Demshki v. Monteith

255 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53899

Description

Ninth Circuit Holds That State Has Eleventh Amendment Immunity from Suit Brought Under Title V of Americans with Disabilities Act

Abstract

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (Clearinghouse No. 52,744), applied to claims brought under Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act, at least where the claims were based on alleged violations of Title I; Garrett held that states enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits brought in federal court by private individuals seeking money damages under Title I of the Act. Defendant-appellant, a state legislative committee, terminated plaintiff-appellee employee the day after employee expressed concern that the committee violated disability law by failing to hire an individual with a speech impediment. In district court, employee alleged breach of contract, tortious discharge, statutory and common-law misrepresentation, and retaliation in violation of Title V of the Act. The court granted summary judgment for the committee on the contract and tort claims but denied it on the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The Ninth Circuit, recognizing that Garrett arose in the context of Title I, concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Garrett necessarily applied to claims brought under Title V of the Act because legislative findings did not demonstrate a pattern of discrimination by states against employees who opposed unlawful employment discrimination against the disabled. Absent such findings, Congress may not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from Title V claims. The Ninth Circuit held that the committee was immune from employee’s Title V suit. Reversing the district court and remanding the case, the Ninth Circuit also concluded that because Article III, Section 5, of the California Constitution did not specifically indicate the state’s willingness to be sued in federal court, it did not constitute a waiver of the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
2001-07-02 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: