Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett

OF UNIVERSITY THE OF TRUSTEES OF BOARD GARRETT et al. v. ALABAMA et al. 21, February 11, 2000 Decided October Argued 99-1240. No. O’Con- which Court, in the opinion the J., delivered Rehnquist, C. J., filed Kennedy, JJ., joined. Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia, nor, 374. p. post, J., joined, O’Connor, in which opinion, concurring a Souter, and Stevens, in which opinion, dissenting a J., Breyer, filed 376. p. post, JJ., Ginsburg, joined, With petitioners. for cause the argued Sutton S. Jeffrey Ala- Attorney General Pryor, Bill were briefs the on him Fleming, Assistant L. Margaret and Byrne Ann bama, Alice Huggins. Lisa Katsas, G. Gregory General, Attorneys respondents. cause argued Gottesman H. Michael Laurence Mayerson, Arlene were brief on him With Burnim, Ira Reiss, Sandra Mattison, Gold, Deborah Mathis. Jennifer cause argued Waxman General Solicitor With affirmance. urging curias as amicus States United him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Lee, Deputy Solicitor General Underwood, Patricia A. Millett, Jessica Dunsay Silver, and Seth M. Galanter*

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Hawaii et al. by Audrey J. Anderson, Earl I. Anzai, Attorney General of Hawaii, Charles Fell, F. Senior Deputy Attorney General, and Nancy Albano, Deputy Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Alan G. Lance Idaho, Don Stenberg of Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio, and Paul G.Summers of Tennessee; for the Crim- inal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger; and for the Pacific Legal Foundation by Anne M. Hayes and M. Reed Hopper.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Minnesota et al. by Hatch, Mike Attorney General of Minnesota, Alan I. Gilbert, Chief Deputy Attorney General, and W.Karl Hansen, Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, James E. Ryan of Illinois, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, A. B. “Ben” Chandler III of Kentucky, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Jeremiah W.(Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Patricia A. Madrid of New Mexico, Eliot Spitzer of New York, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, and Christine O. Gregoire of Washington; for the American Association on Mental Re- tardation et al. by James W. Ellis, Michael B. Browde, and Christian G. Fritz; for the American Association of People with Disabilities et al. by John Rich; Townsend for the American Bar Association by Robert Lewin, James A. Shifren, and Claude G.Szyfer; for the American Cancer Society by Daniel G. Jarcho, Michael J. Haungs, William J. Dalton, and Mary P. Rouvelas; for the Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., et al. by Catherine A. Hanssens and David S. Buckel; for the National Asso- ciation of Protection and Advocacy Systems et al. by Mark E. Haddad, Jacqueline G. Cooper, and Sharon Masling; for the National Council on Disability by Robert L. Jr.; Burgdorf for Self-Advocates Becoming Em- powered et al. by Thomas K. Gilhool, Michael Churchill, Barbara Ran- som, and Max Lapertosa; for the Voice of the Retarded et al. by William J. Burke and Tamie Hopp; for Senator Robert Dole et al. by Chai R. Feldblum; and for Law Professors by Leo G.Rydzewski.

Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Association of State Correc- tional Administrators by Marci A. Hamilton; for the Coalition for Local Sovereignty by Kenneth B. Clark; for the National Employment Lawyers Association et al. by Daniel F. Goldstein, C. Christopher Brown, and Merl H. Wayman; for Paralyzed Veterans of America et al. by Ted G. Dane the of the opinion delivered Rehnquist Justice

CHIEF Court. Ala of State the of employees whether here decide We State’s the of reason by damages money recover may bama Ameri the of I Title of the provisions with comply failure Stat. Act), or (ADA of Act Disabilities with cans are suits such that holdWe 12111-12117.1 §§C.S.U. 330, 42 Amendment. Eleventh the by barred the including employers, certain prohibits ADA The individual a qualified against “discriminat[ing] States, from Sum- L. Pamela by Center Law Poverty Southern Hill; for the Eve and Kenneth by al. et Horwitz Morton Hubertz; for and J. Elizabeth and ners Stephen A. Center. Claudia McCollum, and B. Brothers, Elizabeth W. as BushW.H. George President former by a Jr., statement filed Hut, curiae. amicus alleged Court District States United in the complaints Respondents’ “Ques ADA, and petitioners’ the of II Title I Title of both violations Peti for Brief See sections. both apply read be can Presented” tion dis parties the of briefs the Though I. States United i; Brief tioners briefed has party no arguments, constitutional their in sections both cuss “services, the with dealing ADA, the of II Title whether question the §12132, available is C. U. S. entity,” aof activities or programs, ex ADA the of I Title when discrimination employment of claims States, United v. Russello See, g., e. subject. that with deals pressly one language particular includes Congress (“[W]here (1983) 16, 23 S.U. Act, isit same the section in another it omits but statute aof section the purposely intentionally acts Congress presumed generally omitted)). marks quotation (internal exclusion” or inclusion disparate v. Zimmerman issue, compare on this divided are Appeals Courts The Palmv. Bledsoe 1999), (CA9 3d 1169 F. Justice, 170 Dept. Oregon 1998). (CA11 Dist., F. 3d .816 Conservation Water &Soil Cty. Beach II, Title whether issue constitutional the decide disposed not areWe I, appro is Title from provisions remedial different somewhat has which par when Amendment Fourteenth §5 under legislation priate the To statutory question. on briefing us favored not have ties respondents whether question on certiorari granted Court extent ADA, see of the II Title under damages employers their may sue imprevi as dismissed iswrit 24.1(a), portion Rule Court’s this S. Inc., U. Export, Black Carbon v. Monrosa The See granted. dently (1959). 180, 184 with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard job application procedures, the hiring, advance- ment, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of em- ployment.” §§12112(a),12111(2),(5), (7). To this end, the Act requires employers to “mak[e] reasonable accommoda- tions to the known physical or mental limitations of an other- wise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, [the unless employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on oper- ation of the [employer’s] § business.” 12112(b)(5)(A). “ ‘[Reasonable may accommodation’ include—

“(A) making existing facilities used by employees read- ily accessible to and by usable individuals with disabili- (B) ties; and job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, ac- quisition or modification of equipment or devices, appro- priate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, provision qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommoda- tions for individuals with §12111(9). disabilities.” The Act prohibits also employers from “utilizing stand- ards, criteria, or methods of administration . . . that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability.” §12112(b)(3)(A). The Act defines “disability” “(A) include a physical or

mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such (B) individual; a record of such an impairment; (C) or being regarded as having such an impairment.” §12102(2). A disabled individual is other- “qualified” wise if he or she, “with or without reasonable accommodation, perform can the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” § 12111(8). em- nurse, was registered a Garrett, Patricia Respondent Serv- OB/Gyn/Neonatal Nursing, Director the as

ployed Hospital. Birmingham in Alabama University of the for ices, breast with diagnosed was 1994,Garrett In 31,38. App. See radiation lumpectomy, a underwent subsequently and cancer Garrett’s 38. id., at See chemotherapy. and treatment, work. from leave substantial take to her required treatments supervisor 1995, Garrett’s July work returning to Upon Direc- up her give to have would she that Garrett informed and for applied then Garrett 39. id., at See position. tor aas position paying lower another, a transfer received ibid. See manager. nurse security officer aas worked Ash Milton Respondent (Department). Services of Youth Department Alabama the in- Ash employment, commencing this Upon at 8. id., See asthma chronic from suffered he that Department the formed monoxide carbon avoid he recommended doctor his that and Depart- the that requested Ash and smoke, cigarette and these exposure his minimize duties modify his ment sleep diagnosed later was Ash ibid. See substances. recom- his doctor’s pursuant again requested, and apnea to accom- shifts daytime reassigned be he that mendation, De- Ultimately, the at 9. id., See condition. his modate id., at See relief. requested the none granted partment the claim discrimination a filed Ash Shortly after 8-9. noticed he Commission, Opportunity Employment Equal had he those than lower were evaluations performance his 9. id., at See occasions. previous on received District the lawsuits separate filed Ash Garrett Peti- ADA.2 damages under money seeking both Court, claiming that judgment, summary moved tioners State’s abrogate authority Congress’ exceeds ADA 1409, Supp. F. immunity. See Amendment Eleventh both disposing opinion 1998). single In a (ND Ala. before presently not are those claims, but other raised Garrett Court.

cases, the District agreed Court with petitioners’ position granted their motions for summary judgment. See id., at 1410,1412. The cases were consolidated on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. The Court Appeals of reversed, 193F. 3d (1999), adhering to its intervening decision in Kimel v. State Bd. Regents, 139 (CA11 F. 3d 1426, 1433 of 1998),aff'd, 528 U. S. 62 (2000), that the ADA validly abrogates the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. We granted certiorari, 529 U. S. (2000), to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals on question the whether

an may individual sue a State for money damages in federal court under the ADA.

I The Eleventh provides: Amendment

“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend any suit in law or equity, com- menced prosecuted or against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, byor Citizens Subjects or any of Foreign State.” Although by its terms the Amendment applies only to suits against a by State citizens of another State, our cases have extended the Amendment’s applicability by suits citizens against their own States. See Kimel v. Florida Bd. Re of gents, 528 U. S. 62, 72-73 (2000); College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 669-670 (1999); Seminole Tribe Fla. v. Florida, of U. S. (1996); 44, Hans v. Louisiana, 134 (1890). U. S. 1, 15 The guarantee ultimate of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting may States not be sued by private individuals in federal court. See supra, Kimel, at 73. We have recognized, however, that Congress may abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it both unequivocally intends to do so “act[s] pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority.” S., U. at 73. The See here. dispute in not is requirements these of

