Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett
Encyclopedia
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court
case about Congress's
enforcement powers
under the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution
. It decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act
was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.
s were Milton Ash and Patricia Garrett, employees of the University of Alabama
school system. Both were disabled under the definition of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA): Ash was a security guard who had a lifelong history of severe asthma
, and Garrett was a nurse who had been diagnosed with breast cancer
requiring time-consuming radiation
and chemotherapy
treatments. Both alleged that they had been discriminated against at their jobs; the University had refused to assign Ash to duties that would alleviate his asthma, and insisted on transferring Garrett due to her absences. Ash and Garrett filed a suit in federal court against the University of Alabama for damages
, arguing that the University had violated Title I of the ADA, the part of the ADA prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
The University of Alabama responded with a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Eleventh Amendment
prohibited the suit. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
dismissed both cases on this ground, but the Eleventh Circuit
reversed, holding that Congress had expressly abrogated the sovereign immunity of the states
.
power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause
.
and allow states to be sued for damages under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the majority opinion also stated that this part of the ADA lacked the "congruence and proportionality" required when Congress exercises its enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment, citing City of Boerne v. Flores
.
Under the Equal Protection Clause, discrimination against people with disabilities is analyzed using "rational basis" scrutiny. If the discrimination has a rational basis, it is constitutional. In Garrett, the Court held that Congress (like the judiciary) was required to use rational basis review of state action, with its presumptions favoring constitutionality. The Court decided that the legislative record of the ADA, "fails to show that Congress did in fact identify a pattern of irrational state discrimination in employment against the disabled."
The Garrett Court stated that the "reasonable accommodation" requirement of the ADA law failed the congruence and proportionality test even though there was a hardship exception to the accommodation requirement. The Court said that disability discrimination is rational in that hiring non-disabled employees would conserve scarce financial resources by avoiding the need for costly reasonable accommodations, and that states have rational reasons for violating the part of the ADA law banning policies that have a disparate impact on the disabled. Even in cases of racial discrimination, where the courts apply a different standard of scrutiny to government action than they do in rational basis review
, evidence of disparate impact "alone is insufficient even where the Fourteenth Amendment subjects state action to strict scrutiny
." The Court had held in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
that disparate impact was not proof of discrimination based on "race, color or national origin," which triggers strict scrutiny
.
The Court said that the burden of proof was upon those who alleged that a state action toward the disabled was irrational.
The Court mentioned the government's argument that "the inquiry as to unconstitutional discrimination should extend not only to States themselves, but to units of local governments, such as cities and counties." The Court admitted that local governments "are 'state actors' for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment," but added that "[t]hese entities are subject to private claims for damages under the ADA without Congress' ever having to rely on § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to render them so. It would make no sense to consider constitutional violations on their part, as well as by the States themselves, when only the States are the beneficiaries of the Eleventh Amendment." As the Court said:
The ADA, by allowing states to be sued for damages by private plaintiffs when the state fails to provide reasonable accommodations, thus provided significantly more Fourteenth Amendment protection for people with disabilities than was allowed by Boerne. This level of protection, the Court held, was not "congruent and proportional" to the wrong (i.e. discrimination against people with disabilities). Hence the ADA did not constitutionally abrogate the states' sovereign immunity.
Garretts scope, however, should not be overstated: while states, under Garrett, are not subject to money damages for violations of Title I of the ADA, states that violate the ADA are still subject to prospective injunctive
relief under the Ex parte Young
doctrine.
filing a dissenting opinion in which he was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens
, David Souter
, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
. The dissent stated the following about rational basis review
:
Regarding "congruence and proportionality", Justice Breyer said that City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc and Katzenbach v. Morgan
were precedents that require deference by the Court, not Congress. As Breyer said:
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
case about Congress's
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
enforcement powers
Congressional power of enforcement
A Congressional power of enforcement is included in a number of amendments to the United States Constitution. The language "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" is used, with slight variations, in Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XVIII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI...
under the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
to the Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
. It decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is a law that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1990. It was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush, and later amended with changes effective January 1, 2009....
was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.
Facts
The plaintiffPlaintiff
A plaintiff , also known as a claimant or complainant, is the term used in some jurisdictions for the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court...
s were Milton Ash and Patricia Garrett, employees of the University of Alabama
University of Alabama
The University of Alabama is a public coeducational university located in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States....
school system. Both were disabled under the definition of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is a law that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1990. It was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush, and later amended with changes effective January 1, 2009....
(ADA): Ash was a security guard who had a lifelong history of severe asthma
Asthma
Asthma is the common chronic inflammatory disease of the airways characterized by variable and recurring symptoms, reversible airflow obstruction, and bronchospasm. Symptoms include wheezing, coughing, chest tightness, and shortness of breath...
, and Garrett was a nurse who had been diagnosed with breast cancer
Breast cancer
Breast cancer is cancer originating from breast tissue, most commonly from the inner lining of milk ducts or the lobules that supply the ducts with milk. Cancers originating from ducts are known as ductal carcinomas; those originating from lobules are known as lobular carcinomas...
requiring time-consuming radiation
Radiation therapy
Radiation therapy , radiation oncology, or radiotherapy , sometimes abbreviated to XRT or DXT, is the medical use of ionizing radiation, generally as part of cancer treatment to control malignant cells.Radiation therapy is commonly applied to the cancerous tumor because of its ability to control...
and chemotherapy
Chemotherapy
Chemotherapy is the treatment of cancer with an antineoplastic drug or with a combination of such drugs into a standardized treatment regimen....
treatments. Both alleged that they had been discriminated against at their jobs; the University had refused to assign Ash to duties that would alleviate his asthma, and insisted on transferring Garrett due to her absences. Ash and Garrett filed a suit in federal court against the University of Alabama for damages
Damages
In law, damages is an award, typically of money, to be paid to a person as compensation for loss or injury; grammatically, it is a singular noun, not plural.- Compensatory damages :...
