OCTOBER TERM, 2000
Syllabus
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA ET AL.
v.
GARRETT ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1240. Argued October 11, 2000-Decided February 21,
2001
Respondents Garrett and Ash filed separate lawsuits against
petitioners, 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 "discriminat[ing]
against a qualified individual with a disability because of th[at]
disability ... in regard to ... terms, conditions, and privileges
of employment," 42 U. S. C. § 12112(a). In an opinion disposing of
both cases, the District Court granted petitioners summary
judgment, agreeing with them that the ADA exceeds Congress'
authority to abrogate the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity. The
Eleventh Circuit reversed on the ground that the ADA validly
abrogates such immunity.
Held: 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.
Pp.363-374.
(a) Congress may abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment
immunity when it both unequivocally intends to do so and acts
pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority.
Kimel
v.
Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 73. Only the
second of these requirements is in dispute here. While Congress may
not base abrogation of state immunity upon its Article I powers,
see,
e. g., id., at 79, it may subject nonconsenting States
to federal-court suit when it does so pursuant to a valid exercise
of its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, see,
e.
g., id., at 80. Section 5 authorizes Congress to enforce the
substantive guarantees contained in § 1 of that Amendment by
enacting "appropriate legislation." See
City of Boerne v.
Flores, 521 U.
S. 507, 536. Because it is this Court's responsibility, not
Congress', to define the substance of constitutional guarantees,
id., at 519-524, § 5 legislation, to the extent it reaches beyond
the precise scope of § 1's protections, must exhibit congruence and
proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and
the means adopted to that end, id., at 520. Pp. 363-365.
(b) The first step in applying these principles is to identify
with some precision the scope of the constitutional right at issue.
Here, that inquiry requires examination of the limitations § 1 of
the Fourteenth
357
Amendment places upon States' treatment of the disabled. To do
so, the Court looks to its prior decisions under the Equal
Protection Clause dealing with this issue.
Kimel, supra, at
83. In
Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Center, Inc.,
473 U. S. 432,
the Court held,
inter alia, that mental retardation did not
qualify as a "quasi-suspect" classification for equal protection
purposes, id., at 435, and that, accordingly, a city ordinance
requiring a special use permit for the operation of a group home
for the mentally retarded incurred only the minimum
"rational-basis" review applicable to general social and economic
legislation, id., at 446. Although "negative attitudes" and "fear"
often accompany irrational biases, their presence alone does not a
constitutional violation make. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment does
not require States to make special accommodations for the disabled,
so long as their actions toward such individuals are rational. They
could quite hardheadedly-and perhaps hardheartedly-hold to
job-qualification requirements which do not make allowance for the
disabled. If special accommodations for the disabled are to be
required, they have to come from positive law and not through the
Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 365-368.
(c) The requirements for private individuals to recover money
damages against the States-that there be state discrimination
violative of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the remedy imposed
by Congress be congruent and proportional to the targeted
violation-are not met here. First, the ADA's legislative record
fails to show that Congress identified a history and pattern of
irrational employment discrimination by the States against the
disabled. See,
e. g., Kimel, supra, at 89. Because Eleventh
Amendment immunity does not extend to local governmental units such
as cities and counties, see
Lincoln County v.
Luning,
133 U. S. 529,
530, the Court rejects respondents' contention that the inquiry as
to unconstitutional discrimination should extend to such units as
well as to States. Congress made a general finding in the ADA that
"historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate
individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such
forms of discrimination ... continue to be a serious and pervasive
social problem." 42 U. S. C. § 12101(a)(2). Although the record
includes instances to support such a finding, the great majority of
these incidents do not deal with state activities in employment.
Even if it were to be determined that the half a dozen relevant
examples from the record showed unconstitutional action on the part
of States, these incidents taken together fall far short of even
suggesting the pattern of unconstitutional discrimination on which
§ 5 legislation must be based. See,
e. g., Kimel, supra, at
89-91. Moreover, statements in House and Senate committee reports
indicate that Congress targeted the ADA at employment
discrimination in the private sector. Second, the rights and
358
358 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Syllabus
remedies created by the ADA against the States raise the same
sort of concerns as to congruence and proportionality as were found
in
City of Boerne, supra. For example, while it would be
entirely rational (and therefore constitutional) for a state
employer to conserve scarce financial resources by hiring employees
able to use existing facilities, the ADA requires employers to make
such facilities readily accessible to and usable by disabled
individuals, §§ 12112(5)(B), 12111(9). The ADA does except
employers from the "reasonable accommodatio[n]" requirement where
the employer can demonstrate that accommodation would impose an
"undue hardship" upon it, § 12112(b)(5)(A), but, even with this
exception, the accommodation duty far exceeds what is
constitutionally required. The ADA's constitutional shortcomings
are apparent when it is compared to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Holding the latter Act to be "appropriate" legislation to enforce
the Fifteenth Amendment's protection against racial discrimination
in voting,
South Carolina v.
Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, this Court
emphasized that Congress had there documented a marked pattern of
unconstitutional action by the States, see id., at 312, and had
determined that litigation had proved ineffective to remedy the
problem, see id., at 313. The contrast between the kind of evidence
detailed in
Katzenbach, and the evidence that Congress
considered in the present case, is stark. To uphold the ADA's
application to the States would allow Congress to rewrite the
Fourteenth Amendment law laid down by this Court in
Cleburne. Section 5 does not so broadly enlarge
congressional authority. Pp.368-374.
193 F.3d
1214, reversed.
REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J.,
filed a concurring opinion, in which O'CONNOR, J., joined,
post, p. 374. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in
which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined,
post, p.
376.
Jeffrey S.
Sutton argued the cause for
petitioners. With him on the briefs were
Bill Pryor,
Attorney General of Alabama,
Alice Ann Byrne and
Margaret
L. Fleming, Assistant Attorneys General,
Gregory G.
Katsas, and
Lisa Huggins.
Michael H. Gottesman argued the cause for
respondents.
With him on the brief were Arlene Mayerson, Laurence Gold,
Deborah Mattison, Sandra Reiss, Ira Burnim, and Jennifer
Mathis.
Solicitor General Waxman argued the cause for the United
States as
amicus curiae urging affirmance. With
359
him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Lee, Deputy
Solicitor General Underwood, Patricia A. Millett, Jessica Dunsay
Silver, and Seth M. Galanter. *
*Briefs of
amici curiae urging reversal were filed for
the State of Hawaii et al. by
Audrey J.
Anderson, Earl I.
Anzai, Attorney General of Hawaii,
Charles F.
Fell, Senior Deputy Attorney General, and
Nancy
Albano, Deputy Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General
for their respective States as follows:
Mark Pryor of
Arkansas,
Alan G.
Lance of Idaho,
Don Stenberg
of Nebraska,
Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada,
Betty D.
Montgomery of Ohio, and
Paul G.
Summers of
Tennessee; for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by
Kent
S.
Scheidegger; and for the Pacific Legal Foundation by
Anne M. Hayes and
M. Reed Hopper.
Briefs of
amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for
the State of Minnesota et al. by
Mike Hatch, Attorney
General of Minnesota,
Alan I. Gilbert, Chief Deputy Attorney
General, and
W Karl Hansen, Assistant Attorney General, and
by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows:
Janet Napolitano of Arizona,
Richard Blumenthal of
Connecticut,
James E. Ryan of Illinois,
Thomas J.
Miller of Iowa,
A. B. "Ben" Chandler III of Kentucky,
J.
Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland,
Thomas F.
Reilly of Massachusetts,
Jeremiah W (Jay) Nixon of
Missouri,
Patricia A. Madrid of New Mexico,
Eliot
Spitzer of New York,
Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota,
William H. Sorrell of Vermont, and
Christine O.
Gregoire of Washington; for the American Association on
Mental Retardation et al. by
James W Ellis, Michael B.
Browde, and
Christian G.
Fritz; for the American
Association of People with Disabilities et al. by
John Townsend
Rich; for the American Bar Association by
Robert Lewin,
James A. Shifren, and
Claude G.
Szyfer; for the
American Cancer Society by
Daniel G.
Jarcho, Michael
J.
Haungs, William J.
Dalton, and
Mary P.
Rouvelas; for the Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund,
Inc., et al. by
Catherine A. Hanssens and
David S.
Buckel; for the National Association of Protection and
Advocacy Systems et al. by
Mark E. Haddad, Jacqueline G.
Cooper, and
Sharon Masling; for the National Council
on Disability by
Robert L. Burgdorf, Jr.; for Self-Advocates
Becoming Empowered et al. by
Thomas K. Gilhool, Michael
Churchill, Barbara Ransom, and
Max Lapertosa; for the
Voice of the Retarded et al. by
William J.
Burke and
Tamie Hopp; for Senator Robert Dole et al. by
Chai R.
Feldblum; and for Law Professors by
Leo G.
Rydzewski.
Briefs of
amici curiae were filed for the Association of
State Correctional Administrators by
Marci A. Hamilton; for
the Coalition for Local Sovereignty by
Kenneth B. Clark; for
the National Employment Lawyers Association et al. by
Daniel
F.
Goldstein, C.
Christopher Brown, and
Merl H.
Wayman; for Paralyzed Veterans of America et al. by
Ted
G.
Dane
360
360 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
We decide here whether employees of the State of Alabama may
recover money damages by reason of the State's failure to comply
with the provisions of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 330,42 U. S. C. §§
12111-12117.1 We hold that such suits are barred by the Eleventh
Amendment.
The ADA prohibits certain employers, including the States, from
"discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual
and Eve Hill; for the Southern Poverty Law Center by Pamela L.
Sumners and Elizabeth J. Hubertz; and for Morton Horwitz et al. by
Kenneth W Brothers, Elizabeth B. McCallum, and Claudia Center. A.
Stephen Hut, Jr., filed a statement by former President George H.
W. Bush as amicus curiae.
1 Respondents' complaints in the United States District Court
alleged violations of both Title I and Title II of the ADA, and
petitioners' "Question Presented" can be read to apply to both
sections. See Brief for Petitioners i; Brief for United States I.
Though the briefs of the parties discuss both sections in their
constitutional arguments, no party has briefed the question whether
Title II of the ADA, dealing with the "services, programs, or
activities of a public entity," 42 U. S. C. § 12132, is available
for claims of employment discrimination when Title I of the ADA
expressly deals with that subject. See,
e. g., Russello v.
United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) ("[W]here Congress
includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits
it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed
that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate
inclusion or exclusion" (internal quotation marks omitted)). The
Courts of Appeals are divided on this issue, compare
Zimmerman v.
Oregon Dept. of Justice, 170 F.3d
1169 (CA9 1999), with
Bledsoe v.
Palm Beach
Cty. Soil &
Water Conservation Dist., 133 F.3d
816 (CAll 1998). We are not disposed to decide the
constitutional issue whether Title II, which has somewhat different
remedial provisions from Title I, is appropriate legislation under
§ 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when the parties have not favored
us with briefing on the statutory question. To the extent the Court
granted certiorari on the question whether respondents may sue
their state employers for damages under Title II of the ADA, see
this Court's Rule 24.1(a), that portion of the writ is dismissed as
improvidently granted. See
The Monrosa v.
Carbon Black
Export, Inc., 359
U. S. 180, 184 (1959).
361
with a disability because of the disability of such individual
in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement,
or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and
other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." §§
12112(a), 12111(2), (5), (7). To this end, the Act requires
employers to "mak[e] reasonable accommodations to the known
physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual
with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless [the
employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an
undue hardship on the operation of the [employer's] business." §
12112(b)(5)(A).
"'[R]easonable accommodation' may include-
"(A) making existing facilities used by employees readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and (B)
job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules,
reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of
equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of
examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of
qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations
for individuals with disabilities." § 12111(9).