first the under immune be not (“A shall State §12202 C.S.U. States United the of Constitution the amendment eleventh competent court State or [a] Federal in action an from question, The chapter”). this a violation jurisdiction au- constitutional its within Congress acted whether then, is court federal suits States the subjecting by thority ADA. under damages money abrogation its base course, not, may Congress powers upon immunity Amendment Eleventh States’ (“Under at 79 supra, Kimel, See I. Article enumerated [Age Discrimi- if then, precedent firmly established our Congress’ solely on 1967]rests ofAct Employment nation today’s petitioners private the power, commerce I Article em- their against suits their maintain cannot cases (“The Eleventh 72-73 supra, at Tribe, Seminole ployers”); III, Article under power judicial the restricts Amendment constitutional the circumvent to be used I cannot Article College Sav- jurisdiction”); federal upon placed limitations Postsecondary Prepaid Florida 672; supra, at Bank, ings 627, 636 S.U. 527 Bank, Savings College v.Bd. Expense Ed. (1999). In 730-733 706, U. S. Maine, (1999); v. Alden held we (1976), however, S. U. Bitzer, v. Fitzpatrick of principle the Amendment, Eleventh “the that by necessarily limited are embodies, it which sovereignty Amend- Fourteenth § the 5 of of provisions enforcement the con- we omitted). result, aAs (citation Id., at ment.” suit nonconsenting States subject may Congress cluded, exercise a valid pursuant so does it when court in federal this adhered have cases Our ibid. See § power. of its Accordingly, 80. supra, Kimel, g., See, e. proposition. the that extent only States apply can ADA § legislation.3 appropriate is statute bases itsof one § 5 as invoke intended Congress clear is It 12101(b)(4). § S. C. U. See ADA. enacting the Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, in rele- vant part:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of liberty, life, or property, without process due of law; nor deny to any person within jurisdiction its equal protection of the laws.” Section 5 of the Fourteenth grants Amendment Congress the power to enforce the guarantees substantive § contained in 1 by enacting “appropriate legislation.” See City Boerne of v. Flores, 521 U. (1997). S. 507, 536 Congress is not limited to mere legislative repetition of this Court’s constitutional jurisprudence. “Rather, Congress’ power 'to enforce’ the Amendment includes the authority both to remedy and to deter violation rights guaranteed thereunder by pro- hibiting a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself by forbidden the Amendment’s text.” Kimel, supra, at 81; City Boerne, supra, at 536. City Boerne also confirmed, however, the long-settled principle that it is the responsibility of this Court, not Con- gress, to define the substance guarantees. constitutional 521 U. S., at 519-524. § Accordingly, legislation reaching beyond the scope §l’s of guarantees actual must exhibit “congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.” Id., at 520..

II The first step in applying these now familiar principles is to identify precision some the scope of the constitutional right at issue. Here, that inquiry requires us to examine the § limitations 1 of the Fourteenth places Amendment upon States’ treatment of the disabled. As we did last Term in Kimel, see 528 U. S., at 83, we look to prior our decisions under the Equal Protection Clause dealing with this issue. S.U. Inc., Center, Living Cleburne v. Cleburne In a challenge to protection equal an

(1985), considered we opera- the for permit use special a requiring city ordinance spe- The mentally retarded. the for home group aof tion Appeals of Court the whether was us before question cific as qualified retardation mental holding that by erred had protection equal our under classification “quasi-suspect” a in question that answered We 435. Id., at jurisprudence. legislation such that concluding instead affirmative, the applicable review “rational-basis” only the minimum incurs In 446. Id., at legislation.4 economic and social general to explained we prescient, quite today seems that statement a that re- mentally the of class amorphous large and

“if the given reasons the for quasi-suspect deemed were tarded a find difficult be would it Appeals, Court by the groups other variety of distinguish a way to principled setting them disabilities immutable perhaps have who the mandate themselves cannot others, who from off some claim can who and responses, legislative desired at the part least at from prejudice degree aging, the only respect this in mention need large. One are We infirm. the mentally ill, the disabled, the decline we course, that on out set reluctant 445-446. Id., at so.” do possesses group a where review, rational-basis Under the interests relevant characteristics

“distinguishing decision a State’s implement,” authority the has State struck review, Cleburne rationality principles basic the Applying Court’s The S., 447-450. U. question. in ordinance city the down ordinance the justifications purported city’s reasoning was situ similarly groups other city treated of how light sense no made re mentally home group Although respects. relevant ated houses, apartment permit, use special a obtain required was tarded homes, sani nursing homes, retirement dwellings, multiple-family other houses, and sorority fraternity houses, boarding hospitals, tariums, ibid. See the ordinance. subject not were dormitories to act on the basis of those differences give does not rise to a constitutional violation. Id., at 441. “Such a classification cannot run afoul of Equal Protection Clause if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. (1993) 312, 320 (citing Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U. 1 (1992); S. New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. (1976) 297, 303 (per curiam)). Moreover, the State need not articulate its reasoning at the moment a particular decision is made. Rather, the burden is upon the challenging party negative “ 'any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could ” a rational basis for the classification.’ Heller, supra, at 320 (quoting FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S. 307, (1993)). suggests that Cleburne stands for the Breyer

Justice proposition broad that state decisionmaking reflecting “nega- tive attitudes” or “fear” necessarily runs afoul of the Four- teenth Amendment. post, See at 382 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Cleburne, 473 448). U. S., at Although such biases may often accompany (and irrational therefore unconstitu- tional) discrimination, presence their alone does not a consti- tutional violation make. As we noted in Cleburne: “[M]ere negative attitudes, or fear, by unsubstantiated which factors are properly cognizable in a zoning proceeding, are not per- missible bases for treating a home for the mentally retarded differently . . . .” Id., at 448 (emphases added). This lan- guage, read in context, simply states the unremarkable widely acknowledged tenet of this equal Court’s protection jurisprudence that subject action to rational-basis scru- tiny does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment when it “rationally furthers the purpose by identified the State.” Massachusetts Bd. Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307, (1976) (per curiam).

Thus, the result of Cleburne is that States are not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to special make accommoda- tions for the disabled, so long as their actions toward such individuals are They rational. quite could hardheadedly— re job-qualification to hardheartedly perhaps —hold

and disabled. the for allowance make not do which quirements required, be are disabled the accommodations special If through the not and law positive from come they have Clause.5 Equal Protection

Ill the of bounds and metes the determined have we Once Con- whether examine we question, in right constitutional em- unconstitutional of pattern history and a identified gress the disabled. against States by the discrimination ployment only to applies Amendment Fourteenth §1 the of as Just §5 Congress’ law,” state of color “under committed actions response to only in exercised appropriately authority is S.,U. Prepaid, Florida See transgressions. infringe- patent then —unremedied (“It conduct this is Fourteenth to the rise give must by the States —that ment in the redress sought to Congress that violation Amendment (“Congress atS.,U. Act”); Kimel, Remedy Patent by the age discrimination of pattern any identified never rose that whatsoever any discrimination less States, much rec- violation”). legislative The constitutional of level the Congress that show simply fails however, ADA, the of ord discrimination irrational of pattern identify a in fact did disabled. the against employment in unconsti- as inquiry the that contend Respondents States only to not extend should discrimination tutional cities as such governments, local of units but themselves, actors” “state say, are they these, ofAll counties. and in ADA the enacted Congress that time the by that noting worth is It one least At measures. such enacted had Union the State every 1990, times few the of one probably is “this remarked Congress Member Government, it’s Federal the in front out so far are States where Victims Cancer Against Discrimination on Hearing funny.” not Opportunities Employment on the Subcommittee before Handicapped Sess., 5 1st Cong., Labor, 100th Education on Committee House as far as go not however, did provisions, these number (1987). A accommodation. requiring did ADA

purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brief for Re- spondents 8. quite This is true, but the Eleventh Amend- ment does not extend its immunity to units of gov- local ernment. See Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529, 530 (1890). These entities subject are private claims for dam- ages under the ADA without Congress’ ever having rely §5 on of the Fourteenth Amendment to render them so. It would make no sense to consider constitutional violations on part, their as well byas the States themselves, when only the States are the beneficiaries of the Eleventh Amendment. Congress made general a finding in the ADA that “histori- cally, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious pervasive problem.” social § U. 12101(a)(2). S. C. The record assembled by Congress in- cludes many instances to support such a finding. But the great majority of these incidents do not deal with the activi- ties of States.

Respondents in their brief cite half a dozen examples from the record that did involve States. A department head at the University of North Carolina refused to hire an applicant position the of health administrator because he was blind; similarly, a student at a state university in South Dakota was denied an opportunity practice teach because the dean at that time was convinced that blind people could not teach in public schools. A microfilmer at the Kansas Department of Transportation was fired because he had epilepsy; deaf work- ers at the University of Oklahoma paid were a lower salary than those who could hear. The Indiana State Personnel Of- fice informed a woman with a concealed disability that she should not disclose it if she wished to obtain employment.6

6The record does show that some States, adopting the tenets of the eugenics movement of the early part of this century, required extreme measures such as sterilization of persons suffering from hereditary mental disease. These laws were upheld against constitutional attack 70 years ago in Buck v. Bell, 274 U. (1927). S. 200 But there is no indication that un an undoubtedly evidence incidents these of Several sort the make officials of part the on

willingness ADA. by the required disabled 'the accommodations of Cleburne our decision under irrational they were Whether is de incident when particularly debatable, more is determined be it were if even But context. out scribed unconsti showed examination fuller upon incident each that taken incidents these State, part of on the action tutional un pattern suggesting even short far fall together must §5 legislation which on discrimination constitutional Boerne, 521 City 89-91; at supra, Kimel, See based. be found ADA, enacting the Congress, 530-531. S.,U. physical more or one have Americans 43,000,000 “some 12101(a)(1). 1990, In §C.S. 42 U. disabilities.” mental or people. million 4.5 than more employed alone States Ab Census, Statistical of Bureau Commerce, of Dept. U. S. 534). (Table 1999) (119th ed. States United of the stract numbers, large these given that think, telling, we It is of uncon evidence minimal only such assembled Congress the against employment in discrimination state stitutional disabled. I Title applied Congress that maintains Breyer Justice incidents of host to a response the States ADA the of em- discrimination unconstitutional representing review close A disabilities. against ployment conclu- however, undercuts materials, relevant the of legis- of not consists C Appendix Breyer’s sion. Justice accounts anecdotal unexamined, but findings, lative Post, officials.” by treatment disparate “adverse, dis- “adverse, explained, already have we course, as Of 379. constitutional a amount not does often treatment” parate ac- These applies. scrutiny rational-basis where violation Congress directly to not submitted were moreover, counts, Empowerment Rights and on Force Task but when as measures harsh such in requiring persisted had State

