ADA Information: Garrett Case
Your Views on Garrett
UCP joins disability rights advocates and civil rights experts in expressing deep disappointment with the February 21, decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett. In a 5 to 4 decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court ruled the Constitution exempts States from having to pay monetary damages for job discrimination experienced by State workers with disabilities. The Chief Justice was joined in the majority decision by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.
The decision involves two Alabama State employees - Patricia Garrett, who was demoted as a head nurse at an Alabama university hospital following treatment for breast cancer, and Milton Ash, who charged that his State employer failed to reasonably accommodate his medical conditions. In the Garrett decision, the Court recognized that this was the type of job discrimination that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is meant to remedy, and that Congress specifically intended for people with disabilities, subjected to unfair treatment by their State employers, to be able to sue for monetary damages. However, the majority held that the Congress had failed, when it enacted the ADA, to show that this type of discrimination is pervasive enough to warrant such action - to enforce the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause in a way that restricts a State's general claim to immunity from lawsuits under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution. The Chief Justice wrote that Congress had relied on anecdotes and second-hand information when designing the ADA's State employment discrimination provisions and, in doing so, failed to meet constitutional muster.
These claims were hotly debated and challenged in a dissent written by Justice Breyer and joined by Justices Steven, Souter, and Ginsberg. The dissent said Congress had more than enough public testimony and other evidence before it when enacting the ADA in 1990, and had acted well within its authority to enforce equal employment opportunity under the 14th Amendment, including subjecting States to damage claims.
A few days later, on February 26, the Supreme Court declined to take on a broader challenge to the ADA. Without comment, the Court turned aside the case of United States v. Snyder that could have made States immune from lawsuits alleging discrimination against persons with disabilities in access to public services, programs, and buildings.
UCP is very concerned about the reasoning and potential outcomes of the Garrett decision. UCP believes very strongly there is ample evidence throughout the United States of the type of job discrimination that the ADA is meant to remedy, including unfair treatment by State agencies for which employees with disabilities should be able to sue for monetary damages.
UCP would like to hear from current, former and prospective State employees with disabilities. To facilitate a discussion of the issues, UCP is hosting an online dialogue where people can post questions, comments, and concerns about the Garrett decision and share their experiences in applying for, working for, and being promoted in State government.
To access the online dialogue, log on to www.ucp.org and click on "Advocacy & Public Policy" in the light blue box on the right. Then click on the section entitled "Garrett Discussion Group." To lead off the discussion, UCP Board Member Duncan Wyeth will make some comments and pose questions. Mr. Wyeth is Chair of the UCP Marketing and Communications Committee. He also works full-time for the Michigan Department of Career Development Rehabilitation Services.
Please encourage your consumers and other contacts to help UCP generate good strong evidence that can be used to ensure that the ADA protects everyone.