Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Dickson, Wellington / Alsbrook, Christopher v. Arkansas, et al.

By: Kirsten Searer, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Whether a states 11th Amendment immunity from suit by individuals prohibits an employee from suing the state claiming discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Brief

Wellington Dickson was a prison guard in Florida with a heart condition. But he was forced to work in a watchtower, and the only way to the top was to climb several flights of stairs. Dickson sued, claiming that a reasonable accommodation should have been made for his disability.

While the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act clearly would have called for a reasonable accommodation to be made for Dickson, the state said it was immune from his lawsuit because of the 11th Amendment, which rarely allows states to be sued in federal courts.

The ADA, passed by Congress in 1990, prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, programs and services provided by state and local government, goods and services provided by private companies, and in commercial facilities.

The district court in Florida ruled that Congress could abrogate the 11th Amendment because of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which allows Congress to take steps that would prohibit discrimination.

When the case was appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, it was paired with Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, a case in which a state employee sued Florida under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. A divided 11th Circuit panel reversed the district courts rulings in both cases and held that Congress exceeded its authority under the 14th Amendment when it created the ADA and the ADEA with the intention of allowing state employees to sue states.

Congress cannot abrogate states rights outlined by the 11th Amendment, but it can pass legislation to combat bias by states under the Equal Protection Clause.

The 11th Circuit held that Congress is justified in letting state employees sue a state under the ADA, but not under the ADEA. The majority opinion, penned by Judge J.L. Edmondson, said, ""The Eleventh Amendment is an important part of the Constitution. It stands for the constitutional principle that State sovereign immunity limits the federal courts jurisdiction under Article III. As such, Congress must make an unmistakably clear statement of its intent before a federal court can accept that States have been stripped of their constitutionally granted sovereign immunity. For me, the ADEA contains no unequivocally clear statement of such intent.""

In dissent, Chief Judge Joseph Hatchett wrote: ""The ADA is not a valid enforcement statute for the same two reasons the ADEA is not. First, like the aged, the disabled enjoy no special rights under the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court has never found the disabled to be a suspect or even quasi-suspect class...""

The cases were separated, and the Supreme Court agreed to review Kimel. On Jan. 11, 2000, the Court ruled 5-4 that Congress did not have the right to abrogate the 11th Amendment on the basis of age discrimination.

Attorneys battling for the right to sue states under the ADA say that their cases are different from Kimel because age discrimination is not protected under the Equal Protection clause, whereas disability is.

After the Supreme Court granted certiorari, the Dickson case was paired with another case, Alsbrook v. Arkansas, which also examined 11th Amendment issues pertaining to the ADA that had arose.

Christopher Alsbrook met almost all of the requirements to become a law enforcement officer in Arkansas. But he had amblyopia, a condition in which one eye is more dominant than the other. Eventually, the brain ceases to correctly process information from the less dominant eye, causing problems with depth perception. While Alsbrooks vision could be corrected to 20/30, he would never have perfect vision, a requirement of the Arkansas State agency that certifies law enforcement officers.

Alsbrooks Little Rock doctor wrote a letter in 1993 asserting that his condition would not impair his ability to perform any activity or type of work. And while he slid through the system in 1993 to obtain a job with the Maumelle Police Department, he was not so lucky when he applied for a job with the Little Rock Police Department. The state agency rejected his application, and his duties at Maumelle were restricted.

Alsbrook fought back with a federal suit against the City of Maumelle and several city officials, claiming they demoted him because he had a disability, a violation of the ADA. He sought injunctive relief and compensation for lost wages.

The city sought to dispose of the case through summary judgment, claiming it violated the 11th Amendment. When the district judge denied the motion, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals took the case under interlocutory appeal. A divided appeals panel affirmed, finding the 11th Amendment argument unpersuasive.

The entire 8th Circuit Court decided to hear the arguments en banc and reversed, holding that the suit against the city violated the 11th Amendment and that the officials sued could not be held responsible for Alsbrooks lost wages.

""Because Congress explicitly found that persons with disabilities have suffered discrimination, the ADA is therefore within the scope of appropriate legislation under the Equal Protection Clause,"" wrote Judge C. Arlen Beam for the majority.

On Jan. 21, 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Dickson case. Four days later, the Court agreed to review the Alsbrook case, and consolidated them for oral argument.

In late February, the Dickson case was settled. According to several media outlets, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) and Florida Attorney General Robert Butterworth (D) pushed to have the case considered by the Supreme Court. But a month later, they settled with Dickson for $142,000.

Early in March, the Alsbrook case was also settled. The Supreme Court cleared the issue from its docket for the 1999-2000 term, but will likely examine another case similar to Dickson or Alsbrook in the fall term.