any adopted. was ADA Americans with Disabilities, which made no findings on the subject of state discrimination in employment.7 See the Task Force’s Report entitled From ADA to Empowerment (Oct. 1990). 12, And, had Congress truly understood this information as reflecting pattern a of unconstitutional be- by havior the States, one expect would some mention of that conclusion in the legislative Act’s findings. There is none. See 42 § U. S. C. 12101. Although Breyer would Justice infer from Congress’ general conclusions regarding societal against discrimination the disabled that the States had like- wise participated in such action, post, at 378, the House and Senate committee reports on the ADA flatly contradict this assertion. After describing the presented evidence the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and its subcommittee (including the Task Force Report upon which the relies), dissent the Committee’s Report reached, among others, the following conclusion: “Discrimination still persists in such critical areas as employment in pri- vate sector, accommodations, public services, trans- portation, and telecommunications.” S. Rep. No. 101-116, p. (1989) (emphasis added). The House Committee on Edu- cation and Labor, addressing the ADA’s employment provi- sions, reached the same conclusion: “[A]fter extensive review and analysis over a number of Congressional sessions, . . . there exists a compelling need to establish a clear and com- prehensive prohibition Federal of discrimination on the basis of disability in the areas of employment in private the sector, public accommodations, services, transporta- a Only small fraction of the Breyer anecdotes Justice identifies in his Appendix C relate to state discrimination against the disabled in em ployment. At most, somewhere around 50 of these allegations describe conduct that could conceivably amount to constitutional violations by the States, and most of them are so general and brief that no firm conclusion can be drawn. The overwhelming majority of these accounts pertain to alleged discrimination by the States in the provision of public services and public accommodations, which areas are addressed in Titles II and III of the ADA. 101-485, Rep. No. R.H. telecommunications.” and

tion, the only is added). not Thus, (emphasis (1990) p. 28 2, pt. there but unwarranted, draws Breyer inference Justice mention to failure Congress’ that evidence strong also is addressing discrimination findings legislative its in States pattern no that judgment body’s that reflects employment in documented. been had action of unconstitutional examples these of out squeeze possible it were Even States, by the discrimination unconstitutional of pattern a the against ADA by the created remedies rights the congru- toas concerns of sort same the raise would States Boerne, City found of as were and-proportionality ence entirely rational be would it whereas example, For supra. con- employer constitutional) a (and therefore who employees hiring by resources financial scarce serve em- requires ADA the facilities, existing use able are read- employees by used existing facilities “mak[e] ployers disabilities.” by individuals usable ily accessible except does 12111(9). ADA The 12112(5)(B), §§C.S.U. require- aecommodatio[n]” “reasonable the from employers accom- the that demonstrate “can employer the where ment operation hardship the on undue an impose would modation 12112(b)(5)(A). § entity.” covered such of business the duty accommodation the exception, this even However, makes it that required constitutionally is what exceeds far rea- be would that responses alternative range of a unlawful burden” “undue an imposing short fall would but sonable employer’s the it makes also Act The employer. upon the burden, instead a such suffer would it that prove, duty to complaining does) that (as Constitution requiring decision. employer’s bases reasonable negate party ibid. See or criteria, standards, “utilizing forbids also ADA The dis- impact disparately administration” methods rational ahas conduct such whether regard without abled, may be impact disparate Although 12112(b)(3)(A). § basis. relevant evidence of racial discrimination, see Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, (1976), such evidence alone is insufficient even where the Fourteenth subjects Amendment state action to strict scrutiny. See, g., e. (“[Oju'r ibid. cases have not embraced the proposition that a law or other official act, regard without to whether it reflects a racially discrimi- natory purpose, is unconstitutional solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact”).

The ADA’sconstitutional shortcomings are apparent when the Act is compared to Congress’ efforts in the Voting Rights Act of 1965to respond to a pattern serious of constitutional violations. In' South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301 (1966), we considered whether the Voting Rights Act was “appropriate” legislation to enforce the Fifteenth Amend- protection ment’s against racial discrimination in voting. Concluding that it was a valid exercise of Congress’ enforce- ment power §2 under of the Fifteenth Amendment,8 we “[bjefore noted that enacting the measure, Congress ex- plored great care problem of racial discrimination in voting.” Id., at 308. In that Act, Congress documented a pattern marked unconstitutional action by the States. State officials, Con- gress found, routinely applied voting tests in order to ex- clude African-American citizens from registering to vote. See id., at 312. Congress also determined that litigation proved had ineffective and that there persisted an other- wise inexplicable 50-percentage-point gap in the registration of white and African-American voters in some States. See id., at 313. Congress’ response was to promulgate in the Voting Rights Act a detailed but limited remedial scheme designed guarantee meaningful enforcement of the Fif- teenth Amendment in those areas of the Nation where abun- dant evidence of States’ systematic denial of rights those was identified. 8Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment is virtually § identical to 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. evi- the and evidence, of kind this between contrast The stark. is case, present the in considered Congress that

dence judg- its represents ADA the of enactment Congressional man- national “comprehensive abe should there that ment individuals against discrimination of elimination the for date the is Congress 12101(b)(1). §C.S.U. disabilities.” with to in order but policy, to desirable authority as final damages money recover to individuals private authorize discrimination of pattern abe must there States, the against Amendment, Fourteenth the violates which by the States and congruent be must Congress by imposed remedy the and requirements Those targeted violation. the to proportional to application Act’s the uphold to here, met not are Fourteenth the rewrite Congress allow would States the Sec- Cleburne.9 in Court by this down laid law Amendment authority. congressional enlarge broadly so not does tion therefore is Appeals of Court the of judgment The Reversed. joins, whom with O’Connor Justice Kennedy, Justice concurring. from not rises understand, beginning we are Prejudice, from well as may result It alone. animus hostile or

malice re- rational careful, of simple want by insensitivity caused against guard mechanism instinctive some fromor flection from respects some in different be appear who people documentation, any historical from apart Quite ourselves. States’ the abrogate validly not did Congress that here holding Our damages money for individuals by private suit from immunity sovereign federal no have disabilities persons that mean not I does Title under prescribes still ADA I Title discrimination. against recourse by enforced be can standards Those States. applicable standards private by as as well damages, money actions States United S.U. Young, parte Ex under relief injunctive in actions individuals persons rights protecting laws addition, state (1908). In independent life aspects other employment disabilities 5, supra. n. See redress. avenues knowledge of our own human instincts teaches persons that who find it difficult perform routine by functions reason of some mental or physical impairment might at first seem unsettling to us, unless we guided are by the better angels of our nature. There can be little doubt, then, with mental physical or impairments are confronted with prejudice which can stem from indifference or insecurity as well as from malicious ill will.

One of the undoubted achievements of statutes designed to assist those with impairments is that citizens have an incentive, flowing from a legal duty, to develop a better understanding, a more decent perspective, for accepting persons, impairments with or disabilities into the larger society. The law works this way because the law can be a teacher. So I do not doubt that the Americans with Dis- abilities Act of 1990will be a milestone on path the to a more decent, tolerant, progressive society. It question is a quite of a different order, however, say to that the States in their official capacities, the States gov- as ernmental entities, must be held in violation of the Con- stitution on the assumption they that embody the miscon- ceived or malicious perceptions of some of their citizens. It is a most serious charge to say a State has engaged in a pattern or practice designed deny to its citizens the equal protection of the laws, particularly where the accusation is. based not on hostility but instead on the failure to act or the omission to remedy. States can, and do, apart stand from the citizenry. States act as neutral ready entities, take instruction and to enact laws when their citizens so demand. The failure of a State to policies revise now seen as incorrect under a new understanding proper of policy does not always constitute the purposeful and intentional action required to make out a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. See Washington v. Davis, 426 (1976). U. S. 229 For the reasons explained by the Court, an equal pro- tection violation has not been shown respect to the several States in this case. If the States had been trans- mistreatment by their Amendment Fourteenth the

gressing would one impairments, those concern of lack or States the of courts of the decisions find expected have litigation extensive States United the courts the also con- This violations. constitutional the discussion there That exist. not does documentation judicial firming commitment new consciousness, a newa awareness, a new is or mental by disadvantaged those treatment better absence an that establish not does impairments physical violation. constitutional awas statutory correctives not is question inis what moreover, noted, be must It granted power ato pursuant acting Congress, whether What act. States compel Constitution, can by the it be can States whether question only the is involved is Federal by the not brought liability suits subjected Alden see consented, have (to States which Government private by (1999)),but 706, S.U. Maine, 527 v. treasury without the moneys from collect seeking to damages money predicate The State. the consent the by private brought suits in unconsenting State an against docu- the upon enacted statute federal a must be committed violations constitutional patterns mentation rea- predicate, That capacity. official its in State by the has Court, of the decision the here discussed sons the join I observations, these With established. been not opinion. Court’s Justice Stevens, Justice whom Breyer, with Justice dissenting. Ginsburg join, Justice

Souter, ad- an were it if as record congressional Reviewing the statutory the holds Court the record, agency ministrative § unconstitutional. 12202, C.S. U. us, before provision insufficient assembled Congress that concludes Court The 370, at ante, discrimination, unconstitutional evidence we law “rewrite” attempted improperly Congress that Inc., Center, Living Cleburne v. Cleburne established suffi- not is law that 374, and (1985), ante, S.U. ciently tailored to address unconstitutional discrimination, ante, at 372-373. Section 5, grants however, Congress “power to enforce,

by appropriate legislation,” the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. U. S. Const., § Arndt. 14, 5. As the Court recognizes, state discrimination in employ- against ment persons with might disabilities “‘run afoul of ” the Equal “ Protection Clause’ where there is no ‘rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.’” Ante, at 367 (quoting Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. (1993)). 312, 320 See also Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, supra, Inc., at 440 (stating that the Court will sustain a classification if it is “rationally re- lated a legitimate interest”). In my view, Congress reasonably could have concluded that the remedy before us constitutes an “appropriate” way to enforce this equal basic protection requirement. And that is all the Constitution requires.

