INCLUSION DAILY EXPRESS -- Alabama v. Garrett

Inclusion Daily Express Logo

International Disability Rights News Service
Click here for today's headlines

Keeping advocates informed, inspired and connected since 1999.
Click here for daily or weekly delivery . . . OR
Try Inclusion Daily Express for two weeks FREE . . .

Click here for main Garret vs. Alabama page

High Court Sides With Alabama And Against Garrett
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
February 21, 2001

WASHINGTON, DC--The U.S. Supreme Court this morning ruled that Congress overstepped its bounds when it decided in 1990 to allow state workers to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to file discrimination lawsuits against their employers.

In the case known as "Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett" the high court voted 5-4 in favor of states' 11th Amendment rights, thereby limiting the scope of the ADA. The decision punctuates a recent trend toward restricting the power of the federal government and expanding the power of individual states. It also strikes a blow to certain disability rights protections under the anti-discrimination law.

The case involved Patricia Garrett, who was promoted in 1992 to Director of OB/GYN/Neonatal Services at the University of Alabama after being on the staff for 15 years. Two years later, Garrett was diagnosed with breast cancer for which she underwent surgery, radiation and chemotherapy treatment. While she completed her therapy, her employer threatened to transfer her out of her position, claimed Garrett.

When she returned from medical leave, she was demoted to a job with less responsibility and less pay.

Garrett sued, alleging that the university discriminated against her because of her disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. She also claimed that her demotion was retaliatory, therefore violating the Family Medical Leave Act.

The state of Alabama argued that states are immune to this kind of lawsuit. Citing the 11th Amendment, Alabama reasoned that Congress does not have the authority to impose upon the states laws such as the ADA.

In 1999, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the State of Alabama. Garrett's case was combined with that of Milton Ashe, who had filed a similar suit against the Alabama Department of Youth Services. Their combined case was presented to the Supreme Court last October.

The Supreme Court yesterday agreed with the Appeals Court, stating that Garrett and Ashe cannot sue the state for damages.

You can download the entire 80-page ruling in what is known as Case 99-1240 "Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett" from the Supreme Court's own website. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to access it:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1240.pdf

Click here for top of this page

Garrett Ruling Is Not The End
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
February 22, 2001

WASHINGTON, DC--While yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Alabama v. Garret case is disappointing, several groups are pointing out that it does not mean the American with Disabilities Act has been overturned. In a 5-4 decision, the high court determined that the Eleventh Amendment does not allow state employees to sue their employers for damages under Part I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Immediately after the decision was announced, a press release quoted Andrew J. Imparato, President and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities as saying, "Under today's ruling and other recent decisions limiting the ability of Congress to protect individual rights under the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court is systematically turning the clock back on civil rights".

But later analyses are showing that the decision is not as far-reaching as first thought. For example, the federal government can still sue states, as can individuals. The ruling should not have any impact on efforts to implement the Supreme Court's 1999 Olmstead decision, which ruled that people should not be "inappropriately institutionalized". It also should not have any impact on accessibility issues.

"It is important for the public to understand that the ADA is not dead," said President of The Arc Karen Staley. "People with disabilities who are discriminated against may still sue those states. However, they cannot sue for monetary damages. The federal government can also continue to sue states on behalf of individuals in employment discrimination cases."

Click here for top of this page

Groups Oppose Sutton Nomination
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
May 24, 2001

WASHINGTON, DC--Members of several disability groups this week are rallying in opposition to the President's named choice of Jeffrey Sutton for a federal appeals court position.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt the Americans with Disabilities Act perhaps the strongest blow since it became law in 1990. In the case of Garrett vs. Alabama, the high court determined that state workers could not use the ADA to sue their employers for damages. It was one of several recent cases where the court leaned toward state's rights.

Arguing the case for the state of Alabama was Jeffrey Sutton, an attorney from Ohio. Sutton told the Justices there was no need for the ADA, because the states already had their own anti-discrimination laws. Disability rights advocates disagreed, pointing out that there were countless examples of people's rights being violated even by those states.

Earlier this month, President George W. Bush nominated Sutton to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court reviews appeals from federal district courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Sutton must be confirmed by a Senate Judiciary Committee before he can take the position.

Late last week and earlier this week, several groups organized to actively oppose Sutton's confirmation. Those groups include, but are not limited to: American Association for People with Disabilities (AAPD), the National Council for Independent Living (NCIL), the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Justice for All, and the National Disabled Student Union.

Sutton was scheduled to go before the committee on Wednesday, but the hearing has been postponed. A new date for the hearing has not been announced.

The Ability Center of Greater Toledo is planning a protest in front of Sutton's Columbus, Ohio law office for Friday morning.

More details on Sutton's confirmation, along with suggestions on how you can help are available from the National Council for Independent Living website:
http://www.ncil.org/sutton.htm

Click here for top of this page

You can have the latest disability rights news delivered to your email Inbox every week day.
Subscribe to Inclusion Daily Express today!

Get your news here!