The Act also prohibits employers from "utilizing standards,
criteria, or methods of administration ... that have the effect of
discrimination on the basis of disability." § 12112(b)(3)(A).
The Act defines "disability" to include "(A) a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the
major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an
impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment." §
12102(2). A disabled individual is otherwise "qualified" if he or
she, "with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the
essential functions of the employment position that such individual
holds or desires." § 12111(8).
362
362 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Respondent Patricia Garrett, a registered nurse, was employed as
the Director of Nursing, OB/Gyn/Neonatal Services, for the
University of Alabama in Birmingham Hospital. See App. 31, 38. In
1994, Garrett was diagnosed with breast cancer and subsequently
underwent a lumpectomy, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy. See
id., at 38. Garrett's treatments required her to take substantial
leave from work. Upon returning to work in July 1995, Garrett's
supervisor informed Garrett that she would have to give up her
Director position. See id., at 39. Garrett then applied for and
received a transfer to another, lower paying position as a nurse
manager. See ibid.
Respondent Milton Ash worked as a security officer for the
Alabama Department of Youth Services (Department). See id., at 8.
Upon commencing this employment, Ash informed the Department that
he suffered from chronic asthma and that his doctor recommended he
avoid carbon monoxide and cigarette smoke, and Ash requested that
the Department modify his duties to minimize his exposure to these
substances. See ibid. Ash was later diagnosed with sleep apnea and
requested, again pursuant to his doctor's recommendation, that he
be reassigned to daytime shifts to accommodate his condition. See
id., at 9. Ultimately, the Department granted none of the requested
relief. See id., at 8-9. Shortly after Ash filed a discrimination
claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he noticed
that his performance evaluations were lower than those he had
received on previous occasions. See id., at 9.
Garrett and Ash filed separate lawsuits in the District Court,
both seeking money damages under the ADA.2 Petitioners moved for
summary judgment, claiming that the ADA exceeds Congress' authority
to abrogate the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity. See 989 F.
Supp. 1409, 1410 (ND Ala. 1998). In a single opinion disposing of
both
2 Garrett raised other claims, but those are not presently
before the Court.
363
cases, the District Court agreed with petitioners' position and
granted their motions for summary judgment. See id., at 1410, 1412.
The cases were consolidated on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. The
Court of Appeals reversed,
193 F.3d
1214 (1999), adhering to its intervening decision in
Kimel v.
State Bd. of Regents, 139
F.3d 1426, 1433
(CA111998), aff'd,
528 U. S. 62 (2000), that
the ADA validly abrogates the States' Eleventh Amendment
immunity.
We granted certiorari, 529 U. S. 1065 (2000), to resolve a split
among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether an individual
may sue a State for money damages in federal court under the
ADA.
I
The Eleventh Amendment provides:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed
to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or
by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Although by its terms the Amendment applies only to suits
against a State by citizens of another State, our cases have
extended the Amendment's applicability to suits by citizens against
their own States. See
Kimel v.
Florida Bd. of
Regents, 528 U. S.
62, 72-73 (2000);
College Savings Bank v.
Florida
Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 669-670
(1999);
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v.
Florida, 517 U. S.
44, 54 (1996);
Hans v.
Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 15 (1890). The
ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting
States may not be sued by private individuals in federal court. See
Kimel, supra, at 73.
We have recognized, however, that Congress may abrogate the
States' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it both unequivocally
intends to do so and "act[s] pursuant to a valid grant of
constitutional authority." 528 U. S., at 73. The
364
364 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
first of these requirements is not in dispute here. See 42 U. S.
C. § 12202 ("A State shall not be immune under the eleventh
amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action
in [a] Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a
violation of this chapter"). The question, then, is whether
Congress acted within its constitutional authority by subjecting
the States to suits in federal court for money damages under the
ADA.
Congress may not, of course, base its abrogation of the States'
Eleventh Amendment immunity upon the powers enumerated in Article
1. See
Kimel, supra, at 79 ("Under our firmly established
precedent then, if the [Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967] rests solely on Congress' Article I commerce power, the
private petitioners in to day's cases cannot maintain their suits
against their state employers");
Seminole Tribe, supra, at
72-73 ("The Eleventh Amendment restricts the judicial power under
Article III, and Article I cannot be used to circumvent the
constitutional limitations placed upon federal jurisdiction");
College Savings Bank, supra, at 672;
Florida Prepaid
Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v.
College Savings Bank,
527 U. S. 627,
636
(1999); Alden v.
Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 730-733
(1999). In
Fitzpatrick v.
Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976),
however, we held that "the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of
state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the
enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Id., at 456 (citation omitted). As a result, we concluded,
Congress may subject nonconsenting States to suit in federal court
when it does so pursuant to a valid exercise of its § 5 power. See
ibid. Our cases have adhered to this proposition. See,
e.
g., Kimel, supra, at 80. Accordingly, the ADA can apply to the
States only to the extent that the statute is appropriate § 5
legislation.3
3 It is clear that Congress intended to invoke § 5 as one of its
bases for enacting the ADA. See 42 U. S. C. § 12101(b)(4).
365
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, in rele-
vant part:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power
to enforce the substantive guarantees contained in § 1 by enacting
"appropriate legislation." See
City of Boerne v.
Flores, 521 U.
S. 507, 536 (1997). Congress is not limited to mere legislative
repetition of this Court's constitutional jurisprudence. "Rather,
Congress' power 'to enforce' the Amendment includes the authority
both to remedy and to deter violation of rights guaranteed
thereunder by prohibiting a somewhat broader swath of conduct,
including that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendment's
text."
Kimel, supra, at 81;
City of Boerne, supra, at
536.
City of Boerne also confirmed, however, the long-settled
principle that it is the responsibility of this Court, not
Congress, to define the substance of constitutional guarantees. 521
U. S., at 519-524. Accordingly, § 5 legislation reaching beyond the
scope of § l's actual guarantees must exhibit "congruence and
proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and
the means adopted to that end."
Id., at 520.
II
The first step in applying these now familiar principles is to
identify with some precision the scope of the constitutional right
at issue. Here, that inquiry requires us to examine the limitations
§ 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment places upon States' treatment of
the disabled. As we did last Term in
Kimel, see 528 U. S.,
at 83, we look to our prior decisions under the Equal Protection
Clause dealing with this issue.
366
366 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
In
Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Center, Inc.,
473 U. S. 432
(1985), we considered an equal protection challenge to a city
ordinance requiring a special use permit for the operation of a
group home for the mentally retarded. The specific question before
us was whether the Court of Appeals had erred by holding that
mental retardation qualified as a "quasi-suspect" classification
under our equal protection jurisprudence.
Id., at 435. We
answered that question in the affirmative, concluding instead that
such legislation incurs only the minimum "rational-basis" review
applicable to general social and economic legislation.4
Id.,
at 446. In a statement that today seems quite prescient, we
explained that
"if the large and amorphous class of the mentally retarded were
deemed quasi-suspect for the reasons given by the Court of Appeals,
it would be difficult to find a principled way to distinguish a
variety of other groups who have perhaps immutable disabilities
setting them off from others, who cannot themselves mandate the
desired legislative responses, and who can claim some degree of
prejudice from at least part of the public at large. One need
mention in this respect only the aging, the disabled, the mentally
ill, and the infirm. We are reluctant to set out on that course,
and we decline to do so." Id., at 445-446.
Under rational-basis review, where a group possesses
"distinguishing characteristics relevant to interests the State has
the authority to implement," a State's decision
4 Applying the basic principles of rationality review,
Cleburne struck down the city ordinance in question. 473 U.
S., at 447-450. The Court's reasoning was that the city's purported
justifications for the ordinance made no sense in light of how the
city treated other groups similarly situated in relevant respects.
Although the group home for the mentally retarded was required to
obtain a special use permit, apartment houses, other
multiple-family dwellings, retirement homes, nursing homes,
sanitariums, hospitals, boarding houses, fraternity and sorority
houses, and dormitories were not subject to the ordinance. See
ibid.
367
to act on the basis of those differences does not give rise to a
constitutional violation.
Id., at 441. "Such a
classification cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if
there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment
and some legitimate governmental purpose."
Heller v.
Doe, 509 U. S.
312, 320 (1993) (citing
Nordlinger v.
Hahn, 505
U. S. 1 (1992);
New Orleans v.
Dukes, 427 U. S. 297, 303 (1976)
(per curiam}). Moreover, the State need not articulate its
reasoning at the moment a particular decision is made. Rather, the
burden is upon the challenging party to negative " 'any reasonably
conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for
the classification.'''
Heller, supra, at 320 (quoting
FCC v.
Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S. 307, 313
(1993)).
JUSTICE BREYER suggests that
Cleburne stands for the
broad proposition that state decisionmaking reflecting "negative
attitudes" or "fear" necessarily runs afoul of the Fourteenth
Amendment. See
post, at 382 (dissenting opinion) (quoting
Cleburne, 473 U. S., at 448). Although such biases may often
accompany irrational (and therefore unconstitutional)
discrimination, their presence alone does not a constitutional
violation make. As we noted in
Cleburne: "[M]ere negative
attitudes, or fear,
unsubstantiated by factors which are
properly cognizable in a zoning proceeding, are not permissible
bases for treating a home for the mentally retarded differently
.... "
Id., at 448 (emphases added). This language, read in
context, simply states the unremarkable and widely acknowledged
tenet of this Court's equal protection jurisprudence that state
action subject to rational-basis scrutiny does not violate the
Fourteenth Amendment when it "rationally furthers the purpose
identified by the State."
Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v.
Murgia, 427 U.
S. 307, 314 (1976)
(per curiam).
Thus, the result of
Cleburne is that States are not
required by the Fourteenth Amendment to make special accommodations
for the disabled, so long as their actions toward such individuals
are rational. They could quite hardheadedly-
368
368 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
and perhaps hardheartedly-hold to job-qualification requirements
which do not make allowance for the disabled. If special
accommodations for the disabled are to be required, they have to
come from positive law and not through the Equal Protection
Clause.5
III
Once we have determined the metes and bounds of the
constitutional right in question, we examine whether Congress
identified a history and pattern of unconstitutional employment
discrimination by the States against the disabled. Just as § 1 of
the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to actions committed "under
color of state law," Congress' § 5 authority is appropriately
exercised only in response to state transgressions. See
Florida
Prepaid, 527 U. S., at 640 ("It is this conduct then-unremedied
patent infringement by the States-that must give rise to the
Fourteenth Amendment violation that Congress sought to redress in
the Patent Remedy Act");
Kimel, 528 U. S., at 89 ("Congress
never identified any pattern of age discrimination by the States,
much less any discrimination whatsoever that rose to the level of
constitutional violation"). The legislative record of the ADA,
however, simply fails to show that Congress did in fact identify a
pattern of irrational state discrimination in employment against
the disabled.
Respondents contend that the inquiry as to unconstitutional
discrimination should extend not only to States themselves, but to
units of local governments, such as cities and counties. All of
these, they say, are "state actors" for
5 It is worth noting that by the time that Congress enacted the
ADA in 1990, every State in the Union had enacted such measures. At
least one Member of Congress remarked that "this is probably one of
the few times where the States are so far out in front of the
Federal Government, it's not funny." Hearing on Discrimination
Against Cancer Victims and the Handicapped before the Subcommittee
on Employment Opportunities of the House Committee on Education and
Labor, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1987). A number of these
provisions, however, did not go as far as the ADA did in requiring
accommodation.
369
purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brief for Respondents 8.
This is quite true, but the Eleventh Amendment does not extend its
immunity to units of local government. See
Lincoln County v.
Luning, 133 U.
S. 529, 530 (1890). These entities are subject to private
claims for damages under the ADA without Congress' ever having to
rely on § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to render them so. lt would
make no sense to consider constitutional violations on their part,
as well as by the States themselves, when only the States are the
beneficiaries of the Eleventh Amendment.