I The Court says that its primary problem with this statu- tory provision is one of legislative evidence. says It “Congress only assembled ... minimal evidence of unconsti- tutional state discrimination in employment.” Ante, at 370. In Congress fact, compiled a legislative vast record docu- menting “‘massive, society-wide discrimination’” against persons with disabilities. Rep. S. No. pp. 101-116, 8-9 (1989) (quoting testimony of Justin Dart, chairperson of Task Force on Rights the and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities). In addition to the information presented at 13 congressional (see hearings Appendix A, infra), and its prior own experience gathered over years during which it contemplated and enacted considerable legislation similar (see Appendix B, infra), Congress created special a task force to assess the need for comprehensive legislation. That task force held hearings in every State, by attended more than 30,000 people, including thousands who had experi- enced discrimination first hand. See From ADA to Em- of Empowerment and Rights the on Force Task

powerment, (hereinafter 1990) (Oct. 12, Disabilities Americans Congress’ hearings, force task The Report). Force Task polls, national data, “census of analysis an and hearings, own “people that conclude Congress led studies” other and in our status an inferior occupy group, a disabilities, as vocationally, socially, disadvantaged severely are society, and 12101(a)(6). § S. C. U. educationally.” economically, and all of “[t]wo-thirds that found Congress employment, toAs not [were] and age of the between Americans disabled and to, wanted majority large though a even all,” working at 9. at 101-116, Rep. No. S. productively. work to, able were sig- flowed discrimination this that found Congress And “pur- aswell as assumptions” “stereotypic from part nificant 12101(a)(7). §C.S.U. treatment.” unequal poseful treatment discriminatory of evidence powerful The by including discrimination general, society in throughout state implicates governments, local and private that of part form agencies for state well, as governments believe reason particular nois There society. larger same assumptions” “stereotypic the from immune they are that Con- that treatment” unequal “purposeful of pattern and “make[s] it that claims Court The prevalent. found gress violations constitutional consideration into take sense” no the But 369. Ante, governments. by local committed cre- Clause Equal Protection obligation substantive alike. entities governmental local and state applies ates (1989). S.U. Co., 488 Croson A. v. J. g., Richmond E. under with, and closely work often governments Local local general, officials, of, supervision deter- is Nor similarly situated. are employers government entitled entity is “local” apparently an mining whether majority as simple immunity as Amendment Eleventh examination “‘detailed a requires often suggests —it ” Cal. Univ. Regents law.’ [state] provisions relevant v. Doe, 519 U. S. (1997) 425, 430,n. 6 (quoting Moor v. County Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, (1973)). 719-721 In any event, there is no need to solely rest upon evidence by discrimination governments local general or societal discrimination. There are roughly 300 examples of discrimi- by nation state governments themselves in legislative record. g., See, e. Appendix C, I fail to see infra. how this “fall[s] evidence far short of even suggesting pattern unconstitutional discrimination § on which 5 legislation must be based.” Ante, at 370. The congressionally appointed task force collected numer- ous specific examples, provided by persons with disabilities themselves, of adverse, disparate by treatment state officials. They reveal, not what the Court describes as “half a dozen” instances of discrimination, ante, at 369, but hundreds of in- stances of adverse treatment at the hands of state officials— instances in person which a with a disability found it im- possible to obtain a job, to retain state employment, to use transportation that was readily available to others in order get to work, or to obtain public a educa- tion, which is often a prerequisite to obtaining employment. State-imposed barriers also frequently made it difficult or impossible people to vote, to enter a building, to access important government services, such as calling emergency assistance, and to find a place to live due to a pattern of irrational zoning decisions similar to the discrimi- nation that we held unconstitutional in Cleburne, 473 U. S., at 448. See Appendix C, infra. As the Court notes, those presented who instances of dis-

crimination rarely provided additional, independent evidence sufficient to prove in court that, in each instance, the dis- crimination they suffered justification lacked judicial from a standpoint. Ante, at 370 (stating that instances of dis- crimination are “described context”). out of Perhaps this explains the Court’s view that there is “minimal evidence of unconstitutional state discrimination.” Ibid. But a leg- courts, unlike Congress, And law. of court a is not

islature ex- conclusions—for general routinely draw does, and must, legitimate relationship likely ofor likely motive of ample, of this evidence opinion-based and anecdotal need—from strong refutation. lacks evidence the when particularly kind, many times “met (task force 16, 20 Report Force Task See [the] opposed groups of representatives significant with force task the although public, general the as to and ADA,” there ADA, the of support in letters” 2,000 “about received 101-116, Rep. No. S. opposition”); in letter “one only was accom- many reasonable testimony that (summarizing at others, of expense the and $50,” than “less cost modations is deaf, the interpret for can who employees hiring as such we legislation, §5 reviewing In exaggerated”). “frequently of investigation extensive of sort the required never have contemplate. appears Court the that evidence of piece each Morgan, 384 v. Katzenbach 370-371, with at ante, Compare likely Congress’ (asking whether (1966) 652-656 641, S.U. ade- was there whether not reasonable, were conclusions Court the record). has Nor in support evidentiary quate toas findings make Congress required traditionally evidence, cate- record down break or to discrimination, (noting state- 371-372 at ante, Compare category. by gory mentioned that Reports congressional two in ments but and services in discrimination (considering supra, Morgan, with employment), in not atS., concluded); U. “might” have Congress what Ricans Puerto against likely discrimination (holding that literacy abolishing statute supported voting than other areas voting). qualification as test unjus- substantial found expressly Congress Regardless, disabilities. against discrimination tified “unnecessary dis- pattern (finding a 12101(9) §C. U. S. States United “costs prejudice” and crimination resulting from expenses unnecessary dollars billions added)). See (emphasis nonproductivity” dependency Disabilities Americans History Legislative also Act (Leg. Hist.) (Committee Print compiled for the House Committee on Education Labor), Ser. No. p. 102-B, (1990) (testimony of Arlene Mayerson) B. (describing “un- justifiable and discriminatory loss job opportunities”); “ id., at 1623(citing study showing 'strong evidence that em- ployers’ fears of performance low among disabled workers are unjustified’ ”). Moreover, it found that such discrimina- tion typically reflects “stereotypic assumptions” or “purpose- ful unequal treatment.” § U. 12101(7). S. C. See also 2 Leg. Hist. 1622 (testimony of Arlene B. (“Out- Mayerson) moded stereotypes whether manifested in medical or other job 'requirements’ that are unrelated to the per- successful formance job, of the or in decisions based on generalized the perceptions of supervisors and hiring personnel, have ex- cluded many disabled people jobs from for which they are qualified”). In making these findings, Congress followed our decision in Cleburne, which established that not only dis- crimination against persons with disabilities that upon rests '"a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group,’” 473 U. S., at 447 (quoting Department Agriculture v. of Mo- reno, 413 U. S. (1973) 528, (omission in Cleburne)), vio- lates the Fourteenth Amendment, but also discrimination that rests solely upon “negative attitude[s],” “fea[r],” 473 U. S., at 448, or “irrational prejudice,” id., at 450. Adverse treatment that upon rests such motives unjustified is dis- crimination in Cleburne’s terms.

The evidence in the legislative record bears out Congress’ finding that the adverse treatment persons with disabili ties was often arbitrary or invidious in this sense, and thus unjustified. For example, one study that was before Con gress revealed that governmental “most.. . agencies [one in State] discriminated in hiring against job applicants for an average period of years five after treatment for cancer,” based part on misguided coworkers’ belief that “cancer is contagious.” 2 Leg. Hist. 1619-1620 (testimony of Arlene Mayerson). B. A school inexplicably refused to exempt a deaf teacher, who taught at a school for the deaf, from a 1503. Lodging Government’s requirement.

“listening skills” anof director as employee blind a hire refused A State qualified most the though was he blind—even agency apparently agencies Certain 974. at Id., applicant. promoting hiring or against policies general had away turned zooA 1577. 1159, at Id., disabilities. zookeeper] [the “because Syndrome Downs children 101- Rep. No. S. chimpanzees.” upset they would feared zoning decisions numerous reports were There 7. at 116, supra, Cleburne, “fear,” or attitudes” “negative upon based an permit a denied that zoning board aas such 448, that arguments hearing after reason pretextual obviously “‘room needed who ‘“deviants’” house facility would a listing of ” complete A 1068. Lodging Government’s roam,’ local by state of discrimination examples hundreds set is force task submitted were that governments reasonably have could Congress C, Appendix forth infra. wide a signs of represented examples these believed discrimination. unconstitutional problem spread I I support evidentiary sufficient find failure Court’s The strict, a Congress to hold decision upon its may rest well re- particularly standard, evidentiary created judicially empirical Kennedy’s justification. of lack Justice spect heavily Congress of that rejects —rests conclusion—which discus- litigation “extensive find failure upon his the of courts “the violations,” the constitutional of sion (emphasis opinion) (concurring at Ante, States.” United economic when that, out points itself added). Court the And hence irrational, as court challenged in is legislation social or party challenging the upon is “burden the unconstitutional, that facts of reasonably conceivable any negative Ante, classification.” the basis rational a could omitted). Justice asOr marks (internal quotation many years matter the put Court, writing for Brandéis, that “ conceived be can reasonably facts of any state ago, ‘if ” “ would sustain’ challenged legislation, then ‘there is pre- a sumption of the existence of that state of facts, and one who assails the classification must carry the burden of show- ing . . . that the action is arbitrary.’” States Box Pacific & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U. S. (1935) 176, 185 (quoting Borderis Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin, 293 U. S. 194, 209 (1934)). Imposing special this “burden” upon Congress, the Court fails to find in legislative record sufficient indica- tion that Congress “negative[d]” has the presumption that state action is rationally related to a legitimate objective. Ante, at 367.

The problem with the Court’s approach is that neither the “burden proof” that favors States any nor other rule applicable restraint judges applies to Congress when it § exercises its power. “Limitations stemming from the nature of the judicial process .. . have no application to Congress.” Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. (1970) 112, 248 (Brennan, White, and Marshall, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Rational-basis review—with pre- its sumptions favoring constitutionality “a paradigm judi- —is oí cial restraint.” FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S. (1993) 307, 314 (emphasis added). And the Congress of the United States is not a lower court.