, arguing that the University had violated Title I of the ADA, the part of the ADA prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
The University of Alabama responded with a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Eleventh Amendment
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity. This amendment was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v...
prohibited the suit. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction comprises the following counties: Bibb, Blount, Calhoun, Cherokee, Clay, Cleburne, Colbert, Cullman, De Kalb, Etowah, Fayette, Franklin, Greene, Jackson, Jefferson, Lamar,...
dismissed both cases on this ground, but the Eleventh Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Middle District of Alabama...
reversed, holding that Congress had expressly abrogated the sovereign immunity of the states
U.S. state
A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of...
.
Issue
The issue was whether Congress could abrogate the immunity of the states under its Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause
Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"...
.
Result
The majority opinion stated that Congress, in enacting the ADA, had satisfied the requirement that it make clear its intention to abrogate state sovereign immunitySovereign immunity
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution....
and allow states to be sued for damages under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the majority opinion also stated that this part of the ADA lacked the "congruence and proportionality" required when Congress exercises its enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment, citing City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 , was a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of Congress's enforcement power under the fifth section of the Fourteenth Amendment...
.
Under the Equal Protection Clause, discrimination against people with disabilities is analyzed using "rational basis" scrutiny. If the discrimination has a rational basis, it is constitutional. In Garrett, the Court held that Congress (like the judiciary) was required to use rational basis review of state action, with its presumptions favoring constitutionality. The Court decided that the legislative record of the ADA, "fails to show that Congress did in fact identify a pattern of irrational state discrimination in employment against the disabled."
The Garrett Court stated that the "reasonable accommodation" requirement of the ADA law failed the congruence and proportionality test even though there was a hardship exception to the accommodation requirement. The Court said that disability discrimination is rational in that hiring non-disabled employees would conserve scarce financial resources by avoiding the need for costly reasonable accommodations, and that states have rational reasons for violating the part of the ADA law banning policies that have a disparate impact on the disabled. Even in cases of racial discrimination, where the courts apply a different standard of scrutiny to government action than they do in rational basis review
Rational basis review
Rational basis review, in U.S. constitutional law, refers to a level of scrutiny applied by courts when deciding cases presenting constitutional due process or equal protection issues related to the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Rational basis is the lowest level of scrutiny that a...
, evidence of disparate impact "alone is insufficient even where the Fourteenth Amendment subjects state action to strict scrutiny
Strict scrutiny
Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or...
." The Court had held in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp, 429 U.S. 252 , was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a zoning ordinance that in a practical way barred families of various socio-economic, and ethno-racial backgrounds from residing in a...
that disparate impact was not proof of discrimination based on "race, color or national origin," which triggers strict scrutiny
Strict scrutiny
Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or...
.
The Court said that the burden of proof was upon those who alleged that a state action toward the disabled was irrational.
The Court mentioned the government's argument that "the inquiry as to unconstitutional discrimination should extend not only to States themselves, but to units of local governments, such as cities and counties." The Court admitted that local governments "are 'state actors' for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment," but added that "[t]hese entities are subject to private claims for damages under the ADA without Congress' ever having to rely on § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to render them so. It would make no sense to consider constitutional violations on their part, as well as by the States themselves, when only the States are the beneficiaries of the Eleventh Amendment." As the Court said:
The ADA, by allowing states to be sued for damages by private plaintiffs when the state fails to provide reasonable accommodations, thus provided significantly more Fourteenth Amendment protection for people with disabilities than was allowed by Boerne. This level of protection, the Court held, was not "congruent and proportional" to the wrong (i.e. discrimination against people with disabilities). Hence the ADA did not constitutionally abrogate the states' sovereign immunity.
Garretts scope, however, should not be overstated: while states, under Garrett, are not subject to money damages for violations of Title I of the ADA, states that violate the ADA are still subject to prospective injunctive
Equitable remedy
Equitable remedies are judicial remedies developed and granted by courts of equity, as opposed to courts of common law. Equitable remedies were granted by the Court of Chancery in England, and remain available today in most common law jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions, legal and equitable...
relief under the Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young, , is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally.-Facts:...
doctrine.
Dissent
The Court split 5-4, with Justice Stephen BreyerStephen Breyer
Stephen Gerald Breyer is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court....
filing a dissenting opinion in which he was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
, David Souter
David Souter
David Hackett Souter is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He served from 1990 until his retirement on June 29, 2009. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush to fill the seat vacated by William J...
, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ginsburg was appointed by President Bill Clinton and took the oath of office on August 10, 1993. She is the second female justice and the first Jewish female justice.She is generally viewed as belonging to...
. The dissent stated the following about rational basis review
Rational basis review
Rational basis review, in U.S. constitutional law, refers to a level of scrutiny applied by courts when deciding cases presenting constitutional due process or equal protection issues related to the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Rational basis is the lowest level of scrutiny that a...
:
Regarding "congruence and proportionality", Justice Breyer said that City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc and Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the power of Congress, pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to enact laws which enforce and interpret provisions of the Constitution.- Facts :...
were precedents that require deference by the Court, not Congress. As Breyer said: