scope of federal civil rights laws that protect American citizens. The Supreme Court majority ignored the well-established history of discrimination against people with disabilities, in striking down this portion of the ADA.

However, it is important to note that the states must still comply with the ADA and that people with disabilities are still protected from discrimination in important ways.

1. Individual employees can sue for injunctive relief, which is a court order requiring a state to comply with the ADA. Plaintiffs cannot get money damages under Title I, but they can get a court order to prevent current or future discrimination.

2. The ruling does not affect private employers, the federal government, or county and other local government offices. Courts can order these employers to comply with the ADA, and they can order them to pay money damages.

3. Individuals may sue the states for discrimination in services. State governments provide many critical services, such as schools, courts, hospitals, universities and prisons. Courts can order states to pay an award of money damages when a state discriminates in providing services.

4. The federal EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) is still authorized to bring enforcement suits against the states for damages for employment discrimination, on behalf of individual state employees with disabilities.

The NAD is committed to ensuring that deaf and hard of hearing people can enforce the ADA and other civil rights laws. We are calling on President Bush to issue a statement in support of the ADA and a promise to implement the law fully.

For information about the Garrett decision and your rights under the ADA, contact the NAD Law Center, nadlaw@nad.org and see the legal information posted in the NAD Information Center (www.nad.org/infocenter/infotogo/legal/).