Indeed, the Court in Cleburne drew this very institutional distinction. We emphasized that “courts have been very re- luctant, as they should be in our system federal and with our respect for separation powers, to closely scrutinize legislative choices.” 473 U. S., at 441. Our invocation judicial deference respect Congress was based on fact “[§]5 of the [Fourteenth] empowers Amendment Congress to [the enforce equal protection] mandate.” Id., at 439 (emphasis added). Indeed, we made clear that the absence of a contrary congressional finding was critical to oür decision to apply mere rational-basis review to disability discrimination claims—a “congressional direction” to apply a more stringent standard would have been “controlling.” Ibid. See also Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 248 Pro- Equal on the based lawa (refusing invalidate to

(1976) “should standard disparate-impact a because Clause tection at supra, Mitchell, Cf. prescription”). legislative await (“Con- part) dissenting in and part concurring in (Stewart, J., may this than brush broader much awith may paint gress of function judicial the to itself confine must Court, which upon individual controversies and cases deciding individual the uphold “to that claim Court’s the records”). short, In re- to Congress allow would States the to application Act’s by this down laid law Amendment Fourteenth the write by Cleburne repudiated is 374, ante, at Cleburne,” Court itself. seeking to Congress, require to reason no simply is There authority, §5 itsof exercise the to relevant facts determine insti- court’s a reflect that presumptions or rules adopt to readily can Congress courts, Unlike limitations. tutional magnitude the assess Nation, the across from facts gather remedy. appropriate an easily find more and problem, aof problems (addressing the 442-443 supra, Cleburne, Cf. disabili- of group” diversified and “large of the a very much matter, technical a often and a difficult “is ties not and professionals by qualified guided legislators task Un- judiciary”). the of opinions ill-informed perhaps by the and attitudes directly reflects Congress courts, like where, understand better Congress enabling beliefs, disability amount a accommodate refusals extent, what point the unreasonable or callous is that behavior Members judges, Unlike justification. lacking constitutional constit- from information directly obtain can Congress discrimination experience firsthand have who uents issues.

related elected. are Congress Members judges, unlike Moreover, proof burden majority’s applied has Court When “ ‘sit not do courts, e., we, i. explained has rule, it desirability of or wisdom judge superlegislature aas ” atS.,U. Heller, determinations.’ policy legislative (quoting New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 (1976) U. S. 297, 303 (per curiam)). To apply a rule designed to restrict courts as if it restricted Congress’ legislative power is to stand the underlying principle principle judicial of —a restraint— on its head. But without the use of this burden proof of rule or some other unusually stringent standard of review, it is difficult to see how the Court can find legislative record here inadequate. Read with a reasonably favor- eye, able the record indicates that state governments sub- jected those with disabilities to seriously adverse, disparate treatment. Congress And could have found, in a significant number of instances, that this treatment violated the sub- stantive principles justification —shorn judicial- their restraint-related presumptions this Court —that recognized in Cleburne.

Ill The Court argues in the alternative that the statute’s damages remedy is not “congruent” with and “proportional” to the equal protection problem that Congress found. Ante, at 374 (citing City Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 520 (1997)). The Court suggests that the Act’s “reasonable ac- commodation” requirement, § 42 U. S. C. 12112(b)(5)(A),and disparate-impact § standard, 12112(b)(3)(A), “far excee[d] what is constitutionally required.” Ante, at 372. But we upheld have disparate-impact standards in contexts where they were not “constitutionally required.” Compare Griggs v. Duke Power Co.,401 U. S. 424, (1971), with Washing- ton, supra, at 239, and City Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, (1980), 172-173 with Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. (1980) 55, (plurality opinion).

And what is wrong with a remedy that, in response unreasonable employer behavior, requires an employer to make accommodations that are reasonable? Of course, what is “reasonable” in the statutory sense and what is “unreason- able” in the constitutional sense might differ. In other words, the requirement may exceed what is necessary power— that just isitBut violation. constitutional a

avoid §5 minimum—that the than more require to power the confirmed. repeatedly has Court this as Congress, to grants “brought §5 that wrote Court the 1880, as ago long As “tends whatever power” congressional of domain the within to secure “to and “prohibitions” its to submission” enforce to parte Ex laws.” the of protection equal the ... all recently, the Court (1880). More 339, 346 U. S. Virginia, by Congress, grant to sought to § “draftsmen 5’s that added Amend Fourteenth the to applicable provision specific a Necessary the expressed'in powers broad same the ment, S.,U. Morgan, 18.” cl. §8, I,Art. Clause, Proper and 316, Wheat. Maryland, v. McCulloch (citing at (1819)). that said has Court the principles, these keeping In of... resolution congressional the review tous not “[i]t is pervasive- or risk conflicting considerations—the various the ,. . . services governmental discrimination the of ness the and remedies, alternative availability of or adequacy the be would that interests of the significance nature able bewe enough that is °“It 653. S., at U. affected.” might resolve Congress the which upon basis a perceive v. Carolina South also See Ibid. did.” it as conflict the simi- the (interpreting (1966) 301, S.U. Katzenbach, 383 Amend- Fifteenth the of Clause Enforcement larly worded effec- means “any rational use Congress permit to ment words the Nothing in prohibition”). constitutional the tuate requirement the that suggests accommodation” “reasonable Clause, Protection Equal the enforce” “tendency] no has way irrational anisit that 346, supra, at Virginia, parte Ex it that 324, at supra, Katzenbach, objective, the to achieve Proper Necessary the of scope the outside fall would other- somehow it or 650, supra, Morgan, Clause, Const., S.U. “appropriate,” of bounds exceeds wise §5. 14,

Amdt. follow professed have cases recent more Court’s The Kimel See Congress. deference principle longstanding v. Florida Bd. Regents, 528 (2000) U. S. 62, (“Congress’ §5 power is not confined to the enactment of legislation that merely parrots the precise wording of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Rather, Congress prohibit can a “somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself by forbidden text”); Amendment’s Florida Prepaid Post- secondary Expense Ed. Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U. (1999) S. (“ 627, 639 ‘Congress must have ”) wide latitude’ (quoting City supra, Boerne, at 519-520); City Boerne, supra, at 528 (reaffirming Morgan); 521 (Con- U. S., at 536 gress’ “conclusions are entitled to deference”). much And even today, the Court purports to apply, not to depart from, these standards. Ante, at 365. But the Court’s analysis and ultimate conclusion deprive its declarations of practical significance. The Court ‘sounds the word of promise to the ear but it breaks to the hope.’

i—4> The Court’s harsh review of Congress’ § use of its power is reminiscent of the similar (now-discredited) limitation that it once imposed upon Congress’ Commerce power. Clause Compare Carter v. Carter Coal Co.,298 U. S. 238 (1936),with United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. (1941) 100, 123 (rejecting Carter rationale). Coal’s I could understand legal the basis for such review were we judging a statute that discriminated against those of particular a race gender, or see United States v. Virginia, 518 U. S. (1996), or a statute that threatened a basic constitutionally protected liberty such as speech, free see Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. (1997); see also Post & Siegel, Equal Protection by Law: Federal Antidiscrimination Legislation After Mor- rison and Kimel, 110 Yale L. J. (2000) 441, 477 (stating that the Court’s recent §5 review of legislation appears to ap- proach strict scrutiny); 1 L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (3d p. §5-16, 2000) ed. (same). The legislation before us, however, does not against discriminate anyone, nor does it pose any threat to basic liberty. And it is diffi- “minimum applies which Court, the why understand to

cult burden that statutes to review” ‘rational-basis’ scrutiny a stricter far subjects 366, at ante, disabilities, individuals. same help those seeks that statute a burden imposes statute this that nonetheless recognize I Amendment Eleventh their removes it that upon States potential them subjecting thereby suit, from protection §5 would that interpreting liability. Rules monetary counter run however, protection, special States By its Amendment. Fourteenth the object of very the their denying from States prohibits Amendment that terms, 14, Arndt. Const., S.U. laws. the protection equal citizens might otherwise federalism “principles § Hence 1. necessarily authority are congressional obstacle an be Amend- War Civil enforce power by the overridden Amendments Those legislation.’ appropriate ‘by ments power federal expansion anas designed specifically were Rome, 446 City sovereignty.” on intrusion an 445, U. S. Bitzer, v. Fitzpatrick also See 179. atS.,U. ironi- And, 345. supra, Virginia, parte (1976); Ex Amendment Eleventh obstacle greater cally, remedy at kind the Congress by creation the poses damages ac- private remedy of decentralized here —the issue na- important cure seeking to Congress, more tions—the disability discrimina- problem as such problems, tional remedies, uniform rely more on have will us, before tion C.S.U. injunctions, court and standards federal as such typically and draconian sometimes 12188(a)(2), are which § Pre- Florida v. Savings Bank College See intrusive. more 666, 704-705 S.U. Bd., Expense Postsecondary Ed. paid For 9.n. 374, ante, Cf. dissenting). J., (1999) (Breyer, any con- serves today’s decision that I doubt reasons, these interest. federalism stitutionally based non- its demands, evidentiary through its Court, The between distinguish failure its review, deferential improp- competencies, constitutional legislative judicial to Con- assigns Constitution power a erly invades gress. Morgan, 384 U. S., (The at 648, n. “sponsors and supporters of the [Fourteenth] Amendment were primarily interested in augmenting power of Congress”). Its deci § sion saps 5 of independent force, effectively “confining] the legislative power ... to the insignificant role of abrogating only those state laws that judicial [is] branch prepared to adjudge unconstitutional.” Id., at 648-649. Whether the Commerce Clause does or does not enable Congress to enact this provision, g., see, e. Seminole Tribe Fla. v. Flor ida, 517 U. S. 44, 100-185 (1996) joined J., by Gins (Souter, burg and Breyer, JJ., dissenting); College Savings Bank, supra, at 699-700 (Breyer, J., dissenting), my view, §5 gives Congress the necessary authority.

For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.

APPENDIX A TO OPINION OF BREYER, J. Congressional hearings on the Americans with Disabilities Act

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989: Hearings on H. R. 2273 before the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, 101st Cong., 1st (1989). Sess.

Americans with Disabilities Act: Hearing on H. R. and S. 933 before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 101st Cong., (1990). 1st Sess.

Americans with Disabilities Act: Hearings on H. R. before the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, 101st Cong., (1990). 1st Sess.

Americans with Disabilities: Telecommunications Relay Services, Hearing on Title V of H. R. 2273 before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Cong., 101st 1st (1990). Sess. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989: Hearing on H. R. 2273 before the Subcommittee on Select Education of the Cong., 1st Labor, 101st and Education on Committee

House (1989). Sess. Hearing Act: Disabilities with Americans Hearing on Field House the of Education on Select Subcommittee the before Sess. Cong., 1st 101st Labor, and Education on Committee (1989). Act Disabilities with Americans The 2273, R.H. Hearing on Select on Subcommittee the Hearing before Joint 1989: House the Opportunities Employment and Education Sess. Cong., 1st 101st Labor, and Education on Committee hearings). (two 1989) 13, Sept. (July &18 Disabili- with Americans 4498, R.H. Hearing on Oversight Select on Subcommittee the Hearing before of 1988: Act ties Labor, and Education on Committee House the Education (1989). Cong., 2d Sess. 100th House the Hearing before Act: Disabilities with Americans (1990); Sess. Cong., 2d Business, 101st Small on Committee S. Hearings on of 1989: Act Disabilities with Americans Re- Human and Labor on Committee Senate the before 101st Handicapped, the on the Subcommittee and sources Hearings). (May (1989) Sess. 1st Cong., Hearing on Joint 1988: ofAct Disabilities Americans the Handicapped' on Subcommittee before S. and Resources Human Labor on Committee Senate Committee House of the Education on Select Subcommittee (1989). Sess. Cong., 2d 100th Labor, Education on J. BREYER, OF OPINION B TO APPENDIX prior Congress by enacted laws Disability discrimination Act Disabilities Americans Stat. 434, 1948, ch. 10, of June Act seq. et §4151 C. U. S. 1968, ofAct Barriers Architectural seq. § et C. U. S. 1973, ofAct Rehabilitation Education of the Handicapped Act, Pub. L. 91-230, Title VI, (reenacted 84 Stat. 175 in 1990 as the Individuals with Dis- abilities Education Act, § 20 U. S. C. 1400 seq.) et Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, §6000 42 U. S. C. seq. et

Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, 42 § U. S. C. 1973ee et seq.

Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, § 49 U. S. C. 41705 Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986, § 42 U. S. C. 10801et seq.

Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, § 42 U. S. C. 3604.

APPENDIX C TO OPINION OF BREYER, J. Submissions made by individuals to the Task Force on Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities. See the (available Government’s Lodging in Clerk of Court’s file). case ALABAMA

Page No. against discrimination the mentally ill in city zoning process 00003 inaccessible exercise equipment at University

Alabama 00004 school failed to train teachers how to work with

students with learning disabilities 00005 courts failed to provide interpretive services for

deaf people 00006 lack of accessible police and court services for

people public 00008 child denied public education because of cerebral

palsy transportation, prevented which persons with disabilities from getting to work services; inacces- buildings and transportation sible trans- public inaccessible schools; public inaccessible 00011 portation trans- public inaccessible schools; public inaccessible 00013 portation for access requiring building codes enforce failure 00014 disabilities with

persons courthouse inaccessible 00015 by voting machine use for instructions lack 00017 newly reno- in restrooms inaccessible people; blind House State vated transportation public inaccessible

00021 transportation public inaccessible 00023 enforce failure 00024 disabilities with sons for education adequate an provide failed schools

00025 disabilities transportation public inaccessible 00026 denied man 00027 inaccessible palsy; cerebral his vocational zoning discrimination schizophrenics; services homes group against education adequate an provide failed school education adequate an provide failed school

ALASKA No.

Page edu- special in palsy cerebral child placed school classes cation informa- legislature restrooms office tion Arts Performing Alaska newat areas

Center transportation, prevented which persons with disabilities from getting to work 00046 lack of curb cuts in sidewalks apartment near build- ing with disabilities 00048 child erroneously placed special education classes 00049 inaccessible new performing arts center 00050 Alaska Psychiatric Institute failed to provide inter-

pretive services for patients 00052 state and agencies local disregarded laws requiring

accessibility jail failed person with disability medical

treatment 00056 government inaccessible buildings in Seward 00057 public inaccessible transportation 00058 city failed to train employees how to communicate people

with with hearing impairments 00059 segregated seating and inaccessibility at per- new forming arts center 00061 inaccessibility of State Ferry Columbia and Alaska Railroad; denial jobof interview person because was

in a wheelchair 00062 inaccessible new performing arts center 00063 person using a respirator denied access to Alaska

State Division of Medical Assistance 00065 inaccessible city hall

00067 school district against retaliated teacher for asking to be assigned to an accessible classroom 00069 public inaccessible transportation 00070 lack of curb cuts; public inaccessible transportation 00071 agencies state failed provide interpretive services for deaf people 00072 department of motor vehicles failed to provide inter-

pretive services 00073 inaccessibility of City Seward Hall and other state and local buildings

394 expense covering assist university failed

00075 student graduate services interpretive buildings public inaccessible 00076 school public 00077 ARIZONA No.

Page city of problems inaccessibility showing survey services

Phoenix’s transportation areas recreation restrooms motor department hearing with people assistance other or signs

impairments job officer police disability denied person Arizona lift van unsafe fix years 4to refused paratransit county college on restrictions placed vehicles of motor department deafness because license driver’s numerous impairment hearing teacher

jobs assist failed vehicles motor department 00127 people fountain, water restroom, entrance, inaccessible 00129 by State building leased at office at restroom inaccessible use trying injured woman cuts of curb stop; lack rest roadside agencies service social inaccessible ARKANSAS No.

Page accommodations enforce failed school public

student public school teacher refused to allow student with disability to use authorized calculator 00139 state university failed to inform student with hearing

impairment about activities and rules 00140 lack of curb cuts public inaccessible transportation

00143 inaccessible office area public housing with disabilities public transportation 00145 inaccessible state office of human services; state

agencies failed to hire persons with disabilities 00146 failure to enforce handicapped parking law 00147 school erroneously placed child with mobility impair-

ment special education classes 00149 public schools failed interpretive services for deaf people public 00153 person with disability forced to resign employment

because of architectural barriers school held meetings and conferences at in- accessible locations

00155 physical prevented barriers citizens from voting 00156 rehabilitation services failed to people assist with all kinds of disabilities 00159 inaccessible city and county buildings

00161 services office relocated to inaccessible building

00163 lack of curb cuts

CALIFORNIA

Page No.

0Ó166 recreation sites 00168 California Relay System provide failed to telephone access to other States for deaf people

396 for deaf signs visual provide to failed transit public

00180 people transportation public inaccessible

00181 help with to refused Services Children’s California 00202 home injury at head child caring for cost buildings county inaccessible 00206 that agencies state to access denied people deaf 00208 TDD’s lacked that agencies state to access denied people deaf 00210 TDD’s lacked deaf signs for visual provide to failed transit public 00211 people deaf signs for visual provide to failed transit public 00212

people relay services telephone out-of-state limited 00213 to access limited transportation public inaccessible 00214 college community transportation public inaccessible

00215 agencies access denied people deaf TDD’s lacked access provide failed services health mental people deaf services interpretive failed government people deaf cuts curb lack transportation; public inaccessible public inaccessible transpor- public inaccessible airport; tation people deaf enable failed Relay Service California calls interstate to make people enable failed Relay Service California calls interstate make rest- transportation; buildings rooms . 00227 University of California attempted to terminate em-

ployees with disabilities for taking medical leave agencies failed provide TDD’s 00232 person denied opportunity to serve jury on because county failed provide interpretive services for

deaf people 00236 public school district failed provide TTD for deaf parents 00237 California Relay Service failed to enable deaf people

to make interstate calls 00240 lack of curb cuts; public inaccessible transportation public inaccessible transportation 00244 inaccessible public transportation 00245 California Civil Service Exam held high school with inaccessible restrooms 00246 inaccessible restrooms in county administration

building; lack of curb cuts 00247 inaccessible public transportation prevented persons

with disabilities from getting to work; State failed enforce laws requiring accessibility public inaccessible transportation 00249 California Relay Service failed to enable deaf people

to make interstate calls public transportation transportation 00254 inaccessible county courthouse; street signals too fast

for safe crossing by wheelchair 00255 public functions failed to interpretive serv- ices for deaf people 00258 deaf people denied access to state agencies that

lacked TDD’s discrimi- Test Skills Educational Basic California become wanted who adults deaf against nated students teachers re- doctors required vehicles motor of department 00262 revoked and disorders seizure with patients port reporting require not did but licenses, patients’ such driving erratic cause could that conditions other COLORADO No.

Page drivers, all bus by five passed wheelchair in person 00266 broken were lifts claimed whom public ramps; inaccessible cuts curb lack 00267

transportation transportation public inaccessible 00268 transportation public inaccessible 00269 public segregated placed disabilities with 00270 housing transportation public inaccessible

00271 use in wheelchair person forced cuts of curb lack 00272 street county courthouse inaccessible transportation public inaccessible pub- cities; small public inaccessible disabilities with students to assist failed schools lic public inaccessible transportation; public sites recreation facilities pri- caucuses held parties political home vate required disabilities developmental children schools segregated attend student transfer refused system school public she until school regular special from disabilities suit

brought 00283 vocational rehabilitation agency refused take re- ferrals from psychiatric halfway person house; de- nied driver’s license in Virginia because of mental

illness

CONNECTICUT

Page No. school inaccessible to parent with disability 00289 state university denied renewal of contract grad- uate assistantship because age and disability DELAWARE

Page No.

00301 inaccessible public high school; transportation 00302 inaccessible public schools; public inaccessible transportation 00303 inaccessible voting machines; inadequate handi- capped parking 00308 man with physical disability spent 45 minutes crawl-

ing into polling place because it was inaccessible to wheelchairs

00310 public inaccessible transportation; public ceremony

held at inaccessible building 00314 failure to enforce laws requiring handicapped park-

ing spaces, which were usually occupied by police cars high 00315 percentage of children with placed disabilities in segregated schools 00317 restrictive zoning limited reintegration of institu- people

tionalized into community 00319 inaccessible voting system

00323 public transportation 00325 public transportation person made with disability late for work; inaccessible library and other

public buildings

400 men- with people for services fund refused State

00329 illness tal for vouchers special provided system transit state men- for not but disabilities, physical with persons

tally ill psy- failed system justice criminal state treatment

chiatric Delaware schizophrenia child kept State people services lacked it because Hospital State released be could

who pre- policies restrictive department’s labor applying from disabilities vented

employment park- handicapped requiring laws enforce failure police by occupied usually were which spaces, ing

cars person transport refused transportation oxygen

carrying sex- Hospital State Delaware patients staff patients women ually abused pro- without citizens interrogated police services interpretive viding student transfer sought school high vocational school segregated special back GEORGIA No.