Congress made a general finding in the ADA that "historically,
society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with
disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of
discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be
a serious and pervasive social problem." 42 U. S. C. § 12101(a)(2).
The record assembled by Congress includes many instances to support
such a finding. But the great majority of these incidents do not
deal with the activities of States.
Respondents in their brief cite half a dozen examples from the
record that did involve States. A department head at the University
of North Carolina refused to hire an applicant for the position of
health administrator because he was blind; similarly, a student at
a state university in South Dakota was denied an opportunity to
practice teach because the dean at that time was convinced that
blind people could not teach in public schools. A microfilmer at
the Kansas Department of Transportation was fired because he had
epilepsy; deaf workers at the University of Oklahoma were paid a
lower salary than those who could hear. The Indiana State Personnel
Office informed a woman with a concealed disability that she should
not disclose it if she wished to obtain employment.6
6 The record does show that some States, adopting the tenets of
the eugenics movement of the early part of this century, required
extreme measures such as sterilization of persons suffering from
hereditary mental disease. These laws were upheld against
constitutional attack 70 years ago in
Buck v.
Bell,
274 U. S. 200
(1927). But there is no indication that
370
370 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Several of these incidents undoubtedly evidence an unwillingness
on the part of state officials to make the sort of accommodations
for the disabled required by the ADA. Whether they were irrational
under our decision in
Cleburne is more debatable,
particularly when the incident is described out of context. But
even if it were to be determined that each incident upon fuller
examination showed unconstitutional action on the part of the
State, these incidents taken together fall far short of even
suggesting the pattern of unconstitutional discrimination on which
§ 5 legislation must be based. See
Kimel, supra, at 89-91;
City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 530-531. Congress, in enacting
the ADA, found that "some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more
physical or mental disabilities." 42 U. S. C. § 12101(a)(1). In
1990, the States alone employed more than 4.5 million people. U. S.
Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the
United States 338 (119th ed. 1999) (Table 534). It is telling, we
think, that given these large numbers, Congress assembled only such
minimal evidence of unconstitutional state discrimination in
employment against the disabled.
JUSTICE BREYER maintains that Congress applied Title I of the
ADA to the States in response to a host of incidents representing
unconstitutional state discrimination in employment against persons
with disabilities. A close review of the relevant materials,
however, undercuts that conclusion. JUSTICE BREYER'S Appendix C
consists not of legislative findings, but of unexamined, anecdotal
accounts of "adverse, disparate treatment by state officials."
Post, at 379. Of course, as we have already explained,
"adverse, disparate treatment" often does not amount to a
constitutional violation where rational-basis scrutiny applies.
These accounts, moreover, were submitted not directly to Congress
but to the Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of
any State had persisted in requiring such harsh measures as of
1990 when the ADA was adopted.
371
Americans with Disabilities, which made no findings on the
subject of state discrimination in employment.7 See the Task
Force's Report entitled From ADA to Empowerment (Oct. 12, 1990).
And, had Congress truly understood this information as reflecting a
pattern of unconstitutional behavior by the States, one would
expect some mention of that conclusion in the Act's legislative
findings. There is none. See 42 U. S. C. § 12101. Although JUSTICE
BREYER would infer from Congress' general conclusions regarding
societal discrimination against the disabled that the States had
likewise participated in such action,
post, at 378, the
House and Senate committee reports on the ADA flatly contradict
this assertion. After describing the evidence presented to the
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and its subcommittee
(including the Task Force Report upon which the dissent relies),
the Committee's Report reached, among others, the following
conclusion: "Discrimination still persists in such critical areas
as
employment in the private sector, public accommodations,
public services, transportation, and telecommunications." S. Rep.
No. 101-116, p. 6 (1989) (emphasis added). The House Committee on
Education and Labor, addressing the ADA's employment provisions,
reached the same conclusion: "[A]fter extensive review and analysis
over a number of Congressional sessions, ... there exists a
compelling need to establish a clear and comprehensive Federal
prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability in the
areas of
employment in the private sector, public
accommodations, public services, transporta-
7 Only a small fraction of the anecdotes JUSTICE BREYER
identifies in his Appendix C relate to state discrimination against
the disabled in employment. At most, somewhere around 50 of these
allegations describe conduct that could conceivably amount to
constitutional violations by the States, and most of them are so
general and brief that no firm conclusion can be drawn. The
overwhelming majority of these accounts pertain to alleged
discrimination by the States in the provision of public services
and public accommodations, which areas are addressed in Titles II
and III of the ADA.
372
372 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
tion, and telecommunications." H. R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, p.
28 (1990) (emphasis added). Thus, not only is the inference JUSTICE
BREYER draws unwarranted, but there is also strong evidence that
Congress' failure to mention States in its legislative findings
addressing discrimination in employment reflects that body's
judgment that no pattern of unconstitutional state action had been
documented.
Even were it possible to squeeze out of these examples a pattern
of unconstitutional discrimination by the States, the rights and
remedies created by the ADA against the States would raise the same
sort of concerns as to congruence and proportionality as were found
in City
of Boerne, supra. For example, whereas it would be
entirely rational (and therefore constitutional) for a state
employer to conserve scarce financial resources by hiring employees
who are able to use existing facilities, the ADA requires employers
to "mak[e] existing facilities used by employees readily accessible
to and usable by individuals with disabilities." 42 U. S. C. §§
12112(5)(B), 12111(9). The ADA does except employers from the
"reasonable accommodatio[n]" requirement where the employer "can
demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship
on the operation of the business of such covered entity." §
12112(b)(5)(A). However, even with this exception, the
accommodation duty far exceeds what is constitutionally required in
that it makes unlawful a range of alternative responses that would
be reasonable but would fall short of imposing an "undue burden"
upon the employer. The Act also makes it the employer's duty to
prove that it would suffer such a burden, instead of requiring (as
the Constitution does) that the complaining party negate reasonable
bases for the employer's decision. See ibid.
The ADA also forbids "utilizing standards, criteria, or methods
of administration" that disparately impact the disabled, without
regard to whether such conduct has a rational basis. §
12112(b)(3)(A). Although disparate impact may be
373
relevant evidence of racial discrimination, see
Washington v.
Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 239
(1976), such evidence alone is insufficient even where the
Fourteenth Amendment subjects state action to strict scrutiny. See,
e. g., ibid. ("[O]ur cases have not embraced the proposition
that a law or other official act, without regard to whether it
reflects a racially discriminatory purpose, is unconstitutional
solely because it has a racially disproportionate
impact").
The ADA's constitutional shortcomings are apparent when the Act
is compared to Congress' efforts in the Voting Rights Act of 1965
to respond to a serious pattern of constitutional violations. In
South Carolina v.
Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301 (1966), we
considered whether the Voting Rights Act was "appropriate"
legislation to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment's protection against
racial discrimination in voting. Concluding that it was a valid
exercise of Congress' enforcement power under § 2 of the Fifteenth
Amendment,8 we noted that "[b]efore enacting the measure, Congress
explored with great care the problem of racial discrimination in
voting."
Id., at 308.
In that Act, Congress documented a marked pattern of
unconstitutional action by the States. State officials, Congress
found, routinely applied voting tests in order to exclude
African-American citizens from registering to vote. See id., at
312. Congress also determined that litigation had proved
ineffective and that there persisted an otherwise inexplicable
50-percentage-point gap in the registration of white and
African-American voters in some States. See id., at 313. Congress'
response was to promulgate in the Voting Rights Act a detailed but
limited remedial scheme designed to guarantee meaningful
enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment in those areas of the Nation
where abundant evidence of States' systematic denial of those
rights was identified.
8 Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment is virtually identical to
§ 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
374
374 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
The contrast between this kind of evidence, and the evidence
that Congress considered in the present case, is stark.
Congressional enactment of the ADA represents its judgment that
there should be a "comprehensive national mandate for the
elimination of discrimination against individuals with
disabilities." 42 U. S. C. § 12101(b)(1). Congress is the final
authority as to desirable public policy, but 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. Those requirements are not met here, and to uphold the
Act's application to the States would allow Congress to rewrite the
Fourteenth Amendment law laid down by this Court in
Cleburne.9 Section 5 does not so broadly enlarge
congressional authority. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
therefore
Reversed.
JUSTICE KENNEDY, with whom JUSTICE O'CONNOR joins,
concurring.
Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice
or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity
caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some
instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be
different in some respects from ourselves. Quite apart from any
historical documentation,
9 Our holding here that Congress did not validly abrogate the
States' sovereign immunity from suit by private individuals for
money damages under Title I does not mean that persons with
disabilities have no federal recourse against 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). In
addition, state laws protecting the rights of persons with
disabilities in employment and other aspects of life provide
independent avenues of redress. See n. 5,
supra.
375
knowledge of our own human instincts teaches that persons who
find it difficult to perform routine functions by reason of some
mental or physical impairment might at first seem unsettling to us,
unless we are guided by the better angels of our nature. There can
be little doubt, then, that persons with mental or physical
impairments are confronted with prejudice which can stem from
indifference or insecurity as well as from malicious ill will.
One of the undoubted achievements of statutes designed to assist
those with impairments is that citizens have an incentive, flowing
from a legal duty, to develop a better understanding, a more decent
perspective, for accepting persons with impairments or disabilities
into the larger society. The law works this way because the law can
be a teacher. So I do not doubt that the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 will be a milestone on the path to a more
decent, tolerant, progressive society.
It is a question of quite a different order, however, to say
that the States in their official capacities, the States as
governmental entities, must be held in violation of the
Constitution on the assumption that they embody the misconceived or
malicious perceptions of some of their citizens. It is a most
serious charge to say a State has engaged in a pattern or practice
designed to deny its citizens the equal protection of the laws,
particularly where the accusation is based not on hostility but
instead on the failure to act or the omission to remedy. States
can, and do, stand apart from the citizenry. States act as neutral
entities, ready to take instruction and to enact laws when their
citizens so demand. The failure of a State to revise policies now
seen as incorrect under a new understanding of proper policy does
not always constitute the purposeful and intentional action
required to make out a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
See
Washington v.
Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976).
For the reasons explained by the Court, an equal protection
violation has not been shown with respect to the several States in
this case. If the States had been trans-
376
376 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
gressing the Fourteenth Amendment by their mistreatment or lack
of concern for those with impairments, one would have expected to
find in decisions of the courts of the States and also the courts
of the United States extensive litigation and discussion of the
constitutional violations. This confirming judicial documentation
does not exist. That there is a new awareness, a new consciousness,
a new commitment to better treatment of those disadvantaged by
mental or physical impairments does not establish that an absence
of state statutory correctives was a constitutional violation.
It must be noted, moreover, that what is in question is not
whether the Congress, acting pursuant to a power granted to it by
the Constitution, can compel the States to act. What is involved is
only the question whether the States can be subjected to liability
in suits brought not by the Federal Government (to which the States
have consented, see
Alden v.
Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 755
(1999)), but by private persons seeking to collect moneys from the
state treasury without the consent of the State. The predicate for
money damages against an unconsenting State in suits brought by
private persons must be a federal statute enacted upon the
documentation of patterns of constitutional violations committed by
the State in its official capacity. That predicate, for reasons
discussed here and in the decision of the Court, has not been
established. With these observations, I join the Court's
opinion.
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and
JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.
Reviewing the congressional record as if it were an
administrative agency record, the Court holds the statutory
provision before us, 42 U. S. C. § 12202, unconstitutional. The
Court concludes that Congress assembled insufficient evidence of
unconstitutional discrimination,
ante, at 370, that Congress
improperly attempted to "rewrite" the law we established in
Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432 (1985),
ante, at 374, and that the law is not suffi-
377
ciently tailored to address unconstitutional discrimination,
ante, at 372-373.
