881 F. Supp. 2d 639
D.N.J.2012Background
- Plaintiffs sue on behalf of their dependent adult son and themselves for alleged violations of Title II of the ADA and related statutes.
- Defendants DHS and DDS move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiffs allege the CRPD Waiver funding cap and procedures discriminate against Joseph and impair home-based care.
- CRPD Waiver is a New Jersey Medicaid-funded entitlement to support in-home care to avoid institutionalization.
- Court must determine if Congress validly abrogated New Jersey sovereign immunity for these claims and whether plaintiffs state a viable Title II claim.
- Court concludes sovereign immunity bars damages claims absent valid abrogation and that plaintiffs fail to state a Title II claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Congress validly abrogate state sovereign immunity for damages claims here? | Gattuso contends ADA Title II abrogation applies to state defendants. | Defendants contend ADA abrogation does not validly reach Title II damages against states; Garrett controls. | Abrogation not valid for these Title II damages claims; lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Do plaintiffs state a viable Title II claim against the state under ADA? | Plaintiffs allege discrimination via CRPD Waiver funding cap and denial of services. | Plaintiffs fail to show exclusion from benefits or discriminatory denial caused by disability. | No, counts do not state a Title II claim. |
| Are § 1983 or Age Discrimination Act/Medicaid claims viable against the state entities? | Plaintiffs seek damages under multiple statutes against state entities. | State entities are not 'persons' under § 1983 and there is sovereign immunity for SPA claims. | Dismissed damages claims under § 1983 and ADA/Medicaid for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (abrogation under §5 must be congruent and proportional to violations)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Title II abrogation valid when conduct violates Fourteenth Amendment; claim-by-claim approach)
- Olmstead v. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (Title II claims allowed when individuals are denied community-based care available at lower cost)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state agencies are not “persons” under § 1983; Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Doe v. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 148 F. Supp. 2d 462 (D.N.J. 2001) (state agency immune under Eleventh Amendment; sovereign immunity on § 1983 claims)
- Koslow v. Commonwealth of Pa., 302 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2002) (abrogation must be explicit and tied to constitutional authorization)
- Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 549 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1977) (two types of Rule 12(b)(1) challenges: facial vs. factual attack)
- United States v. Georgia (duplicate reference for emphasis), 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (see above for abrogation analysis)