Page stu- assistance provide colleges failed public learning disabilities with dents faced disabilities Georgia students University of transpor- public inaccessible barriers, architectural handi- enforce failure housing, and tation, lack laws parking

capped 00366 inaccessible classrooms at University of Georgia 00367 University of Georgia located its office of handi-

capped services in inaccessible second floor office 00370 University of Georgia charged students with learn-

ing disabilities per $600 quarter for services that other students with disabilities received at no cost 00371 Learning Disability Adult Clinic at University of

Georgia charged unreasonable fees public transportation 00374 traffic court failed to provide interpretive services person HAWAII

Page No. transportation 00448 state university failed to enforce handicapped park-

ing laws 00451 state employee in wheelchair forced to resign job

because frequently unable get to office due to broken elevator in state building; State Commission on the Handicapped refused employee’s request for reasonable accommodation 00452 state university failed provide blind student timely or adequate books on tape for coursework;

lack of signs or information for blind people using public transit

00455 person with disability denied opportunity to testify

because department of labor held hearing in an in- accessible room

00456 state employment agency refused inter- pretive services for deaf people 00457 public put school three-year-old deaf child in same

class as graders fourth

402 li- driver’s California had who person quadriplegic

00458 by Hawaii license denied cense persons interview to refused office government state 00460 alcoholism history of or disorder emotional with buildings state inaccessible 00461 con- serious denied impairment mobility with person 00462 acces- unreliability of job due for state sideration transportation public sible person prevented transportation public inaccessible 00463 inaccessible work; getting from disability with buildings public use wheelchair in person forced cuts curb lack 00464 street blind for marked buildings not public elevators 00467 for stops announce failed drivers bus people; people blind har- drivers bus transportation; public inaccessible 00468 passengers mentally retarded assed transportation public inaccessible 00469 system health mental state 00472 policies tional oppor- on limits placed employees service social state stereo- on based disabilities with persons tunities assumptions typical ramps cuts curb lack transportation public inaccessible library mental licenses certain denial disabilities cuts curb lack park; restroom pro- meetings government local people services interpretive vide unable disabilities students sports interscholastie school

403 00486 people blind prevented from traveling outside State quarantine

because permitted laws no exemption for guide their dogs 00487 state mental health services unavailable for deaf

people due to failure to train staff 00488 public inaccessible transportation; city inaccessible and county buildings 00490 handi-van refused person service to paralyzed from waist down 00491 inaccessible public transportation agencies failed to monitor conditions in commu-

nity residential facilities persons with disabilities 00494 inaccessible public transportation public inaccessible transportation 00496 inadequate assistance for person deaf at court appearance IDAHO

Page No. 00502 inaccessible public transportation 00505 inaccessible public transportation 00506 adult victims of abuse with developmental disabili-

ties denied equal rights to testify in court 00507 inaccessible public recreation activities public inaccessible transportation 00509 lack of curb cuts public transportation

00511 city and county failed to provide assistance for deaf

people public meetings public transportation 00515 public school failed provide adequate assistance for students with disabilities public meetings failed offices defenders’ people; services interpretive ap- who disabilities harassed police intoxicated be

peared service TTY lacked agency rehabilitation vocational people assist to staff lacked agencies government 00521 injuries head transportation public inaccessible 00522 transportation public inaccessible 00523 pub- inaccessible transportation; public inaccessible 00524 buildings lic library, and courthouse, county newat access limited 00528 city hall be- teacher licensed hire to refused district school

00531 impediment speech cause deaf for assistance provide to failed school public 00533 student services interpretive provide to failed public school

00537 student deaf for for relay service telephone statewide lacked Idaho 00540 people deaf of health department and employment department people deaf for access telephone lacked welfare student school; high public at restrooms inaccessible classes regular admission denied wheelchair

ILLINOIS No.

Page unable people ballots providing system caused service bus special place polling enter weather cold outside

long wait hire refused children deaf mainstream schools teacher deaf services interpretive provide failed government budget hearing school on public people

00554 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public transportation 00559 department of rehabilitation limited per- services to sons with by disabilities threatening placement in nursing home 00569 police stations lacked TTY service 00572 deaf people arrested and jail held in overnight with- out explanation because of failure inter- pretive services 00573 inaccessible polling place

(cid:127) 00574 public prevented schools attendance at PTA meetings transportation 00578 lack of curb cuts and ramps for wheelch 00579 most state housing agencies lacked telecommunica

tions devices or interpretive services for deaf people 00581 state and government local agencies lacked tele-

communications devices for deaf people 00583 emergency police, medical, and fire services lacked personnel TDD’s or trained to receive TDD calls 00585 inaccessible public pools; inaccessible restrooms

municipal building 00586 public inaccessible transportation 00587 inaccessible polling place

00588 inaccessible polling place 00589 public inaccessible transportation 00590 public inaccessible transportation 00591 inaccessible library

00592 inaccessible voting system

00594 inaccessible polling place

00595 lack of curb cuts

00596 public inaccessible transportation 00597 public inaccessible transportation 00600 public inaccessible transportation 00603 public inaccessible transportation

406 buildings; in- public inaccessible cuts; curb lack

00605 polling inaccessible transportation; public accessible place

INDIANA No. Page help refused agency rehabilitation vocational state 00608 severely disabled as classified it person agency vocational years, five 00609 assistance provide

failed cuts curb inadequate 00612 transportation public inaccessible

00613 transportation public inaccessible cuts inadequate curb pub- inaccessible transportation; public facilities lic interpretive failed agencies government people for deaf TTY/TDD’s services jobs applying from discouraged counselors deaf people for deaf counselors rehabilitation as physi- abused facilities psychiatric at staff patients dragged cally as director disability dismissed person Hospital State Central at unit locations meetings held place polling inaccessible

00653 as- rehabilitation failed counselors state 00655 injury head person sistance IOWA No.

Page seeking after operator city bus as dismissed person illness mental for treatment equip- necessary supply failed commission employee blind ment 00665 high school limited opportunities for mentally re-

tarded student to be integrated KANSAS.

Page No. 00670 Kansas Commission of Civil Rights denied legally person

blind job as investigator because of lim- ited ability to drive and refused to allow accom- modation that would have permitted use public transportation police failed to provide interpretive services after arresting deaf man

00676 Kansas Department of Transportation person fired because she had epilepsy 00679 state investigator failed to examine employment dis-

crimination claims public inaccessible transportation 00695 county failed to assist mentally ill with housing and

vocational opportunities 00696 damaged sidewalks poor street lighting posed risk persons with disabilities 00704 inaccessible city-owned arena KENTUCKY

Page No.

00706 bus driver bypassed person standing at stop

guide dog public inaccessible transportation 00712 department of employment services failed to make

reasonable accommodations with dis- abilities 00717 lack of curb cuts; public transportation employment service refused place person in wheelchair buildings 408 uni- department, library, police public

00729 TTY use to trained personnel library lacked versity devices part- assistance provide university failed 00731 disability awith teacher time stu- teaching deaf from teachers deaf prevented State 00732 education music as such courses requiring by dents transportation public inaccessible 00733 transportation public inaccessible 00736 hiring hear- preferred Deaf Kentucky School 00740 teachers than rather ing teachers LOUISIANA No.

Page Loui- at students graduate housing for inaccessible 00743 University State siana transportation public inaccessible 00745 problems coordination with person assumed police drunk was transportation public inaccessible failed program rehabilitation vocational injury head with person services prevented inaccessible work getting from disabilities voting machine denied Fund Relief Pension Sheriffs Louisiana disability person membership cuts curb lack transportation; University State Louisiana buildings

MAINE No.

Page handi- enforce failure ramps; sidewalk inadequate laws parking

capped 00780 failure to enforce state regulations requiring accessi-

bility public buildings 00782 town refused request for interpretive services for

deaf people at town meeting MARYLAND

Page No. 00785 public transportation unsafe for persons with dis-

abilities libraries, prison, state and other state offices

lacked TDD’s 00788 department of human relations failed to provide in-

terpretive services for deaf people and did not an- swer TTY calls

00789 vocational rehabilitation counselors failed help deaf people jobs find hospital refused interpretive serv- ices for deaf people MASSACHUSETTS

Page No. 00808 Office for Children refused to license person blind as day-care assistant 00812 inaccessible courthouse

00813 inaccessible restrooms in state building and

armory 00816 state college threatened to terminate employee be-

cause of blindness 00829 Massachusetts Adoption Exchange refused to let

family with mother who had muscular dystrophy adopt child able- hired rehabilitation vocational department person qualified instead person bodied

wheelchair

MICHIGAN No.

Page Michigan University of admission denied person impediment speech because School Medical campuses university state inaccessible 00921 inaccessible Detroit in precincts voting percent 65 00922 in people stop for failed often lifts with buses 00923 work not did lifts or their wheelchairs serving for discipline with threatened employee state 00924 Employment Equal meetings of attending on advisory committee Commission Opportunity restrooms, accessible lacked university stadium state 00925 telephones fountains, water transportation public inaccessible 00926 com- could who teachers hire failed system school 00928 students deaf with municate services interpretive university denied state 00932 student deaf part-time persons serve refused transportation public 00933 inter- refused agency public wheelchairs; people for pretive services stu- for system transportation university had state staff faculty and for not but disabilities with dents ramps curb adequate university lacked state epilepsy person license driver’s denied State facilities recreation buildings government faculty proposal sabbatical university denied disability member people placed Services Rehabilitation Michigan positions inappropriate 00964 Michigan Rehabilitation Services failed to accommo-

date mentally ill 00969 man with disability forced to use girls’ restroom at job 00970 person with disability terminated from county job

and banned from future county employment MINNESOTA

Page No. 00974 person with disability and score of 100 was finalist job as director of agency for the blind, but able- person

bodied with score of 70 was hired 00980 person with cerebral palsy humiliated at interview job with state department of education MISSISSIPPI

Page No. 00853 public inaccessible transportation 00855 inaccessible beaches, pools, parks and 00984 inaccessible classrooms and library at Mississippi

School for the Deaf 00985 no state agency provide or coordinate community

service programs for deaf adults 00986 inaccessible classrooms at Mississippi School for

Deaf public 00987 programs failed provide interpretive serv- ices people; government failed post cau- tion signs warning drivers of deaf children 00988 inaccessible polling places and voting booths 00989 public inaccessible buildings 00990 courts refused to pay qualified interpretive serv- ices for deaf people 00992 inaccessible state university building 00993 teacher position denied public elementary school because of need for braces and a cane to walk

412 rooms; school public inaccessible cuts; curb of lack

00994 transportation public inaccessible vehicles motor department inaccessible 00996 pub- inaccessible transportation; public inaccessible 00997 facilities lic courthouses inaccessible

00998 blind to teach refused university instructor 00999 person transportation public inaccessible required to employee city place; polling inaccessible restroom get to

go outside MISSOURI No.

Page cuts curb lack lack buildings; public restrooms inaccessible cuts curb disabilities; children segregated schools public buildings school build- public transportation poll- schools, libraries, offices, post as ings such places ing person’s discourage blind university tried study field

chosen system sound amplified failed courthouse courtrooms

MONTANA No.