Section 5, however, grants Congress the "power to enforce, by
appropriate legislation," the Fourteenth Amendment's equal
protection guarantee. U. S. Const., Arndt. 14, § 5. As the Court
recognizes, state discrimination in employment against persons with
disabilities might "'run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause'"
where there is no "'rational relationship between the disparity of
treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.'"
Ante,
at 367 (quoting
Heller v.
Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 320
(1993)). See also
Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Center,
Inc., supra, at 440 (stating that the Court will sustain a
classification if it is "rationally related to a legitimate state
interest"). In my view, Congress reasonably could have concluded
that the remedy before us constitutes an "appropriate" way to
enforce this basic equal protection requirement. And that is all
the Constitution requires.
I
The Court says that its primary problem with this statutory
provision is one of legislative evidence. It says that "Congress
assembled only ... minimal evidence of unconstitutional state
discrimination in employment."
Ante, at 370. In fact,
Congress compiled a vast legislative record documenting "'massive,
society-wide discrimination'" against persons with disabilities. S.
Rep. No. 101-116, pp. 8-9 (1989) (quoting testimony of Justin Dart,
chairperson of the Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of
Americans with Disabilities). In addition to the information
presented at 13 congressional hearings (see Appendix A,
infra), and its own prior experience gathered over 40 years
during which it contemplated and enacted considerable similar
legislation (see Appendix B,
infra), Congress created a
special task force to assess the need for comprehensive
legislation. That task force held hearings in every State, attended
by more than 30,000 people, including thousands who had experienced
discrimination first hand. See From ADA to Em-
378
378 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
powerment, Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans
with Disabilities 16 (Oct. 12, 1990) (hereinafter Task Force
Report). The task force hearings, Congress' own hearings, and an
analysis of "census data, national polls, and other studies" led
Congress to conclude that "people with disabilities, as a group,
occupy an inferior status in our society, and are severely
disadvantaged socially, vocationally, economically, and
educationally." 42 U. s. C. § 12101(a)(6). As to employment,
Congress found that "[t]wo-thirds of all disabled Americans between
the age of 16 and 64 [were] not working at all," even though a
large majority wanted to, and were able to, work productively. S.
Rep. No. 101-116, at 9. And Congress found that this discrimination
flowed in significant part from "stereotypic assumptions" as well
as "purposeful unequal treatment." 42 U. S. C. § 12101(a)(7).
The powerful evidence of discriminatory treatment throughout
society in general, including discrimination by private persons and
local governments, implicates state governments as well, for state
agencies form part of that same larger society. There is no
particular reason to believe that they are immune from the
"stereotypic assumptions" and pattern of "purposeful unequal
treatment" that Congress found prevalent. The Court claims that it
"make[s] no sense" to take into consideration constitutional
violations committed by local governments.
Ante, at 369. But
the substantive obligation that the Equal Protection Clause creates
applies to state and local governmental entities alike.
E. g.,
Richmond v. J.
A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469 (1989).
Local governments often work closely with, and under the
supervision of, state officials, and in general, state and local
government employers are similarly situated. Nor is determining
whether an apparently "local" entity is entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity as simple as the majority suggests-it often
requires a "'detailed examination of the relevant provisions of
[state] law.'"
Regents of Univ. of Cal.
379
v.
Doe, 519
U. S. 425, 430, n. 6 (1997) (quoting
Moor v.
County
of Alameda, 411
U. S. 693, 719-721 (1973)).
In any event, there is no need to rest solely upon evidence of
discrimination by local governments or general societal
discrimination. There are roughly 300 examples of discrimination by
state governments themselves in the legislative record. See,
e. g., Appendix C,
infra. I fail to see how this
evidence "fall[s] far short of even suggesting the pattern of
unconstitutional discrimination on which § 5 legislation must be
based."
Ante, at 370.
The congressionally appointed task force collected numerous
specific examples, provided by persons with disabilities
themselves, of adverse, disparate treatment by state officials.
They reveal, not what the Court describes as "half a dozen"
instances of discrimination,
ante, at 369, but hundreds of
instances of adverse treatment at the hands of state
officialsinstances in which a person with a disability found it
impossible to obtain a state job, to retain state employment, to
use the public transportation that was readily available to others
in order to get to work, or to obtain a public education, which is
often a prerequisite to obtaining employment. State-imposed
barriers also frequently made it difficult or impossible for people
to vote, to enter a public building, to access important government
services, such as calling for emergency assistance, and to find a
place to live due to a pattern of irrational zoning decisions
similar to the discrimination that we held unconstitutional in
Cleburne, 473 U. S., at 448. See Appendix C,
infra.
As the Court notes, those who presented instances of
discrimination rarely provided additional, independent evidence
sufficient to prove in court that, in each instance, the
discrimination they suffered lacked justification from a judicial
standpoint.
Ante, at 370 (stating that instances of
discrimination are "described out of context"). Perhaps this
explains the Court's view that there is "minimal evidence of
unconstitutional state discrimination."
Ibid. But a leg-
380
380 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
islature is not a court of law. And Congress, unlike courts,
must, and does, routinely draw general conclusions-for example, of
likely motive or of likely relationship to legitimate need-from
anecdotal and opinion-based evidence of this kind, particularly
when the evidence lacks strong refutation. See Task Force Report
16, 20 (task force "met many times with significant representatives
of groups opposed to [the] ADA," and as to the general public,
although the task force received "about 2,000 letters" in support
of the ADA, there was only "one letter in opposition"); S. Rep. No.
101-116, at 10 (summarizing testimony that many reasonable
accommodations cost "less than $50," and the expense of others,
such as hiring employees who can interpret for the deaf, is
"frequently exaggerated"). In reviewing § 5 legislation, we have
never required the sort of extensive investigation of each piece of
evidence that the Court appears to contemplate. Compare
ante, at 370-371, with
Katzenbach v.
Morgan,
384 U. S. 641, 652-656 (1966) (asking whether Congress' likely
conclusions were reasonable, not whether there was adequate
evidentiary support in the record). Nor has the Court traditionally
required Congress to make findings as to state discrimination, or
to break down the record evidence, category by category. Compare
ante, at 371-372 (noting statements in two congressional
Reports that mentioned state discrimination in public services and
transportation but not in employment), with
Morgan, supra,
at 654 (considering what Congress "might" have concluded); 384 U.
S., at 652 (holding that likely discrimination against Puerto
Ricans in areas other than voting supported statute abolishing
literacy test as qualification for voting).
Regardless, Congress expressly found substantial unjustified
discrimination against persons with disabilities. 42 U. S. C. §
12101(9) (finding a pattern of
"unnecessary discrimination
and prejudice" that "costs the United States billions of dollars in
unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and
nonproductivity" (emphasis added)). See also 2 Legislative History
of the Americans with Disabilities
381
Act (Leg. Hist.) (Committee Print compiled for the House
Committee on Education and Labor), Ser. No. 102-B, p. 1620 (1990)
(testimony of Arlene B. Mayerson) (describing "unjustifiable and
discriminatory loss of job opportunities"); id., at 1623 (citing
study showing" 'strong evidence that employers' fears of low
performance among disabled workers are unjustified' "). Moreover,
it found that such discrimination typically reflects "stereotypic
assumptions" or "purposeful unequal treatment." 42 U. S. C. §
12101(7). See also 2 Leg. Hist. 1622 (testimony of Arlene B.
Mayerson) ("Outmoded stereotypes whether manifested in medical or
other job 'requirements' that are unrelated to the successful
performance of the job, or in decisions based on the generalized
perceptions of supervisors and hiring personnel, have excluded many
disabled people from jobs for which they are qualified"). In making
these findings, Congress followed our decision in
Cleburne,
which established that not only discrimination against persons with
disabilities that rests upon "'a bare ... desire to harm a
politically unpopular group,'" 473 U. S., at 447 (quoting
Department of Agriculture v.
Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534 (1973)
(omission in
Cleburne)), violates the Fourteenth Amendment,
but also discrimination that rests solely upon "negative
attitude[s]," "fea[r]," 473 U. S., at 448, or "irrational
prejudice," id., at 450. Adverse treatment that rests upon such
motives is unjustified discrimination in
Cleburne's
terms.
The evidence in the legislative record bears out Congress'
finding that the adverse treatment of persons with disabilities was
often arbitrary or invidious in this sense, and thus unjustified.
For example, one study that was before Congress revealed that "most
... governmental agencies in [one State] discriminated in hiring
against job applicants for an average period of five years after
treatment for cancer," based in part on coworkers' misguided belief
that "cancer is contagious." 2 Leg. Hist. 1619-1620 (testimony of
Arlene B. Mayerson). A school inexplicably refused to exempt a deaf
teacher, who taught at a school for the deaf, from a
382
382 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
"listening skills" requirement. Government's Lodging 1503. A
State refused to hire a blind employee as director of an agency for
the blind-even though he was the most qualified applicant.
Id., at 974. Certain state agencies apparently had general
policies against hiring or promoting persons with disabilities.
Id., at 1159, 1577. A zoo turned away children with Downs
Syndrome "because [the zookeeper] feared they would upset the
chimpanzees." S. Rep. No. 101116, at 7. There were reports of
numerous zoning decisions based upon "negative attitudes" or
"fear,"
Cleburne, supra, at 448, such as a zoning board that
denied a permit for an obviously pretextual reason after hearing
arguments that a facility would house "'deviants'" who needed
"'room to roam,'" Government's Lodging 1068. A complete listing of
the hundreds of examples of discrimination by state and local
governments that were submitted to the task force is set forth in
Appendix C,
infra. Congress could have reasonably believed
that these examples represented signs of a widespread problem of
unconstitutional discrimination.
II
The Court's failure to find sufficient evidentiary support may
well rest upon its decision to hold Congress to a strict,
judicially created evidentiary standard, particularly in respect to
lack of justification. JUSTICE KENNEDY'S empirical conclusion-which
rejects that of Congress-rests heavily upon his failure to find
"extensive litigation and discussion of the constitutional
violations," in
"the courts of the United States."
Ante, at 376 (concurring opinion) (emphasis added). And the
Court itself points out that, when economic or social legislation
is challenged in court as irrational, hence unconstitutional, the
"burden is upon the challenging party to negative any reasonably
conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for
the classification."
Ante, at 367 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Or as Justice Brandeis, writing for the Court, put the
matter many years ago, "'if any state of facts reasonably can be
conceived that
383
would sustain'" challenged legislation, then "'there is a
presumption of the existence of that state of facts, and one who
assails the classification must carry the burden of showing ...
that the action is arbitrary.'"
Pacific States Box &
Basket Co. v.
White, 296 U. S. 176, 185 (1935)
(quoting
Borden's Farm Products Co. v.
Baldwin,
293 U. S. 194,
209 (1934)). Imposing this special "burden" upon Congress, the
Court fails to find in the legislative record sufficient indication
that Congress has "negative[d]" the presumption that state action
is rationally related to a legitimate objective.
Ante, at
367.
The problem with the Court's approach is that neither the
"burden of proof" that favors States nor any other rule of
restraint applicable to
judges applies to
Congress
when it exercises its § 5 power. "Limitations stemming from the
nature of the judicial process ... have no application to
Congress."
Oregon v.
Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112, 248 (1970)
(Brennan, White, and Marshall, JJ., concurring in part and
dissenting in part). Rational-basis review-with its presumptions
favoring constitutionality-is "a paradigm
ofjudicial
restraint."
FCC v.
Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.
S. 307, 314 (1993) (emphasis added). And the Congress of the United
States is not a lower court.
Indeed, the Court in
Cleburne drew this very
institutional distinction. We emphasized that "courts have been
very reluctant, as they should be in our federal system and with
our respect for the separation of powers, to closely scrutinize
legislative choices." 473 U. S., at 441. Our invocation of judicial
deference and respect for Congress was based on the fact that "[§]5
of the [Fourteenth] Amendment empowers
Congress to enforce
[the equal protection] mandate."
