Garrett v. Univ. of Alabama

Promoting, Dignity, Equality and Self-Determination

Washington Protection & Advocacy System

Home ׀ About WPAS ׀ News ׀ Self-Advocacy ׀ Public Policy ׀ Publications ׀ Contact WPAS
E-Mail Updates ׀ Support WPAS ׀ Search

Envoy On-Line Archives

Garrett v. University of Alabama

Split Supreme Court Decision Erodes Civil Rights for People with Disabilities

Blow to ADA serious, but not fatal - People with disabilities and advocates denounce decision

March 13, 2001

The Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) late last month in a 5-4 decision. The Court held that states cannot be sued for damages by their employees under Title I of the ADA, and that Congress, in implementing the ADA, failed to prove that the states had engaged in a history and pattern of unconstitutional employment discrimination. "[The] decision is the latest in a series of rulings where a narrow majority of the Court is whittling away at the civil rights of all Americans in the name of States’ rights," said Andrew J. Imparato, the President of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD). He continued, "a narrow partisan majority has undermined the civil rights of millions of Americans and thumbed its nose at the overwhelming bipartisan support for the legislation in the Congress and in the American public. The immediate impact of today’s decision is limited in scope, but the Court’s callous indifference to the impressive evidence of discrimination that Congress compiled as it considered the ADA is very disturbing."

Garrett v. the University of Alabama

The decision arises from a case in Alabama, where Patricia Garrett, who had been a nurse at the University of Alabama for 17 years, took a four-month leave for treatment of breast cancer. When she returned, she was ordered to take a lower paying job or quit. Her lawsuit said that her supervisor made negative comments about her illness. She decided to take the lower paying job, and later retired.

The 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that under the ADA, Ms. Garrett had the right to sue the state for damages.

The Supreme Court, however, decided that Congress, in enacting the ADA, did not have the authority to allow state employees to seek monetary damages in federal court. Congress enacted the ADA in response to thousands of complaints by people with disabilities about employment discrimination. The Court ruled, however, that despite such testimony, Congress did not establish a clear history or pattern of discrimination.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer condemned the slim Court majority noting that Congress had, in fact, "compiled a vast legislative record documenting massive, society-wide discrimination against persons with disabilities." He cited a Congressional task force that held hearings in every state and concluded that "people with disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status within our society, and are severely disadvantaged socially, vocationally, economically, and educationally."

How the decision affects the ADA

Despite the "Garrett" ruling, the ADA has not been gutted. States are still required to comply with the provisions of the Act, and can still be sued by individuals for injunctive relief (an order requiring the state to comply with the law). Furthermore, local governments and other non-state public entities are not immune from lawsuits seeking monetary damages.

Most importantly, Title II of the ADA remains intact. This section of the statute relates to discrimination against people with disabilities in access to public services, programs and buildings. Consequently, the negative impacts of the Garrett decision will be limited to state employees on issues of employment discrimination. Melissa Davert of the Center for Independent Living of MidMichigan points out that the Garrett decision discriminates against state workers. "It treats state employees differently, because private sector employees are still covered by the act."

The Supreme Court decision has no bearing on state laws. State governments still must comply with their own civil rights laws protecting people with disabilities, including state workers. In Washington state, RCW 49.60 gives State employees many of the same protections and remedies as Title I of the ADA, including damages and a requirement of reasonable accommodation. In fact, many attorneys prefer basing disability discrimination in employment claims on RCW 49.60, and not in the ADA.

What happens now?

The major concern for individuals with disabilities now will be one of damage control. Many private employers and public officials are going to hear about the Garrett case and assume that protections for workers with disabilities have now been removed. People with disabilities and advocates need to double their efforts to get the message out that there still are protections for workers with disabilities, and broadcast the details of those protections and the responsibilities of employers.

Compiled from news sources and private analysis