Jill Babcock v. State of Mich.
812 F.3d 531
6th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Jill Babcock, an attorney with Friedreich’s Ataxia who worked in Cadillac Place (a state-owned office building), sued under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act alleging building design defects (ramps, handrails, parking, door hardware, elevator timing, restroom thresholds) denied her equal access to her workplace.
- Defendants are Michigan Strategic Fund (owner) and the State of Michigan (lessee/public entity). Plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief to remedy architectural barriers.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, concluding Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the ADA claim and that the Rehabilitation Act claim failed for not identifying a covered “program or activity.”
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether Babcock alleged exclusion from a public entity’s “services, programs, or activities,” a required showing for private relief under Title II and for Rehabilitation Act claims.
- The court held Babcock alleged only facility design defects and did not identify any specific service, program, or activity in Cadillac Place from which she was excluded or denied benefits; she also lacked standing to claim denial of access to the courts located in the building.
- The panel affirmed dismissal and upheld the district court’s denial of leave to amend as futile because the proposed amendment would not cure the failure to identify a program, service, or activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title II private claim can be based solely on a building’s design defects | Babcock: inaccessibility of Cadillac Place itself denies equal access and thus violates Title II | Defendants: Title II protects access to services/programs/activities, not facilities alone; plaintiff failed to identify any program or service | Held: Dismissed — plaintiff did not identify a service/program/activity; facility defects alone do not state a Title II private claim |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment bars Babcock’s ADA claim | Babcock: statutory abrogation of immunity applies (42 U.S.C. §12202); she also argued denial of access to courts located in Cadillac Place | Defendants: sovereign immunity applies absent an ADA claim tied to a service/program/activity or a valid §5 Fourteenth Amendment enforcement showing | Held: Eleventh Amendment bars claim because no ADA-violating conduct pleaded; access-to-courts allegation lacked standing |
| Whether Rehabilitation Act claim was adequately pleaded | Babcock: Rehabilitation Act covers denial of access to the facility similar to ADA claim | Defendants: §504 protects access to programs/activities receiving federal funds; plaintiff failed to identify such a program or activity | Held: Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege exclusion from any protected program or activity |
| Whether amendment to add state officials under Ex parte Young would cure pleadings | Babcock: adding official-capacity defendants seeking prospective relief would avoid sovereign immunity | Defendants: futility because complaint still fails to identify a program/service/activity | Held: Denial of leave to amend was not error — amendment would be futile because the core pleading defect remained |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (limits on Congress’s §5 abrogation of state sovereign immunity under ADA)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (Title II claim challenging denial of access to courts may be valid despite sovereign immunity)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (Title II liability where conduct also violates Fourteenth Amendment)
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (sidewalks as “services” under Title II — majority held yes; en banc dissent argued otherwise)
- Johnson v. City of Saline, 151 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 1998) (Title II discrimination must relate to services, programs, or activities)
- Ability Ctr. of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky, 385 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2004) (§35.151 can provide a private right of action for noncompliance with new-construction standards)