Id., at 439 (emphasis
added). Indeed, we made clear that the absence of a contrary
congressional finding was critical to our decision to apply mere
rational-basis review to disability discrimination claims-a
"congressional direction" to apply a more stringent standard would
have been "controlling."
Ibid. See also
Washington v.
Davis, 426 U.
S. 229, 248
384
384 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
(1976) (refusing to invalidate a law based on the Equal
Protection Clause because a disparate-impact standard "should await
legislative prescription"). Cf.
Mitchell, supra, at 284
(Stewart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("Congress
may paint with a much broader brush than may this Court, which must
confine itself to the judicial function of deciding individual
cases and controversies upon individual records"). In short, the
Court's claim that "to uphold the Act's application to the States
would allow Congress to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment law laid
down by this Court in
Cleburne," ante, at 374, is repudiated
by
Cleburne itself.
There is simply no reason to require Congress, seeking to
determine facts relevant to the exercise of its § 5 authority, to
adopt rules or presumptions that reflect a court's institutional
limitations. Unlike courts, Congress can readily gather facts from
across the Nation, assess the magnitude of a problem, and more
easily find an appropriate remedy. Cf.
Cleburne, supra, at
442-443 (addressing the problems of the "large and diversified
group" of persons with disabilities "is a difficult and often a
technical matter, very much a task for legislators guided by
qualified professionals and not by the perhaps ill-informed
opinions of the judiciary"). Unlike courts, Congress directly
reflects public attitudes and beliefs, enabling Congress better to
understand where, and to what extent, refusals to accommodate a
disability amount to behavior that is callous or unreasonable to
the point of lacking constitutional justification. Unlike judges,
Members of Congress can directly obtain information from
constituents who have firsthand experience with discrimination and
related issues.
Moreover, unlike judges, Members of Congress are elected.
When the Court has applied the majority's burden of proof rule,
it has explained that we, i.
e., the courts, do not" 'sit as
a superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of
legislative policy determinations.'''
Heller, 509 U. S., at
319
385
(quoting
New Orleans v.
Dukes, 427 U. S. 297, 303 (1976)
(per curiam)). To apply a rule designed to restrict courts
as if it restricted Congress' legislative power is to stand the
underlying principle-a principle of judicial restrainton its head.
But without the use of this burden of proof rule or some other
unusually stringent standard of review, it is difficult to see how
the Court can find the legislative record here inadequate. Read
with a reasonably favorable eye, the record indicates that state
governments subjected those with disabilities to seriously adverse,
disparate treatment. And Congress could have found, in a
significant number of instances, that this treatment violated the
substantive principles of justification-shorn of their
judicialrestraint-related presumptions-that this Court recognized
in
Cleburne.
III
The Court argues in the alternative that the statute's damages
remedy is not "congruent" with and "proportional" to the equal
protection problem that Congress found.
Ante, at 374 (citing
City of Boerne v.
Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 520
(1997)). The Court suggests that the Act's "reasonable
accommodation" requirement, 42 U. S. C. § 12112(b)(5)(A), and
disparate-impact standard, § 12112(b)(3)(A), "far excee[d] what is
constitutionally required."
Ante, at 372. But we have upheld
disparate-impact standards in contexts where they were not
"constitutionally required." Compare
Griggs v.
Duke Power
Co., 401 U. S.
424, 432 (1971), with
Washington, supra, at 239, and
City of Rome v.
United States, 446 U. S. 156, 172-173
(1980), with
Mobile v.
Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 62 (1980)
(plurality opinion).
And what is wrong with a remedy that, in response to
unreasonable employer behavior, requires an employer to make
accommodations that are reasonable? Of course, what is "reasonable"
in the statutory sense and what is "unreasonable" in the
constitutional sense might differ. In other words, the requirement
may exceed what is necessary to
386
386 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
avoid a constitutional violation. But it is just that powerthe
power to require more than the minimum-that § 5 grants to Congress,
as this Court has repeatedly confirmed. As long ago as 1880, the
Court wrote that § 5 "brought within the domain of congressional
power" whatever "tends to enforce submission" to its "prohibitions"
and "to secure to all persons ... the equal protection of the
laws."
Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346
(1880). More recently, the Court added that § 5's "draftsmen sought
to grant to Congress, by a specific provision applicable to the
Fourteenth Amendment, the same broad powers expressed in the
Necessary and Proper Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 18."
Morgan,
384 U. S., at 650 (citing
McCulloch v.
Maryland, 4
Wheat. 316, 421 (1819)).
In keeping with these principles, the Court has said that "[i]t
is not for us to review the congressional resolution of ... the
various conflicting considerations-the risk or pervasiveness of the
discrimination in governmental services ... , the adequacy or
availability of alternative remedies, and the nature and
significance of the state interests that would be affected." 384 U.
S., at 653. "It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon
which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did."
Ibid. See also
South Carolina v.
Katzenbach,
383 U. S. 301,
324 (1966) (interpreting the similarly worded Enforcement Clause of
the Fifteenth Amendment to permit Congress to use "any rational
means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition"). Nothing in
the words "reasonable accommodation" suggests that the requirement
has no "tend[ency] to enforce" the Equal Protection Clause,
Ex
parte Virginia, supra, at 346, that it is an irrational way to
achieve the objective,
Katzenbach, supra, at 324, that it
would fall outside the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause,
Morgan, supra, at 650, or that it somehow otherwise exceeds
the bounds of the "appropriate," U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 5.
The Court's more recent cases have professed to follow the
longstanding principle of deference to Congress. See
Kimel
387
v.
Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 81 (2000)
("Congress' § 5 power is not confined to the enactment of
legislation that merely parrots the precise wording of the
Fourteenth Amendment." Rather, Congress can prohibit a "somewhat
broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself
forbidden by the Amendment's text");
Florida Prepaid
Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v.
College Savings Bank,
527 U. S. 627, 639 (1999) (" 'Congress must have wide
latitude''') (quoting
City of Boerne, supra, at 519-520);
City of Boerne, supra, at 528 (reaffirming
Morgan);
521 U. S., at 536 (Congress' "conclusions are entitled to much
deference"). And even today, the Court purports to apply, not to
depart from, these standards.
Ante, at 365. But the Court's
analysis and ultimate conclusion deprive its declarations of
practical significance. The Court 'sounds the word of promise to
the ear but breaks it to the hope.'
IV
The Court's harsh review of Congress' use of its § 5 power is
reminiscent of the similar (now-discredited) limitation that it
once imposed upon Congress' Commerce Clause power. Compare
Carter v.
Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238 (1936),
with
United States v.
Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 123 (1941)
(rejecting
Carter Coal's rationale). I could understand the
legal basis for such review were we judging a statute that
discriminated against those of a particular race or gender, see
United States v.
Virginia, 518 U. S. 515 (1996), or
a statute that threatened a basic constitutionally protected
liberty such as free speech, see
Reno v.
American Civil
Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844 (1997); see
also Post & Siegel, Equal Protection by Law: Federal
Antidiscrimination Legislation After
Morrison and
Kimel, 110 Yale L. J. 441, 477 (2000) (stating that the
Court's recent review of § 5 legislation appears to approach strict
scrutiny); 1 L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 5-16, p. 959
(3d ed. 2000) (same). The legislation before us, however, does not
discriminate against anyone, nor does it pose any threat to basic
liberty. And it is diffi-
388
388 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
cult to understand why the Court, which applies "minimum
'rational-basis' review" to statutes that
burden persons
with disabilities,
ante, at 366, subjects to far stricter
scrutiny a statute that seeks to
help those same
individuals.
I recognize nonetheless that this statute imposes a burden upon
States in that it removes their Eleventh Amendment protection from
suit, thereby subjecting them to potential monetary liability.
Rules for interpreting § 5 that would provide States with special
protection, however, run counter to the very object of the
Fourteenth Amendment. By its terms, that Amendment prohibits
States from denying their citizens equal protection of the
laws. U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 1. Hence "principles of federalism
that might otherwise be an obstacle to congressional authority are
necessarily overridden by the power to enforce the Civil War
Amendments 'by appropriate legislation.' Those Amendments were
specifically designed as an expansion of federal power and an
intrusion on state sovereignty."
City of Rome, 446 U. S., at
179. See also
Fitzpatrick v.
Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 456
(1976);
Ex parte Virginia, supra, at 345. And, ironically,
the greater the obstacle the Eleventh Amendment poses to the
creation by Congress of the kind of remedy at issue here-the
decentralized remedy of private damages actions-the more Congress,
seeking to cure important national problems, such as the problem of
disability discrimination before us, will have to rely on more
uniform remedies, such as federal standards and court injunctions,
42 U. S. C. § 12188(a)(2), which are sometimes draconian and
typically more intrusive. See
College Savings Bank v.
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 704-705
(1999) (BREYER, J., dissenting). Cf.
ante, at 374, n. 9. For
these reasons, I doubt that to day's decision serves any
constitutionally based federalism interest.
The Court, through its evidentiary demands, its nondeferential
review, and its failure to distinguish between judicial and
legislative constitutional competencies, improperly invades a power
that the Constitution assigns to Con-
389
gress.
Morgan, 384 U. S., at 648, n. 7 (The "sponsors and
supporters of the [Fourteenth] Amendment were primarily interested
in augmenting the power of Congress"). Its decision saps § 5 of
independent force, effectively "confin[ing] the legislative power
... to the insignificant role of abrogating only those state laws
that the judicial branch [is] prepared to adjudge
unconstitutional."
Id., at 648-649. Whether the Commerce
Clause does or does not enable Congress to enact this provision,
see,
e. g., Seminole Tribe of Fla. v.
Florida,
517 U. S. 44,
100-185 (1996) (SOUTER, J., joined by GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ.,
dissenting);
College Savings Bank, supra, at 699-700
(BREYER, J., dissenting), in my view, § 5 gives Congress the
necessary authority.
For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.
APPENDIX A TO OPINION OF BREYER, J.
Congressional hearings on the Americans with Disabilities
Act
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989: Hearings on H. R. 2273
before the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on
Civil and Constitutional Rights, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989).
Americans with Disabilities Act: Hearing on H. R. 2273 and S.
933 before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous
Materials of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 101st
Cong., 1st Sess. (1990).
Americans with Disabilities Act: Hearings on H. R. 2273 before
the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the House Committee
on Public Works and Transportation, 101st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1990).
Americans with Disabilities: Telecommunications Relay Services,
Hearing on Title V of H. R. 2273 before the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and Finance of the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1990).
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989: Hearing on H. R. 2273
before the Subcommittee on Select Education of the
390
390 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix B to opinion of BREYER, J.
House Committee on Education and Labor, 101st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1989).
Field Hearing on Americans with Disabilities Act: Hearing before
the Subcommittee on Select Education of the House Committee on
Education and Labor, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989).
Hearing on H. R. 2273, The Americans with Disabilities Act of
1989: Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Select Education and
Employment Opportunities of the House Committee on Education and
Labor, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (July 18 & Sept. 13, 1989) (two
hearings).
Oversight Hearing on H. R. 4498, Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1988: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Select Education of the
House Committee on Education and Labor, 100th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1989).
Americans with Disabilities Act: Hearing before the House
Committee on Small Business, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (1990);
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989: Hearings on S. 933 before
the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the
Subcommittee on the Handicapped, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989) (May
1989 Hearings).
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988: Joint Hearing on S.
2345 before the Subcommittee on the Handicapped of the Senate
Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the Subcommittee on
Select Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor,
100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1989).
APPENDIX B TO OPINION OF BREYER, J.
