University of Alabama at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, et al. v. Garrett, Patricia

University of Alabama at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, et al. v. Garrett, PatriciaQuestions presented

Does the 11th Amendment bar federal suits by state employees against nonconsenting states under certain federal laws, specifically the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act?

Brief

Patricia Garrett had been a state employee at the University of Alabama since 1977, where she worked as a nurse. Working her way up through different departments, she earned a master's degree. Throughout her employment, Garrett received several promotions, including one in June 1992, when she was promoted to Director of OB/GYN/Neonatal Services.

In 1994 Garrett received a routine checkup. She was diagnosed with breast cancer and she had surgeries to remove her lymph nodes. As part of her treatment, Garrett underwent extensive radiation and chemotherapy for a year.

In March 1995, Garrett was told that a subordinate would be replacing her and she would be sent to a satellite location.

Partially in response to her supervisor and on the advice of her doctor, Garrett took four months leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). When she returned to work in July 1995, it was initially agreed that she would continue in her previous position. Nearly a week later, she was demoted and received a significantly lower salary.

Garrett filed a federal suit against the Board of Trustees at the University of Alabama, alleging that under the FMLA, the University was required to reinstate her to an equivalent position.

She also alleged that, while undergoing such treatment, the University of Alabama repeatedly threatened to transfer her to a less demanding job due to her condition, and that her supervisor made negative comments regarding her illness and told Garrett that she would be permanently replaced unless she took leave.

She sought damages and equitable relief for discrimination under three statutes: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the FMLA.

Under the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, Garrett stated her rights were violated when she was demoted after taking sick leave.

Garrett's discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act alleged that ""no qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any program that either receives federal financial assistance.""

Under the FMLA, if an employee suffers from a serious health condition that renders him or her unable to perform, the employee is entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period. Although Garrett received the amount of time allotted in the statute, Garrett claimed that she was required to be reinstated to an equivalent position, which the university did not.

In federal district court, the judge consolidated Garrett's suit with a similar case, Ash v. Alabama Department of Youth Services.

Ash was suing under only the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The judge then dismissed both suits on summary judgment on the grounds that the 11th Amendment grants sovereign immunity to states.

Sovereign immunity is a doctrine, which precludes bringing suit against a government without its approval. Garrett and Ash appealed the decision.

In the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States intervened on Garretts and Ash's behalf to defend the constitutionality of Congress removal of 11th Amendment immunity .

In a 2-1 opinion, an 11th Circuit panel reversed and remanded, holding that the state was not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, but was immune from suit under the specific provisions of the FMLA.

To reach its decision, the majority discussed whether, in passing the particular laws, Congress gave individuals a right of action in federal court against an unconsenting state.

First, the appeals court asked if Congress had unequivocally expressed its intent in a clear legislative statement to abolish the 11th Amendment immunity. Secondly, had Congress acted pursuant to a valid exercise of power?

The appeals court found that the state was not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act because in these statutes, sovereign immunity could be abrogated based on the 14th Amendment.

In regards to the FMLA, ""although the statute might well be immune from suit under certain other provisions of the FMLA, the state is immune from suit under specific provisions at issue here"" because Congress did not have the authority to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states on claims arising under the statute's provision relating to Garrett.

""Although the statute invokes the Equal Protection Clause [of the 14th Amendment] in its purpose section, it is not in relation to the provision allowing leave to an employee with a serious health condition,"" the 11th Circuit held.

In noting that ""serious health conditions are not necessarily related to family and gender discrimination,"" the court found that anecdotal legislative history about discrmination against cancer survivors was insufficient to indicate Congress had identified particular unconstitutional actions by the states involving serious health conditions irrespective of gender or family situations.""

In a long dissent, Judge Julian Abele Cook, Jr. stated that ""Congress validly abrogated the States Eleventh Amendment immunity through the passage of the FMLA.""

Judge Cook was more persuaded that Congress affirmatively intended to address the problems of gender-related illnesses, writing that Congress found that ""women experienced discrimination related to leave time, in that employers' perceptions that women served as caretakers and therefore were more likely to ask for leave time contributed to a decreased willingness to hire women in the first instance or promotethem.

""In addition,"" he continued, ""women were rendered more vulnerable to this form of discrimination based on employer concerns that they would need leave time for pregnancies, while the disabled suffered from it as well due to employer fears that the health problem would require time off or preclude a return to work after a medical absence. Particularly relevant in this Eleventh Amendment context is that Congress found that public sector employees were suffering comparable sex discrimination problems with regard to leave time as employees in the private sector.""

Judge Cook agreed with the majority that the state was not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

On April 17, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case.

On Feb. 21, 2001, the Court, divided along ideological lines, reversed, holding 5-4 that state workers are barred by the 11th Amendment from filing employment-discrimination suits against their employers under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion for JusticesSandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

In enacting the federal disabilities act, Congress did not identify a pattern of ""irrational state discrimination"" against disabled state workers sufficient to justify overriding the immunity reposed through the 11th Amendment.

In so concluding, the majority distinguished the federal disability law from the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was enacted based on the congressional finding of a ""marked pattern"" of racial discrimination by states.

""States are not required by the 14th Amendment to make special accommodations for the disabled, so long as their actions towards such individuals are rational,"" Rehnquist wrote. ""They could quite hard headedly - and perhaps hardheartedly - hold to job-qualification requirements which do not make allowance for the disabled.""

Writing in dissent for himself, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the opinion ""improperly invades a power that the Constitution assigns to Congress.""

In enacting the disability law, the dissent claimed, Congress had found about 300 examples of discrimination by state governments. ""Congress expressly found substantial unjustified discrimination against persons with disabilities,"" Breyer wrote.