Stay up to date on the latest news and legislative alerts in mental health law: Email   ZIP For RSS readers

Court documents The decision Briefs

More resouces Plaintiffs in Garrett

University of Alabama v. Garrett

On Wednesday, February 21, 2001, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that suits in federal court by state employees to recover money damages under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The case, University of Alabama v. Garrett, challenged the ADA's constitutionality.

The Alabama Attorney General had argued that parts of the federal law—known as the "Civil Rights Act for people with disabilities"—violate states' rights. In their briefs to the Supreme Court, lawyers for individuals with disabilities and friends of the court contended that states' history of discrimination based on disability was so egregious that Congress had the power to override state sovereignty.

The majority opinion makes clear that individuals with disabilities still have federal recourse against state employment discrimination. "Title I of the ADA still prescribes standards applicable to the states. Those standards can be enforced by the United States in actions for money damages, as well as by private individuals in actions for injunctive relief under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)..." (Footnote 9). A dissenting opinion by Justice Breyer explains that this decision is a major departure from past jurisprudence and misunderstands the role of Congress as opposed to the courts.

The Case

The Garrett case is really two cases that were combined at the trial level. Patricia Garrett sued the University of Alabama's medical center in Birmingham for demoting and then transferring her from her position as a supervising nurse after she was treated for breast cancer. In the other case, Milton Ash, a corrections officer with asthma, sued Alabama's youth corrections agency for failing to accommodate him by enforcing the agency's no-smoking rule and servicing the cars he is required to drive, which emit noxious fumes.

In both suits, the state argued that Congress lacks the power to require states to pay money damages for injuries caused when states violate the ADA. The trial judge accepted Alabama's argument, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the trial judge's decision.⁽¹⁾  The appellate court found that Congress has the power, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to require states to pay money damages for violations of the ADA. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed after the Civil War, guarantees all citizens equal protection of the law and due process of law.

The Legal Issues

The precise question before the Supreme Court was: "Does the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bar suits by private citizens in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states?"

Under the Supreme Court's current approach, the question of whether a particular civil rights statute exceeds Congress' power largely depends on two factors: (1) whether, when the statute was enacted, there was a significant problem of unconstitutional discrimination, and (2) whether the requirements of the statute are proportionate and reasonable responses to the problem that Congress sought to remedy. We believe that the ADA passes muster under both tests.

The Bazelon Center participated in the brief for Ms. Garrett and Mr. Ash. Other amicus briefs were filed by states, advocacy groups, consumers, historians, law professors, members of Congress—even former President Bush—to present these arguments. The briefs are available online.