Disability discrimination laws enacted by Congress prior to the
Americans with Disabilities Act
Act of June 10, 1948, ch. 434, 62 Stat. 351
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U. S. C. § 4151
et
seq. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. § 701
et
seq.
391
Education of the Handicapped Act, Pub. L. 91-230, Title VI, 84
Stat. 175 (reenacted in 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, 20 U. S. C. § 1400
et seq.) Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. § 6000
et seq.
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, 42 U.
S. C. § 1973ee
et seq.
Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, 49 U. S. C. § 41705 Protection
and Advocacy for Mentally III Individuals Act of 1986, 42 U. S. C.
§ 10801
et seq.
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U. S. C. § 3604.
APPENDIX C TO OPINION OF BREYER, J.
Submissions made by individuals to the Task Force on Rights and
Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities. See the Government's
Lodging (available in Clerk of Court's case file).
ALABAMA
Page No.
00002 discrimination against the mentally ill in city zoning
process
00003 inaccessible exercise equipment at University of
Alabama
00004 school failed to train teachers how to work with students
with learning disabilities
00005 courts failed to provide interpretive services for deaf
people
00006 lack of accessible police and court services for deaf
people
00007 inaccessible public transportation
00008 child denied public education because of cerebral
palsy
00009 inaccessible public transportation, which prevented
persons with disabilities from getting to work
392
392 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
00010 inaccessible public buildings and services; inaccessible
transportation
00011 inaccessible public schools; inaccessible public
transportation
00013 inaccessible public schools; inaccessible public
transportation
00014 failure to enforce building codes requiring access for
persons with disabilities
00015 inaccessible courthouse
00017 lack of instructions for use of voting machine by blind
people; inaccessible restrooms in newly renovated State House
00021 inaccessible public transportation 00023 inaccessible
public transportation
00024 failure to enforce state and local laws protecting persons
with disabilities
00025 schools failed to provide an adequate education for
children with disabilities
00026 inaccessible public transportation
00027 man denied vocational rehabilitation services based on his
cerebral palsy; inaccessible public transportation 00031 vocational
rehabilitation agency failed to provide services for
schizophrenics; zoning discrimination against group homes
00032 school failed to provide an adequate education 00033
school failed to provide an adequate education
ALASKA Page No.
00038 school placed child with cerebral palsy in special
education classes
00041 inaccessible restrooms in state legislature information
office
00042 inaccessible areas at new Alaska Performing Arts
Center
393
00044 inaccessible public transportation, which prevented
persons with disabilities from getting to work
00046 lack of curb cuts in sidewalks near apartment building for
persons with disabilities
00048 child erroneously placed in special education classes
00049 inaccessible new performing arts center
00050 Alaska Psychiatric Institute failed to provide
interpretive services for deaf patients
00052 state and local agencies disregarded laws requiring
accessibility
00055 jail failed to provide person with disability medical
treatment
00056 inaccessible government buildings in Seward
00057 inaccessible public transportation
00058 city failed to train employees how to communicate with
people with hearing impairments
00059 segregated seating and inaccessibility at new performing
arts center
00061 inaccessibility of State Ferry Columbia and Alaska
Railroad; denial of job interview because person was in a
wheelchair
00062 inaccessible new performing arts center
00063 person using a respirator denied access to Alaska State
Division of Medical Assistance
00065 inaccessible city hall
00067 school district retaliated against teacher for asking to
be assigned to an accessible classroom 00069 inaccessible public
transportation
00070 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public transportation
00071 state agencies failed to provide interpretive services for
deaf people
00072 department of motor vehicles failed to provide
interpretive services
00073 inaccessibility of Seward City Hall and other state and
local buildings
394
394 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
00075 state university failed to assist in covering expense of
interpretive services for deaf graduate student
00076 inaccessible public buildings
00077 inaccessible public school
ARIZONA
Page No.
00090 survey showing inaccessibility problems in city of
Phoenix's public services
00110 inaccessible public transportation
00112 inaccessible restrooms at state recreation areas
00116 department of motor vehicles failed to provide visual
signs or other assistance for people with hearing impairments
00117 person with disability denied police officer job
00119 Arizona Department of Economic Security took 3 1/2 to 4
years to fix unsafe van lift
00121 county paratransit refused to provide transportation to
college
00124 department of motor vehicles placed restrictions on
driver's license because of deafness
00125 teacher with hearing impairment denied numerous jobs
00127 department of motor vehicles failed to assist deaf
people
00129 inaccessible entrance, restroom, water fountain, and
office at building leased by State
00130 woman injured trying to use inaccessible restroom at
roadside rest stop; lack of curb cuts
00131 inaccessible social service agencies
ARKANSAS
Page No.
00136 public school failed to enforce accommodations for
student
395
00138 public school teacher refused to allow student with
disability to use authorized calculator
00139 state university failed to inform student with hearing
impairment about activities and rules
00140 lack of curb cuts
00141 inaccessible public transportation
00143 inaccessible office area at public housing for persons
with disabilities
00144 inaccessible public transportation
00145 inaccessible state office of human services; state
agencies failed to hire persons with disabilities
00146 failure to enforce handicapped parking law
00147 school erroneously placed child with mobility impairment
in special education classes
00149 public schools failed to provide interpretive services for
deaf people
00150 inaccessible public transportation
00153 person with disability forced to resign employment because
of architectural barriers
00154 public school held meetings and conferences at
inaccessible locations
00155 physical barriers prevented citizens from voting
00156 rehabilitation services failed to assist people with all
kinds of disabilities
00159 inaccessible city and county buildings
00161 human services office relocated to inaccessible
building
00163 lack of curb cuts
CALIFORNIA
Page No.
00166 inaccessible public recreation sites
00168 California Relay System failed to provide telephone access
to other States for deaf people
396
396 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
00180 public transit failed to provide visual signs for deaf
people
00181 inaccessible public transportation
00202 California Children's Services refused to help with cost
of caring for child with head injury at home
00206 inaccessible county buildings
00208 deaf people denied access to state agencies that lacked
TDD's
00210 deaf people denied access to state agencies that lacked
TDD's
00211 public transit failed to provide visual signs for deaf
people
00212 public transit failed to provide visual signs for deaf
people
00213 limited out-of-state telephone relay services
00214 inaccessible public transportation limited access to
community college
00215 inaccessible public transportation
00218 deaf people denied access to state agencies that lacked
TDD's
00219 state mental health services failed to provide access for
deaf people
00220 government failed to provide interpretive services for
deaf people
00221 inaccessible public transportation; lack of curb cuts
00222 inaccessible public transportation
00223 inaccessible airport; inaccessible public
transportation
00224 California Relay Service failed to enable deaf people to
make interstate calls
00225 California Relay Service failed to enable deaf people to
make interstate calls
00226 inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible restrooms
in public buildings
397
00227 University of California attempted to terminate employees
with disabilities for taking medical leave
00231 state agencies failed to provide TDD's
00232 person denied opportunity to serve on jury because county
failed to provide interpretive services for deaf people
00236 public school district failed to provide TTD for deaf
parents
00237 California Relay Service failed to enable deaf people to
make interstate calls
00240 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public transportation
00241 inaccessible public transportation
00244 inaccessible public transportation
00245 California Civil Service Exam held at high school with
inaccessible restrooms
00246 inaccessible restrooms in county administration building;
lack of curb cuts
00247 inaccessible public transportation prevented persons with
disabilities from getting to work; State failed to enforce laws
requiring accessibility
00248 inaccessible public transportation
00249 California Relay Service failed to enable deaf people to
make interstate calls
00250 inaccessible public transportation
00252 inaccessible public transportation
00253 inaccessible public transportation
00254 inaccessible county courthouse; street signals too fast
for safe crossing by wheelchair
00255 public functions failed to provide interpretive services
for deaf people
00258 deaf people denied access to state agencies that lacked
TDD's
398
398 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
00261 California Basic Educational Skills Test discriminated
against deaf adults who wanted to become teachers of deaf
students
00262 department of motor vehicles required doctors to report
patients with seizure disorders and revoked such patients'
licenses, but did not require reporting of other conditions that
could cause erratic driving
COLORADO
Page No.
00266 person in wheelchair passed by five bus drivers, all of
whom claimed that lifts were broken
00267 lack of curb cuts and ramps; inaccessible public
transportation
00268 inaccessible public transportation
00269 inaccessible public transportation
00270 persons with disabilities placed in segregated public
housing
00271 inaccessible public transportation
00272 lack of curb cuts forced person in wheelchair to use
street
00273 inaccessible county courthouse
00274 inaccessible public transportation
00275 inaccessible public transportation in small cities; public
schools failed to assist students with disabilities
00276 inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible public
facilities and recreation sites
00277 political parties held caucuses at inaccessible private
home
00280 children with developmental disabilities required to
attend segregated schools
00281 public school system refused to transfer student with
disabilities from special to regular school until she brought
suit
399
00283 vocational rehabilitation agency refused to take referrals
from psychiatric halfway house; person denied driver's license in
Virginia because of mental illness
CONNECTICUT
Page No.
00285 public school inaccessible to parent with disability
00289 state university denied renewal of contract for graduate
assistantship because of age and disability
DELAWARE
Page No.
00301 inaccessible public high school; inaccessible public
transportation
00302 inaccessible public schools; inaccessible public
transportation
00303 inaccessible voting machines; inadequate handicapped
parking
00308 man with physical disability spent 45 minutes crawling
into polling place because it was inaccessible to wheelchairs
00310 inaccessible public transportation; public ceremony held
at inaccessible building
00314 failure to enforce laws requiring handicapped parking
spaces, which were usually occupied by police cars 00315 high
percentage of children with disabilities placed in segregated
schools
00317 restrictive zoning limited reintegration of
institutionalized people into community 00319 inaccessible voting
system
00323 inaccessible public transportation
00325 inaccessible public transportation made person with
disability late for work; inaccessible library and other public
buildings
400
400 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
00329 State refused to fund services for people with mental
illness
00330 state transit system provided special vouchers for persons
with physical disabilities, but not for mentally ill
00331 state criminal justice system failed to provide
psychiatric treatment
00333 State kept child with schizophrenia in Delaware State
Hospital because it lacked services for people who could be
released
00335 state labor department's restrictive policies prevented
persons with disabilities from applying for employment
00336 failure to enforce laws requiring handicapped parking
spaces, which were usually occupied by police cars
00337 public transportation refused to transport person carrying
oxygen
00338 staff and patients at Delaware State Hospital sexually
abused women patients
00343 inaccessible public transportation
00345 state police interrogated deaf citizens without providing
interpretive services
00347 vocational high school sought to transfer student back to
special segregated school
GEORGIA
Page No.
00362 public colleges failed to provide assistance for students
with learning disabilities
00365 University of Georgia students with disabilities faced
architectural barriers, inaccessible public transportation, lack of
housing, and failure to enforce handicapped parking laws
401
00366 inaccessible classrooms at University of Georgia
00367 University of Georgia located its office of handicapped
services in inaccessible second floor office
00370 University of Georgia charged students with learning
disabilities $600 per quarter for services that other students with
disabilities received at no cost
00371 Learning Disability Adult Clinic at University of Georgia
charged unreasonable fees
00372 inaccessible public transportation
00374 traffic court failed to provide interpretive services for
deaf person
HAWAII Page No.