Page cuts curb inadequate area downtown cuts curb inadequate accom- reasonable make to refused agencies employment seeking paraplegics modations place polling person in wheelchair forced to vote in street

01027 inaccessible polling place

NEBRASKA

Page No. government failed provide interpretive services for deaf people serving juries, on commissions, and committees 01031 local school district failed to provide interpretive

services for deaf child 01034 inaccessible entrance at office of county assistance NEVADA

Page No. government local failed provide assistance peo- for ple with injuries head 01043 inaccessible government buildings facilities person with disability denied access trans- portation because it took too long get on and off bus 01046 community college refused interpretive services people 01050 city prevented ordinance mentally ill from living

residential areas 01051 inaccessible public transportation; inadequate curb cuts and ramps 01053 failure to enforce handicapped parking laws 01054 lack of sidewalk and crosswalk accommodations

persons in wheelchairs

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Page No. 01057 state agency failed to assist with head in- n juries despite availability of state surplus funds

414 off cut to tried counselor rehabilitation vocational

01061 disability with person to assistance and funds JERSEY NEW No.

Page de- impaired visually blind for commission 01067 person impaired visually moted open home permission denied zoning commission 01068 injuries head with for County Col- on Cumberland barriers architectural 01069 campus lege cuts curb inadequate

01072 MEXICO

NEW No.

Page social school into entry university denied 01080 sighted partially admitted but person blind work grades lower person relay service TDD statewide lacked Mexico New subjected disabilities developmental prisoners prisoners other by abused longer terms system correctional assist- provide failed Mexico University of New student blind for ance TDD’s lacked offices government county city and provide failed hospital Mexico University of New patients deaf services interpretive interpre- failed Mexico University Newof students services

tive Mexico University New buildings on campus

NEW YORK

Page No. agencies state failed to persons hire with disabilities 01114 custodian public high school request denied of per- son with disability to use locked elevator 01119 at state legislature, person in wheelchair had to wait

45 minutes to use freight elevator public village meetings held in second floor meet- ing room with no elevator; many polling places inaccessible

01130 lack of curb cuts; failure to enforce handicapped park-

ing laws 01134 inaccessible parks state and beaches NORTH CAROLINA

Page No. 01144 public elementary school initially denied admission

and then charged extra fee for child with Down’s Syndrome to attend day-care afterschool program 01155 blind people told not to participate in regular public

parks and programs recreation 01158 state agencies, other than services for the blind and vocational rehabilitation, employed persons few

with disabilities 01161 police arrested jailed and person without pro- viding interpretive services NORTH DAKOTA

Page No. 01170 person with disability denied access to driver’s li-

cense exam because held in inaccessible room 01172 inaccessible polling places

01175 lack of curb cuts; failure to enforce handicapped park- ing laws; inaccessible polling places; city. inaccessible

government meetings laws parking handicapped failure, to enforce inaccessible places; polling inaccessible buildings local government re- policies enforce failed agencies government disabilities; persons hiring garding buildings places; polling hire failed government local places polling disabilities; laws parking handicapped enforce failure considera- denied disability head-injury with person 01196 inspector polls election for position tion OHIO No.

Page a posed which regularly, trees trim failed city 01215 blind people

hazard buildings and city county, state, inaccessible 01216 inaccessible offices; agency service social inaccessible 01218 transportation public assistance denied agency rehabilitation vocational 01221 disability with person assist para- failed agency services rehabilitation 01224 schizophrenic noid person discouraged agency rehabilitation vocational

01229 a nurse being from disability with in- because jobs denied disabilities transportation public accessible legally though license driver’s denied blind person eligible cuts curb lack transportation; public passengers left often system paratransit public stranded person steered agency rehabilitation vocational Ph.D. his despite job, menial disability mental degree police failed provide interpretive services for deaf

person who was arrested 01241 Cleveland State University lacked wheelchair ramps transportation OKLAHOMA

Page No. 01251 Tulsa Housing Authority failed to communicate with information to tenants with disabilities 01258 state employment officelacked TDD or workers with

interpretive skills; state university paid deaf employ- ees less than hearing employees; agencies made no effort to hire deaf applicants 01265 police pointed officer gun person with disability who could get not out of car quickly 01269 person with speech impediment denied numerous jobs 01271 inaccessible restrooms at city parks 01275 government state held meeting at hotel with inacces-

sible restrooms 01278 person in wheelchair worked at polling place with

inaccessible restrooms

01280 inaccessible polling places qualified 01286 blind person who offered to provide own driver job denied as state social worker OREGON

Page No.

01370 people blind unable to printed access material from government 0Í375 system school barred child with cerebral palsy from

physical education class gave and her cleaning job instead 418 pro- extensive degrees college two person

01377 appropriate for down turned experience fessional entry- seek to advised jobs government disability his of because jobs level en- funds lacked handicapped commission 01378 laws force

PENNSYLVANIA No.

Page issu- regarding policy restrictive library had public 01391 homes group residents library cards ance services interpretive failed government 01397 hearing budget school at people transportation public inaccessible 01399 places polling inaccessible 01407 public inaccessible 01408 places polling inaccessible

01409 place polling inaccessible cuts curb lack transportation; public inaccessible library inaccessible Pennsyl- on dispensers ticket automatic Turnpike vania wheelchair person transport refused drivers bus county offices cuts of curb lack schools; offered programs GED wheelchair use unable unwilling or drivers bus lifts in- because grade first enroll unable child classroom accessible transportation cuts; curb lack areas in rural cuts curb lack place polling

01439 unsafe curb cuts

01441 inaccessible state officebuilding SOUTH CAROLINA

Page No. government failed provide 911 emergency service for deaf people 01457 state and local agencies, library, police and fire departments lacked government TDD’s; failed pro- vide interpretive services for deaf people at meetings SOUTH DAKOTA

Page No. 01466 school district failed provide adequate services to child with disability light traffic hydrant fire placed where they posed obstacle to pedestrians blind and those in wheel-

chairs who needed to use curb cuts 01469 inaccessible polling places

01472 State failed to hire with disabilities without giving a reason 01475 criminal court failed to interpretive services for deaf people 01476 state university denied blind student opportunity

practice teach as required for teaching certificate TEXAS

Page No.

01483 poles obstructed sidewalks; lack of curb cuts; inacces-

sible public transportation 01503 state teachers’ exam required deaf teachers who

wanted to teach deaf children pass section on speech assessment and listening 420 driver’s renewal for required examination medical

01514 driving record 20-year unblemished despite license spaces parking handicapped inadequate 01520 as- to refused agency rehabilitation vocational state 01521 political major in to chose who college student sist science denied agency services county human employee 01522 place parking handicapped laws parking handicapped enforce to failure 01526 system university state 01527 take to or accommodations licenses driver’s denial 01529 test driver’s university state buildings at 01531 boy mentally ill discharge to sought hospital state 01536 HIV with with man transport to refused system transit special regular use not could he though retardation mental bus cosmetology state take permitted not man deaf interpreter from assistance exam chiropractic state take permitted not man blind x-rays alone read not could he because exam exam teachers’ state pass unable instructors deaf speech assessed students deaf teachers for skills language enforcement parking handicapped inadequate UTAH No.

Page hired never had service rehabilitation administrator or counselor first- because school admission denied child him teach refused teacher grade panel review implement failed school child accommodation regarding findings

disability 01576 state office with disabilities failed to hire persons;

such public inaccessible transportation 01577 state government persons denied with disabilities upper level management jobs 01580 rehabilitation services agency against discriminated employee with reading disability 01581 qualified blind teacher job denied and told that school needed teacher who could also coach football, but

school sighted hired person who was not a coach 01584 public inaccessible transportation 01586 government inaccessible office 01587 public school teacher give refused to child with learn- ing disability grades his and said he did not belong public school 01592 Utah denied mainstream education to child with

Down’s Syndrome, though child had been main- streamed in another State

01595 person with disability involuntarily hospitalized and

abused by state university hospital public inaccessible high school facilities VERMONT

Page No. 01634 zoning board denied permit use for community men- tal health center VIRGINIA

Page No. 01642 student with learning disability misclassified as men-

tally retarded and deemed ineligible to take drama public class at school

01646 inaccessible buildings at state school for blind and youth

deaf 01647 failure to enforce handicapped parking laws 01654 inaccessible government restrooms in buildings; fail- ure to enforce handicapped parking laws failed disabilities with persons programs state people deaf with communicate people rehabilitate care institutional lack injuries head court traffic transportation cuts curb lack prevented voting from disabilities inter- failed government local meetings people services pretive county courthouse outside cuts curb lack

01674 services emergency 911 access denied people deaf 01675 courthouse inaccessible 01676 transportation inaccessible

01677 to courthouse access ramp for and cuts curb lack 01678 county courthouse inaccessible 01679 library courthouse inaccessible 01680 school high intersection city’s main cuts of curb lack obstructing for ticket received wheelchair person accessible not though sidewalks even traffic street university state on transportation campus

WASHINGTON No.

Page services interpretive pay for required people deaf court people deaf deterred TDD lack government’s employment applying from serv- interpretive TDD lacked office government people

ices 01696 state human rights commissionlacked pursue staff to case of discrimination against person blind 01706 community college failed interpretive services for deaf students or to assist students with

disabilities in other ways 01716 local department sheriff’s discontinued TDD 01717 inaccessible restroom at ferry terminal WEST VIRGINIA

Page No. 01746 sheriff person denied with disability use of elevator

in courthouse 01746 law agencies enforcement lacked ability to communi- cate with deaf people WISCONSIN

Page No. 01752 public school recreation program refused to provide

interpretive services for deaf child 01755 state university hospital and sheriff’s office failed to

provide TDD’s or personnel trained 01756 inaccessible polling places person

01757 with disabilities denied graduate admission to study at state university 01758 inaccessible city hall

01759 state offices lacked TDD’s and failed to ma- terial in braille or on tape 01760 department of motor vehicles person revoked with diabetes’ driver’s license despite doctor’s report 01761 inaccessible transportation; lack of curb cuts or ramps 01766 department of motor vehicles tried to revoke license person who used hand controls in car places polling inaccessible jury equal access denied people deaf blind

service

WYOMING No.

Page people for system relay telephone lacked State buildings license driver’s denied vehicles motor department epilepsy person university buildings at per- home group permit denied zoning board disabilities

sons because marriage license denied in wheelchair person was

courthouse

Case Details

Case Name: Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Feb 21, 2001

Citation: 531 U.S. 356

Docket Number: 99-1240

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS