The Last Word

Supreme Court limits civil rights: Three cases stand out as setbacks for civil rights advocates

Plaintiffs in discrimination cases must prove intent. In a 5-4 decision on April 24 (Alexander v. Sandoval), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had limited the kind of private lawsuits that can be brought under a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to enforce a ban on discrimination in programs that receive federal money. The court said that suits could be brought only for intentional discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, and not over policies that have only a discriminatory impact. It is believed that the decision will also apply to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in programs that receive federal money.

State employees may no longer sue their employers for violations of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In a suit by a state-employed nurse with breast cancer and a maintenance worker with chronic asthma, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 5-4 on Feb. 21, that state employees cannot sue their employers for damages for violations of Title I of the ADA. (Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett). Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from “discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual ...” and requires employers to “make reasonable accommodations for the limitations of otherwise qualified individuals.”

One of the principal mechanisms of enforcing the ADA has been the right of individuals to sue for monetary damages. Choosing to protect states from suits rather than protecting individuals from discrimination, the Supreme Court held that suits against state employers under Title I of the ADA are barred by the 11th Amendment. Title I remains technically enforceable against states both by the federal government, which can sue for damages on behalf of victims of employment discrimination, and by private citizens seeking injunctive relief. In reality, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor are likely to take only cases with a broad impact, and injunctive relief provides little incentive for states to comply with the law.

In New York state, disabled employees are protected against discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law as amended in 1999. However, that law does not entitle the prevailing party to an award of attorney’s fees; this may make it more difficult for individuals to find legal representation.

In Garrett, the Supreme Court declined to rule on Title II of the ADA, which forbids governments to discriminate against disabled people in their programs, services and activities, stating: “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 14th Amendment. ... That notwithstanding, there have been recent reports of several federal judges around the country applying the reasoning of Garrett to Title II cases.”

Attorney reimbursement is severely limited. In Buckhannon Board and Care Home Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on May 29 that litigation that only serves as a “catalyst” for a policy change — without producing a legal ruling — does not qualify for reimbursement of fees. Under the “catalyst theory,” fees are awarded to the plaintiffs’ counsel when the suit directly leads the government to change a challenged law or policy. Because this case was settled without a Supreme Court ruling, no favorable judgment was issued by the court. Even though it was clear that the settlement provided the desired result, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys’ fees. Most civil rights and environmental laws allow judges to award lawyers’ fees to plaintiffs who are the prevailing parties. The theory is that the plaintiffs serve a role in the legal system that extends beyond their own interests to vindicate federally guaranteed rights. The decision could have a devastating effect on civil rights cases because lawyers may be less willing to represent these plaintiffs. Unlike the Garrett decision, this ruling is not based on the Constitution and an act of Congress could overturn it.

The cases may be read at the Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute’s Web site at www.law.cornell.edu. Click on Opinions. Go to 2000-2001 term. Click on Information on cases scheduled for oral argument. Oral arguments are listed for Garrett on Oct. 11; Sandoval on Jan. 16; and Buckhannon on Feb. 27. Links take you to sources of additional material.

(Sally Knapp, a librarian at SUNY Albany’s University Library, chairs the union’s statewide Human and Civil Rights Committee.)