00444 inaccessible public transportation
00446 inaccessible public transportation
00448 state university failed to enforce handicapped parking
laws
00451 state employee in wheelchair forced to resign job because
frequently unable to get to office due to broken elevator in state
building; State Commission on the Handicapped refused employee's
request for reasonable accommodation
00452 state university failed to provide blind student with
timely or adequate books on tape for coursework; lack of signs or
information for blind people using public transit
00455 person with disability denied opportunity to testify
because department of labor held hearing in an inaccessible
room
00456 state employment agency refused to provide interpretive
services for deaf people
00457 public school put three-year-old deaf child in same class
as fourth graders
402
402 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
00458 quadriplegic person who had California driver's license
denied license by Hawaii
00460 state government office refused to interview persons with
emotional disorder or history of alcoholism
00461 inaccessible state buildings
00462 person with mobility impairment denied serious
consideration for state job due to unreliability of accessible
public transportation
00463 inaccessible public transportation prevented person with
disability from getting to work; inaccessible public buildings
00464 lack of curb cuts forced person in wheelchair to use
street
00467 elevators in public buildings not marked for blind people;
bus drivers failed to announce stops for blind people
00468 inaccessible public transportation; bus drivers harassed
mentally retarded passengers
00469 inaccessible public transportation
00472 state mental health system had restrictive institutional
policies
00473 state social service employees placed limits on
opportunities for persons with disabilities based on stereotypical
assumptions
00474 lack of curb cuts and ramps
00475 inaccessible public transportation
00476 inaccessible public transportation
00477 inaccessible public library
00479 denial of certain licenses to persons with mental
disabilities
00480 inaccessible restroom in state park; lack of curb cuts
00484 state and local government meetings failed to provide
interpretive services for deaf people
00485 students with disabilities unable to participate in school
interscholastic sports
403
00486 blind people prevented from traveling outside State
because quarantine laws permitted no exemption for their guide
dogs
00487 state mental health services unavailable for deaf people
due to failure to train staff
00488 inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible city and
county buildings
00490 handi-van refused service to person paralyzed from waist
down
00491 inaccessible public transportation
00492 state agencies failed to monitor conditions in community
residential facilities for persons with disabilities
00494 inaccessible public transportation
00495 inaccessible public transportation
00496 inadequate assistance for deaf person at court
appearance
IDAHO Page No.
00502 inaccessible public transportation
00505 inaccessible public transportation
00506 adult victims of abuse with developmental disabilities
denied equal rights to testify in court
00507 inaccessible public recreation activities
00508 inaccessible public transportation
00509 lack of curb cuts
00510 inaccessible public transportation
00511 city and county failed to provide assistance for deaf
people at public meetings
00514 inaccessible public transportation
00515 public school failed to provide adequate assistance for
students with disabilities
00516 inaccessible public transportation
404
404 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
00517 public defenders' offices and public meetings failed to
provide interpretive services for deaf people; police harassed
persons with disabilities who appeared to be intoxicated
00518 vocational rehabilitation agency lacked TTY service
00521 government agencies lacked staff to assist people with
head injuries
00522 inaccessible public transportation
00523 inaccessible public transportation
00524 inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible public
buildings
00528 limited access at new county courthouse, library, and city
hall
00531 school district refused to hire licensed teacher because
of speech impediment
00533 public school failed to provide assistance for deaf
student
00537 public school failed to provide interpretive services for
deaf student
00540 Idaho lacked statewide telephone relay service for deaf
people
00541 department of employment and department of health and
welfare lacked telephone access for deaf people
00543 inaccessible restrooms at public high school; student in
wheelchair denied admission to regular classes
ILLINOIS
Page No.
00546 state system for providing ballots to people unable to
enter polling place and special bus service caused long wait
outside in cold weather
00548 schools that mainstream deaf children refused to hire deaf
teacher
00553 government failed to provide interpretive services for
deaf people at public hearing on school budget
405
00554 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public transportation
00559 department of rehabilitation limited services to persons
with disabilities by threatening placement in nursing home
00569 police stations lacked TTY service
00572 deaf people arrested and held in jail overnight without
explanation because of failure to provide interpretive services
00573 inaccessible polling place
00574 inaccessible public schools prevented attendance at PTA
meetings
00575 inaccessible public transportation
00576 inaccessible public transportation
00578 lack of curb cuts and ramps for wheelchairs
00579 most state housing agencies lacked telecommunications
devices or interpretive services for deaf people
00581 state and local government agencies lacked
telecommunications devices for deaf people
00583 emergency medical, police, and fire services lacked TDD's
or personnel trained to receive TDD calls
00585 inaccessible public pools; inaccessible restrooms in
municipal building
00586 inaccessible public transportation
00587 inaccessible polling place
00588 inaccessible polling place
00589 inaccessible public transportation
00590 inaccessible public transportation
00591 inaccessible library
00592 inaccessible voting system
00594 inaccessible polling place
00595 lack of curb cuts
00596 inaccessible public transportation
00597 inaccessible public transportation
00600 inaccessible public transportation
00603 inaccessible public transportation
406
406 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
00605 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public buildings;
inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible polling place
INDIANA
Page No.
00608 state vocational rehabilitation agency refused to help
person it classified as severely disabled
00609 for five years, state vocational rehabilitation agency
failed to provide assistance
00612 inadequate curb cuts
00613 inaccessible public transportation
00616 inaccessible public transportation
00618 inadequate curb cuts
00619 inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible public
facilities
00621 inaccessible public transportation
00622 government agencies failed to provide interpretive
services and TTY/TDD's for deaf people
00629 deaf counselors discouraged from applying for jobs as
rehabilitation counselors for deaf people
00637 staff at state psychiatric facilities abused and
physically dragged patients
00644 person with disability dismissed as director of deaf unit
at Central State Hospital
00651 public meetings held at inaccessible locations
00653 inaccessible polling place
00655 state counselors failed to provide rehabilitation
assistance to person with head injury
IOWA Page No.
00659 person dismissed as city bus operator after seeking
treatment for mental illness
00664 state commission failed to supply necessary equipment for
deaf and blind employee
407
00665 high school limited opportunities for mentally retarded
student to be integrated
KANSAS Page No.
00670 Kansas Commission of Civil Rights denied legally blind
person job as investigator because of limited ability to drive and
refused to allow accommodation that would have permitted use of
public transportation
00673 police failed to provide interpretive services after
arresting deaf man
00676 Kansas Department of Transportation fired person because
she had epilepsy
00679 state investigator failed to examine employment
discrimination claims
00685 inaccessible public transportation
00695 county failed to assist mentally ill with housing and
vocational opportunities
00696 damaged sidewalks and poor street lighting posed risk to
persons with disabilities
00704 inaccessible city-owned arena
KENTUCKY
Page No.
00706 bus driver bypassed person standing at stop with guide
dog
00709 inaccessible public transportation
00712 department of employment services failed to make
reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities
00717 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public transportation
00720 inaccessible public transportation
00723 state employment service refused to place person in
wheelchair
00724 inaccessible public buildings
408
408 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
00729 public library, police department, and state university
library lacked personnel trained to use TTY devices
00731 state university failed to provide assistance to parttime
teacher with a disability
00732 State prevented deaf teachers from teaching deaf students
by requiring courses such as music education
00733 inaccessible public transportation
00736 inaccessible public transportation
00740 Kentucky School for the Deaf preferred hiring hearing
teachers rather than deaf teachers
LOUISIANA
Page No.
00743 inaccessible housing for graduate students at Louisiana
State University
00745 inaccessible public transportation
00748 police assumed person with coordination problems was
drunk
00751 inaccessible public transportation
00752 vocational rehabilitation program failed to provide
services for person with head injury
00753 inaccessible public transportation prevented persons with
disabilities from getting to work
00758 inaccessible voting machine
00759 Louisiana Sheriffs Pension and Relief Fund denied
membership to person with disability
00773 inaccessible public transportation; lack of curb cuts
00776 inaccessible buildings at Louisiana State University
MAINE Page No.
00778 inadequate sidewalk ramps; failure to enforce handicapped
parking laws
409
00780 failure to enforce state regulations requiring
accessibility in public buildings
00782 town refused request for interpretive services for deaf
people at town meeting
MARYLAND
Page No.
00785 public transportation unsafe for persons with
disabilities
00787 public libraries, state prison, and other state offices
lacked TDD's
00788 department of human relations failed to provide
interpretive services for deaf people and did not answer TTY
calls
00789 vocational rehabilitation counselors failed to help deaf
people find jobs
00797 inaccessible public transportation
00798 state hospital refused to provide interpretive services
for deaf people
MASSACHUSETTS
Page No.
00808 Office for Children refused to license blind person as
day-care assistant
00812 inaccessible courthouse
00813 inaccessible restrooms in state building and state
armory
00816 state college threatened to terminate employee because of
blindness
00829 Massachusetts Adoption Exchange refused to let family with
mother who had muscular dystrophy adopt child
410
410 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
00835 department of vocational rehabilitation hired ablebodied
person instead of qualified person in wheelchair
MICHIGAN
Page No.
00920 person denied admission to University of Michigan Medical
School because of speech impediment
00921 inaccessible state university campuses
00922 65 percent of voting precincts in Detroit inaccessible
00923 buses with lifts often failed to stop for people in
wheelchairs or their lifts did not work
00924 state employee threatened with discipline for serving on
and attending meetings of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
advisory committee
00925 state university stadium lacked accessible restrooms,
water fountains, and telephones
00926 inaccessible public transportation
00928 school system failed to hire teachers who could
communicate with deaf students
00932 state university denied interpretive services to part-time
deaf student
00933 public transportation refused to serve persons in
wheelchairs; public agency refused to provide interpretive services
for deaf people
00939 state university had transportation system for students
with disabilities but not for faculty and staff
00947 state university lacked adequate curb ramps
00950 State denied driver's license to person with epilepsy
00958 inaccessible public recreation facilities
00960 inaccessible government buildings
00961 state university denied sabbatical proposal of faculty
member with disability
00963 Michigan Rehabilitation Services placed people in
inappropriate positions
411
00964 Michigan Rehabilitation Services failed to accommodate
mentally ill persons
00968 inaccessible public transportation
00969 man with disability forced to use girls' restroom at state
job
00970 person with disability terminated from county job and
banned from future county employment
MINNESOTA
Page No.
00974 person with disability and score of 100 was finalist for
job as director of agency for the blind, but ablebodied person with
score of 70 was hired
00980 person with cerebral palsy humiliated at interview for job
with state department of education
MISSISSIPPI
Page No.
00853 inaccessible public transportation
00855 inaccessible beaches, pools, and parks
00984 inaccessible classrooms and library at Mississippi School
for the Deaf
00985 no state agency to provide or coordinate community service
programs for deaf adults
00986 inaccessible classrooms at Mississippi School for the
Deaf
00987 public programs failed to provide interpretive services
for deaf people; government failed to post caution signs warning
drivers of deaf children
00988 inaccessible polling places and voting booths
00989 inaccessible public buildings
00990 courts refused to pay for qualified interpretive services
for deaf people
00992 inaccessible state university building
00993 teacher denied position at public elementary school
because of need for braces and a cane to walk
412
412 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
00994 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public school rooms;
inaccessible public transportation
00996 inaccessible department of motor vehicles
00997 inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible public
facilities
00998 inaccessible courthouses
00999 state university instructor refused to teach blind
person
01000 inaccessible public transportation
01001 inaccessible polling place; city employee required to go
outside to get to restroom
MISSOURI
Page No.
01003 lack of curb cuts
01004 inaccessible restrooms in public buildings; lack of curb
cuts
01006 public schools segregated children with disabilities;
inaccessible school buildings
01009 inaccessible public transportation and public buildings
such as post offices, libraries, schools, and polling places
01010 state university tried to discourage blind person's chosen
field of study
01013 inaccessible public transportation
01015 courthouse failed to provide amplified sound system in
courtrooms
MONTANA
Page No.
01017 inadequate curb cuts
01022 inadequate curb cuts in downtown area
01023 state agencies refused to make reasonable accommodations
to paraplegics seeking employment
01024 inaccessible polling place
413
01026 person in wheelchair forced to vote in street
01027 inaccessible polling place
NEBRASKA
Page No.
01029 government failed to provide interpretive services for
deaf people serving on juries, commissions, and committees
01031 local school district failed to provide interpretive
services for deaf child
01034 inaccessible entrance at office of county assistance
NEVADA Page No.
