McCray v. Department of Revenue, State of Kansas
2:12-cv-02188
| D. Kan. | Aug 30, 2012Background
- McCray (COPD) had license suspended and placed in a restricted period requiring an ignition interlock device.
- Interlock device cannot be operated by McCray due to disability; device providers refused installation.
- McCray sues KDOR and Secretary under ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Equal Protection; seeks full reinstatement and accommodations.
- Court granted amendment; KDOR motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.
- Court addresses reinstatement, interlock requirement during restriction, ADA/ Rehabilitation Act claims, equal protection, and state-law/Eleventh Amendment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reinstatement after restriction without interlock | McCray could be permanently denied reinstatement without interlock. | Statutes allow waiting out restriction; full reinstatement possible without interlock. | Court allows challenge; denies dismissal on this basis. |
| Reasonable accommodation during restriction | ADA/RA requires accommodation enabling driving during restriction. | Interlock rule advances safety; accommodation not possible. | Dismissal denied; plausible accommodation possible; claim survives as to restricted-period driving. |
| Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection challenge | Interlock requirement for disabled is irrational to the goal of deterring DUI. | Interlock has rational basis; Garrett forecloses disability accommodations via EP. | Interlock requirement during restriction has rational basis; EP claim dismissed for this aspect. |
| Eleventh Amendment/state-law limitations | State action under ADA/RA permits plaintiff to seek relief; not barred by state immunity. | Eleventh Amendment bars state-law/state-constitution claims; no federal remedy for state-law claim. | State-law/Kansas Constitution claim dismissed; Eleventh Amendment barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (U.S. 2007) (Article III real-controversy requirement; ongoing controversy sufficient for suit)
- Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2001) (States not required to provide disabled accommodations under EP if rational basis exists)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth Department of Transportation, 805 A.2d 644 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002) (distinguishes qualified disability status under ADA with respect to driving eligibility)