The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, October 11, 2000
Decision: Thursday, February 1, 2001
Issues: Federalism, Natural Resources, Miscellaneous
Categories: eleventh amendment, federalism, states

Advocates

Michael H. Gottesman (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Jeffrey S. Sutton (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Seth P. Waxman (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

After Patricia Garrett, Director of Nursing for the University of Alabama, was diagnosed with breast cancer, her treatment forced her to take a substantial leave from work. Upon her return, her supervisor informed her she would have to give up her position. Milton Ash, a security officer for the Alabama Department of Youth Services, who suffers from chronic asthma, requested that his employer modify his duties to accommodate him. Ultimately, none of Ash's requested relief was granted and his job performance evaluations fell. Both Garrett and Ash filed discrimination suits against their Alabama state employers, seeking money damages under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits the States and other employers from "discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability because of that disability... in regard to... terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." The District Court disposed of both cases by ruling that the ADA exceeds Congress' authority to abrogate the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Question

May an individual sue a state for damages in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990?

Conclusion

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that suits in federal court by state employees to recover money damages by reason of the state's failure to comply with Title I of the ADA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Chief Justice wrote for the majority that "in order to authorize private individuals to recover money damages against the States, there must be a pattern of discrimination by the States which violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and the remedy imposed by Congress must be congruent and proportional to the targeted violation." Rehnquist added that none of these requirements had been met. Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Stephen G. Breyer's dissent.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Board of Trustees, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's concurrence
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Wrote a regular concurrence
Kennedy
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Ginsburg
Wrote a dissent
Breyer
Full Opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Board of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_1240/>
(last visited ).