01038 local government failed to provide assistance for people
with head injuries
01043 inaccessible government buildings and public
facilities
01044 person with disability denied access to public
transportation because it took too long to get on and off bus
01046 community college refused to provide interpretive services
for deaf people
01050 city ordinance prevented mentally ill from living in
residential areas
01051 inaccessible public transportation; inadequate curb cuts
and ramps
01053 failure to enforce handicapped parking laws
01054 lack of sidewalk and crosswalk accommodations for persons
in wheelchairs
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Page No.
01057 state agency failed to assist persons with head injuries
despite availability of state surplus funds
414
414 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
01061 vocational rehabilitation counselor tried to cut off funds
and assistance to person with disability
NEW JERSEY
Page No.
01067 commission for the blind and visually impaired demoted
visually impaired person
01068 zoning commission denied permission to open home for
persons with head injuries
01069 architectural barriers on Cumberland County College
campus
01072 inadequate curb cuts
NEW MEXICO
Page No.
01080 state university denied entry into school of social work
to blind person but admitted partially sighted person with lower
grades
01083 New Mexico lacked statewide TDD relay service
01091 prisoners with developmental disabilities subjected to
longer terms and abused by other prisoners in state correctional
system
01092 inaccessible public transportation
01095 University of New Mexico failed to provide assistance for
blind student
01097 city and county government offices lacked TDD's
01098 University of New Mexico hospital failed to provide
interpretive services for deaf patients
01099 University of New Mexico failed to provide interpretive
services for deaf students
01100 inaccessible buildings on University of New Mexico
campus
415
NEW YORK
Page No.
01109 state agencies failed to hire persons with
disabilities
01114 custodian in public high school denied request of per-
son with disability to use locked elevator
01119 at state legislature, person in wheelchair had to wait 45
minutes to use freight elevator
01129 public village meetings held in second floor meeting room
with no elevator; many polling places inaccessible
01130 lack of curb cuts; failure to enforce handicapped parking
laws
01134 inaccessible state parks and public beaches
NORTH CAROLINA
Page No.
01144 public elementary school initially denied admission and
then charged extra fee for child with Down's Syndrome to attend
afterschool day-care program
01155 blind people told not to participate in regular public
parks and recreation programs
01158 state agencies, other than services for the blind and
vocational rehabilitation, employed few persons with
disabilities
01161 police arrested and jailed deaf person without providing
interpretive services
NORTH DAKOTA
Page No.
01170 person with disability denied access to driver's license
exam because held in inaccessible room
01172 inaccessible polling places
01175 lack of curb cuts; failure to enforce handicapped parking
laws; inaccessible polling places; inaccessible city government
meetings
416
416 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
01178 failure to enforce handicapped parking laws
01183 inaccessible polling places; inaccessible state and local
government buildings
01185 government agencies failed to enforce policies regarding
hiring persons with disabilities; inaccessible polling places;
inaccessible public buildings
01186 state and local government failed to hire persons with
disabilities; inaccessible polling places
01187 failure to enforce handicapped parking laws
01196 person with head-injury disability denied consideration
for position of election polls inspector
OHIO Page No.
01215 city failed to trim trees regularly, which posed a hazard
to blind people
01216 inaccessible state, county, and city buildings
01218 inaccessible social service agency offices; inaccessible
public transportation
01221 vocational rehabilitation agency denied assistance to
person with disability
01224 rehabilitation services agency failed to assist paranoid
schizophrenic
01229 vocational rehabilitation agency discouraged person with
disability from being a nurse
01230 persons with disabilities denied jobs because of
inaccessible public transportation
01231 blind person denied driver's license though legally
eligible
01234 inaccessible public transportation; lack of curb cuts
01235 public paratransit system often left passengers
stranded
01236 vocational rehabilitation agency steered person with
mental disability to menial job, despite his Ph.D. degree
417
01239 police failed to provide interpretive services for deaf
person who was arrested
01241 Cleveland State University lacked wheelchair ramps
01242 inaccessible public transportation
OKLAHOMA
Page No.
01251 Tulsa Housing Authority failed to communicate with and
provide information to tenants with disabilities
01258 state employment office lacked TDD or workers with
interpretive skills; state university paid deaf employees less than
hearing employees; state agencies made no effort to hire deaf
applicants
01265 police officer pointed gun at person with disability who
could not get out of car quickly
01266 inaccessible public transportation
01269 person with speech impediment denied numerous state
jobs
01271 inaccessible restrooms at city parks
01275 state government held meeting at hotel with inaccessible
restrooms
01278 person in wheelchair worked at polling place with
inaccessible restrooms
01280 inaccessible polling places
01286 qualified blind person who offered to provide own driver
denied job as state social worker
OREGON Page No.
01370 blind people unable to access printed material from state
government
01375 school system barred child with cerebral palsy from
physical education class and gave her cleaning job instead
418
418 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
01377 person with two college degrees and extensive professional
experience turned down for appropriate state government jobs and
advised to seek entrylevel jobs because of his disability
01378 commission for the handicapped lacked funds to enforce
laws
PENNSYLVANIA
Page No.
01391 public library had restrictive policy regarding issuance
of library cards to residents of group homes
01397 government failed to provide interpretive services for
deaf people at school budget hearing
01399 inaccessible public transportation
01407 inaccessible polling places
01408 inaccessible public transportation
01409 inaccessible polling places
01410 inaccessible polling place
01413 inaccessible public transportation; lack of curb cuts
01421 inaccessible public library
01423 inaccessible automatic ticket dispensers on Pennsylvania
Turnpike
01425 bus drivers refused to transport person in wheelchair
01427 inaccessible county offices
01429 lack of curb cuts
01430 GED programs offered at inaccessible public schools; bus
drivers unwilling or unable to use wheelchair lifts
01432 child unable to enroll in first grade because of
inaccessible classroom
01434 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public transportation
01435 lack of curb cuts in rural areas
01436 inaccessible polling place
419
01439 unsafe curb cuts
01441 inaccessible state office building
SOUTH CAROLINA
Page No.
01454 government failed to provide 911 emergency service for
deaf people
01457 state and local agencies, library, and police and fire
departments lacked TDD's; government failed to provide interpretive
services for deaf people at meetings
SOUTH DAKOTA
Page No.
01466 school district failed to provide adequate services to
child with disability
01467 traffic light and fire hydrant placed where they posed
obstacle to blind pedestrians and those in wheelchairs who needed
to use curb cuts
01469 inaccessible polling places
01470 inaccessible public transportation
01472 State failed to hire persons with disabilities without
giving a reason
01475 criminal court failed to provide interpretive services for
deaf people
01476 state university denied blind student opportunity to
practice teach as required for teaching certificate
TEXAS Page No.
01483 poles obstructed sidewalks; lack of curb cuts;
inaccessible public transportation
01503 state teachers' exam required deaf teachers who wanted to
teach deaf children to pass section on speech assessment and
listening
420
420 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
01514 medical examination required for renewal of driver's
license despite unblemished 20-year driving record
01520 inadequate handicapped parking spaces
01521 state vocational rehabilitation agency refused to assist
college student who chose to major in political science
01522 employee of county human services agency denied
handicapped parking place
01526 failure to enforce handicapped parking laws
01527 inaccessible state university transportation system
01529 denial of driver's licenses or accommodations to take
driver's test
01531 inaccessible buildings at state university
01536 state hospital sought to discharge mentally ill boy with
HIV
01540 special transit system refused to transport man with
mental retardation though he could not use regular bus
01542 deaf man not permitted to take state cosmetology exam with
assistance from interpreter
01543 blind man not permitted to take state chiropractic exam
because he could not read x-rays alone
01549 deaf instructors unable to pass state teachers' exam for
teachers of deaf students that assessed speech and language
skills
01551 inadequate handicapped parking and enforcement
UTAH Page No.
01554 state rehabilitation service had never hired deaf
counselor or administrator
01556 child denied admission to public school because firstgrade
teacher refused to teach him
01563 public school failed to implement state review panel
findings regarding accommodation for child with disability
421
01576 state office for persons with disabilities failed to hire
such persons; inaccessible public transportation
01577 state government denied persons with disabilities upper
level management jobs
01580 rehabilitation services agency discriminated against
employee with reading disability
01581 qualified blind teacher denied job and told that school
needed teacher who could also coach football, but school hired
sighted person who was not a coach 01584 inaccessible public
transportation
01586 inaccessible government office
01587 public school teacher refused to give child with learning
disability his grades and said he did not belong in public
school
01592 Utah denied mainstream education to child with Down's
Syndrome, though child had been mainstreamed in another State
01595 person with disability involuntarily hospitalized and
abused by state university hospital
01613 inaccessible public high school facilities
VERMONT
Page No.
01634 zoning board denied use permit for community mental health
center
VIRGINIA
Page No.
01642 student with learning disability misclassified as mentally
retarded and deemed ineligible to take drama class at public
school
01646 inaccessible buildings at state school for blind and deaf
youth
01647 failure to enforce handicapped parking laws
01654 inaccessible restrooms in government buildings; failure to
enforce handicapped parking laws
422
422 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
01656 state programs for persons with disabilities failed to
communicate with deaf people
01660 lack of state institutional care to rehabilitate people
with head injuries
01663 inaccessible traffic court
01664 inaccessible public transportation
01667 lack of curb cuts
01668 inaccessible public transportation prevented persons with
disabilities from voting
01671 state and local government failed to provide interpretive
services for deaf people at meetings
01674 lack of curb cuts outside county courthouse
01675 deaf people denied access to 911 emergency services
01676 inaccessible courthouse
01677 inaccessible public transportation
01678 lack of curb cuts and ramp for access to courthouse
01679 inaccessible county courthouse
01680 inaccessible courthouse and library
01682 inaccessible high school
01683 lack of curb cuts at city's main intersection
01684 person in wheelchair received ticket for obstructing
street traffic even though sidewalks not accessible
01686 inaccessible transportation on state university campus
WASHINGTON
Page No.
01690 deaf people required to pay for interpretive services in
court
01692 state government's lack of TDD deterred deaf people from
applying for employment
01694 government office lacked TDD and interpretive services for
deaf people
423
01696 state human rights commission lacked staff to pursue case
of discrimination against blind person
01706 community college failed to provide interpretive services
for deaf students or to assist students with disabilities in other
ways
01716 local sheriff's department discontinued TDD
01717 inaccessible restroom at state ferry terminal
WEST VIRGINIA
Page No.
01742 inaccessible public transportation
01745 sheriff denied person with disability use of elevator in
courthouse
01746 law enforcement agencies lacked ability to communicate
with deaf people
WISCONSIN
Page No.
01752 public school recreation program refused to provide
interpretive services for deaf child
01755 state university hospital and sheriff's office failed to
provide TD D's or trained personnel
01756 inaccessible polling places
01757 person with disabilities denied admission to graduate
study at state university
01758 inaccessible city hall
01759 state offices lacked TDD's and failed to provide material
in braille or on tape
01760 department of motor vehicles revoked person with diabetes'
driver's license despite doctor's report
01761 inaccessible public transportation; lack of curb cuts or
ramps
01766 department of motor vehicles tried to revoke license of
person who used hand controls in car
424
424 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UN IV. OF ALA.
v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J.
01767 inaccessible polling places
01771 blind and deaf people denied equal access to jury
service
WYOMING
Page No.
01773 State lacked telephone relay system for deaf people
01775 inaccessible state buildings
01777 department of motor vehicles denied driver's license to
person with epilepsy
01780 inaccessible buildings at state university
01781 zoning board denied permit for group home for persons with
disabilities
01786 person in wheelchair denied marriage license because
courthouse was inaccessible
Comments
Be the first to comment
Leave a Comment