Decisions of the Supreme Court's 2003 Term: State Sovereign Immunity, Disparate Impact and Reverse Age Discrimination

Summary

---

Recognized experts in the field of labor and employment law - William R Corbett, Frank L Maraist Professor of Law at Louisiana State University, Henry H Drummonds, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College, Laurie McCann, Staff Attorney at the AARP Litigation Foundation, and Michelle Travis, Associate Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco School of Law - discuss decisions of the US Supreme Court in the labor and employment arena.

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Decisions of the Supreme Court's 2003 Term: State Sovereign Immunity, Disparate Impact and Reverse Age Discrimination

Throughout the year, CCH asks recognized experts in the field of labor and employment law to discuss decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in the labor and employment arena. CCH welcomes the opportunity to share their observations with readers of the Labor Law Journal.

TENNESSEE v. LANE

In May, the Supreme Court ruled that "as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts," Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),1 which prohibits discrimination against the disabled by public entities in the provision of public services, is a valid exercise of Congress' enforcement power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.2 In so holding, the Court allowed two paraplegics to sue the State of Tennessee for money damages for allegedly denying them access to the state court system because of their disabilities.

Background

The decision is one in a line of cases where the Court has considered the Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity argument in the context of a number of federal laws, most recently those prohibiting discrimination. In Kimel u Florida Board of Regents,3 and Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett,4 the Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)5 and Title I (employment provisions) of the ADA,'' respectively, were not valid abrogations of the states' sovereign immunity from suits by private individuals for money damages. In Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs,1 however, the Court held that the Family and Medical Leave Act's provision of 12 weeks of leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition8 was a valid exercise of Congress' power to remedy sex discrimination under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Hibbs, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor "jumped ship" to join Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter to comprise the majority. In Lane, Justice O'Connor joined Justices Stevens (who wrote the opinion), Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Justices Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy dissented.

Liability for money damages. At the outset, it is important to be clear that what we are talking about in these sovereign immunity eases is the states' immunity from mone...

See the full content of this document

---