905 F.3d 467
6th Cir.2018Background
- Bullington, a Bedford County sheriff’s department dispatcher, had cancer treatment causing disability-related health effects and alleged differential treatment at work.
- She sued County and Sheriff’s employee Cooper alleging: (1) Fourteenth Amendment discrimination/retaliation under § 1983, (2) Monell claim against County for supervision/training, (3) Tennessee Human Rights Act violations, and (4) ADA violations; defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- District court granted judgment on the pleadings for defendants; Bullington appealed.
- Bullington conceded she did not file an EEOC charge and sought equitable tolling based on reliance on prior counsel; the district court dismissed her ADA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the ADA claim (no equitable tolling for reliance on private counsel) but vacated dismissal of the § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim, holding ADA did not preclude parallel § 1983 constitutional claims and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bullington exhausted administrative remedies for ADA claim or is entitled to equitable tolling | Bullington: timely filing requirement should be tolled because she relied on prior counsel | Defendants: no EEOC charge filed; reliance on private counsel does not justify tolling | Held: ADA claim dismissed — equitable tolling not warranted for reliance on prior counsel |
| Whether ADA precludes § 1983 suits asserting parallel Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claims | Bullington: § 1983 may vindicate constitutional rights even if conduct also violates ADA | Defendants: ADA’s remedial scheme and references to §5 suggest Congress intended ADA to be exclusive | Held: ADA does not preclude § 1983 Equal Protection claims for disability discrimination; dismissal of § 1983 claim vacated and remanded |
| Whether statutory remedial scheme (ADA/Title VII framework) displaces § 1983 | Bullington: parallels to Title VII do not foreclose constitutional § 1983 claims; precedent allows parallel suits | Defendants: ADA’s enforcement procedures and remedies indicate congressional intent to foreclose § 1983 | Held: remedial scheme insufficient to show Congress intended to preclude § 1983 for constitutional claims |
| Whether rights/protections under ADA and Equal Protection diverge such that § 1983 remains available | Bullington: Equal Protection and ADA have different elements/standards and can coexist | Defendants: overlap means ADA should be exclusive | Held: contours diverge materially (different elements and burdens), supporting availability of § 1983 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (statutory pleading standard requiring plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard and plausibility requirement)
- Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (statutory scheme may or may not preclude parallel § 1983 Equal Protection claims)
- Day v. Wayne Cty. Bd. of Auditors, 749 F.2d 1199 (Title VII does not necessarily preclude parallel § 1983 constitutional claims)
- Boler v. Earley, 865 F.3d 391 (Sixth Circuit framework for analyzing preclusion under Fitzgerald)
- Engler v. Arnold, 862 F.3d 571 (standard for Rule 12(c) review)
- Whitfield v. Tenn., 639 F.3d 253 (elements of an ADA employment claim)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (Equal Protection rational-basis review for disability classifications)
- Garrett v. Bd. of Trustees, 531 U.S. 356 (states’ sovereign immunity context; discussion of disability classifications under the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Grey v. Wilburn, 270 F.3d 607 (Eighth Circuit view that ADA may preclude parallel § 1983 Equal Protection claim)