-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 8:56 PM
Subject: Court To Clarify Disabilities Act
Richard Carelli, Associated Press Writer, writes on Monday, April 17,
2000
WASHINGTON -- Stepping back into a states' right battle over a key
federal anti-bias law, the Supreme Court today agreed to decide whether
state employees are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The justices said they will use the case of two Alabama state employees
to
decide whether Congress exceeded its power by giving state employees the
right to sue in federal court under the ADA.
The court's decision, expected sometime in 2001, could sweep broadly
enough to affect all ADA lawsuits against state governments, not just
those
filed by public employees.
Building on a series of decisions legal scholars say comprise a states'
rights
revolution, the Supreme Court in January barred state employees from
going
into federal court to sue over age bias.
That 5-4 ruling said Congress had exceeded its authority when allowing
state employees to sue their bosses under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act because the law cannot trump states' 11th Amendment
immunity against being sued in federal courts.
The justices then agreed to tackle cases from Arkansas and Florida
asking
them to decide whether Congress likewise exceeded its authority when
allowing lawsuits against states under the disabilities law.
Both of those cases were settled thereafter, forcing the court to drop
them
from its decision docket.
In the Alabama case, Patricia Garrett sued the state after allegedly
encountering on-the-job bias at the University of Alabama after being
treated for breast cancer. And Milton Ash sued over alleged bias in his
Department of Youth Services job because of his severe asthma.
A federal judge, after combining the two cases, dismissed them on 11th
Amendment grounds. But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated
them, ruling that states have lost their constitutional immunity from
lawsuits
that invoke the ADA.
Federal appeals courts have split on that issue, however.
Alabama's appeal relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in the
age-bias case and contended that Congress similarly had failed to
establish
a "pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct by the states" that
needed
some remedy when it enacted the ADA in 1990.
Clinton administration lawyers urged the justices to grant Alabama's
appeal
and uphold Congress' power to strip states of their immunity against
claims
of bias based on disabilities.
Garrett had been a University of Alabama employee for 17 years when in
1994 she was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent a lumpectomy,
radiation and chemotherapy treatment.
Her lawsuit said her supervisor made negative comments about her illness
and said she would be permanently replaced if she took leave. After
Garrett
took four months of unpaid leave, she was demoted to a job with a lower
salary.
Ash's lawsuit said he was the target of on-the-job discrimination after
complaining to a federal agency about his state employer's failure to
accommodate his respiratory disability. Ash has worked for the
Department
of Youth services since 1993.
Two provisions of the ADA are at stake in the case. The law's Title I
bars
discrimination by employers, both private and public. And title II
outlaws
disabilities-based discrimination against anyone by overnmental
entities.
The case is University of Alabama vs. Garrett, 99-1240.
--
On the Net: For the appeals court ruling:
http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html
and click on 11th Circuit.
--
Fred Fay
Chair, Justice For All
[log in to unmask]
http://www.jfanow.org
|
