Here's some more discussion about the Supreme Court ADA decision.

Beth the OT

email address: [log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: * EASI: Equal Access to Software & Information
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ruth Townsend
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 10:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fwd: key Points for clarification in the Garrett decision


FYI

>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:14:19 -0600
>From: Robin Jones <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: key Points for clarification in the Garrett decision
>Sender: Region V ADA Information <[log in to unmask]>
>Approved-by: Robin Jones <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Reply-to: Region V ADA Information <[log in to unmask]>
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
>Importance: Normal
>
>The following information is forwarded to you by the Great Lakes ADA Center
>for your information:
>
>
>Attorney Amy Robertson, of the Denver law firm Fox & Robertson, drafted
>this important document at the request of Julie Reiskin and the Colorado
>Cross Disability Coalition.  It clarifies key points of the Garrett
>decision, including the fact that states still have obligations under the
>ADA.
>
>
>>***********************************************************************
>>         States Must Still Comply with the ADA
>>
>>         The Supreme Court's decision in Board of Trustees of the
>> University of Alabama v. Garrett, No. 99-1240 (Feb. 21, 2001), did one
>> thing:  It held that lawsuits under Title I of the Americans with
>> Disabilities Act for damages against states are unconstitutional.  With
>> this one exception, the ADA is very much alive, even against states and
>> other public entities.  For example:
>>
>>         1.      Title II of the ADA was not affected by this decision and
>> individuals can still sue for injunctive relief and damages under that
>> part of the statute;
>>
>>         2.       Even under the rationale of the Garrett decision,
>> individuals can still sue for injunctive relief -- that is, an order --
>> requiring a state to comply with the ADA; and
>>
>>         3.      Individuals can still sue local governments and other
>> non-state public entities both for injunctive relief and for damages.
>>
>>         The Decision Only Covers Title I:  Title I of the ADA prohibits
>> discrimination on the basis of disability in employment; Title II
>> prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public
>> entities.  Although the parties to Garrett had originally asked the
>> Supreme Court to decide both Title I and Title II, the Court only decided
>> Title I, and explicitly stated, "We are not disposed to decide the
>> constitutional issue whether Title II, which has somewhat different
>> remedial provisions from Title I, is appropriate legislation under §5 of
>> the Fourteenth Amendment . . ."  Slip op. at 2 n.1.  What this means is
>> that the result of the Garrett decision only impacts state employment
>> practices.  All other facets of state government activity are unaffected
>> by this opinion.  It is true that some courts may hold that the logic of
>> today's decision applies to Title II as well, although there are very
>> good reasons why the Supreme Court might analyze Title II differently and
>> come to the conclusion that damages suits are available under that
>> title.  But even if Title II is treated as Title I was in Garrett -- that
>> is, if damages suits are held to be unconstitutional -- suits for
>> injunctive relief against states and all lawsuits against local
>> governments are still very much alive.
>>
>>         An Individual Can Still Sue a State for an Injunction Requiring
>> Compliance with the ADA: The Supreme Court -- through footnote 9 of the
>> Garrett decision -- made clear that "Title I of the ADA still prescribes
>> standards applicable to the States.  Those standards can be enforced  . .
>> . by private individuals in actions for injunctive relief."  Slip op. at
>> 16 n.9.  If the logic of Garrett is extended to Title II, naturally this
>> exception will also apply.  What this means is that
>>
>>                 states will still have to comply with the ADA;
>>
>>                 people with disabilities can sue states for failing to
>> comply with the ADA; and
>>
>>                 courts can order states to comply with the ADA.
>>
>>The upshot of Garrett is simply that the plaintiffs can't recover
>>damages.  This is so important it bears repeating:
>>
>>States are still required to comply with the ADA.
>>
>>In particular, states are required to comply with the Supreme Court's
>>decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), which requires states
>>to provide services in the most integrated setting.  It also means that
>>states must still provide reasonable accommodations in the employment
>>context, that they must still build new buildings to be readily accessible
>>to and usable by people with disabilities, that they must provide full
>>program access at state colleges and universities and that they must
>>otherwise fully comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations.
>>
>>         Individuals can sue for injunctive relief and damages against
>> local governments and other non-state public entities:  The Garrett
>> decision also made clear that immunity from damages suits "does not
>> extend  . . . to units of local government."  Slip op. at 11.  What this
>> means is that lawsuits for both injunctions and damages are still
>> available against local governments and public entities that are not the
>> state.  This would include, for example, regional transportation
>> districts, county governments, quasi-governmental corporations, and the
>like.

Ruth J. Townsend
ADA/504 Coordinator
Illinois State University
401B Hovey Hall, Campus Box 1280
Normal, IL 61790-1280
309.438.3383 (v)
309.438.2554 (TTY)
[log in to unmask]