787 F. Supp. 2d 819
N.D. Ind.2011Background
- Maxwell, disabled, alleges Imperial Stamping refused to hire him for a May 2007 work assignment due to disability.
- Imperial is a private for-profit Elkhart metal-products facility employing about 40 people, with roughly half inmate workers from SBWRC.
- Inmate-employees are at-will employees just as non-inmate employees.
- Maxwell amended his complaint to bring Title II ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and §1983 claims; the original Title I claim was replaced with Title II.
- Imperial moves for summary judgment on all claims; the court later grants summary judgment on the §1983 claim as abandoned in Maxwell’s briefing.
- Imperial cites lack of public-entity status under Title II and lack of federal funds for Rehabilitation Act liability; Maxwell does not dispute the factual affidavits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Imperial is a public entity under Title II | Maxwell argues Imperial is an instrumentality of IDOC. | Imperial is a private for-profit company, not a public entity. | Imperial is not a public entity; Title II does not apply. |
| Whether Title II applies to employment discrimination | Title II covers employment in public services/discrimination. | Title II applies only to public services, not employment; Title I governs employment. | Title II does not reach employment discrimination. |
| Rehabilitation Act claim viability | Imperial’s joint venture with IDOC subjects it to §504 liability. | Imperial does not receive federal funding directly; no direct recipient status. | Rehabilitation Act claim fails because Imperial does not directly receive federal funds. |
| §1983 claim viability against a private employer | Maxwell may rely on §1983 to enforce rights asserted under the Eighth/Fourteenth Amendments. | Private employers are not subject to §1983 claims. | §1983 claim dismissed/summary judgment granted for the private employer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edison v. Douberly, 604 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.2010) (private contractor not an instrumentality of the State for Title II)
- Green v. New York, 465 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.2006) (private hospital contracting with municipality not a public entity)
- Zimmerman v. Oregon Dept. of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.1999) (Title II employment coverage debate; distinguishes inputs vs outputs)
- Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. City of Chicago, 477 U.S. 597 (Supreme Court, 1986) (defines who is a recipient of federal funds under §504)
- Canfield v. Isaacs, 523 F. Supp. 2d 885 (N.D. Ind.2007) ( Title II employment interpretation in district court)
- Brettler v. Purdue Univ., 408 F. Supp. 2d 640 (N.D. Ind.2006) (Title II not applying to employment in some district analyses)
- Garrett, Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v., 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (Supreme Court dicta on Title II scope and employment)
- Judicial reference: Doe v. County of Milwaukee, 871 F. Supp. 1072 (E.D. Wis.1995) (reliance on Title II employment interpretation in some districts)