Analyzing Board of Trustees v. Garrett Case - Essay Example

The 2001 U.S. Supreme Court case, "Board of Trustees v. Garrett" Introduction Although there was discrimination in the ruling of the Supreme Court,the pattern of discrimination was not clear according to the state of Alabama in relation to the employees with disabilities and so the monetary damages were not appropriate. Title 1 of the case was about the Americans with disabilities Act (ADA). This act was not constitutional as it authorized the members to be charged by other private citizens due to damages which are money related. ADA stated that for an individual to be considered as having a disability, the person had to have either physical or mental impairment that limits major life activities (The Americans with Disabilities Act, 2003). They should also have a record of this impairment and the society should also regard them as people with disabilities. The case above involved Congress enforcement powers which had been introduced under the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. The Act also states that a disabled person who is in a better position and is qualified to work should then not be denied the opportunity whether the reasonable accommodation would be applied or not (The Americans with Disabilities Act, 2003). The above stated case had significant suggestions which included one that people with disabilities had been denied some rights of employment since states were not responsible for money damages. The other suggestion is that supremacy was used by the court thus the Congress’s power was not accountable in reference to laws of civil rights. The final implication of the case is that the court failed to cater for the traditions that disregard discriminating disabled people. The Congress was then unable to formulate other legislation that would go against the states in their stand for unequal share in employment. The court also ailed that it would not accept cases of discrimination from local governments but only from the states and that traditional evidence of discrimination was not applicable (The Americans with Disabilities Act, 2003). The facts about the above case are that the plaintiffs involved were Milton Ash and Patricia Garrett who were also employees of the University of Alabama. The two employees were both disabled under ADA. Ash worked as a security gourd who also suffered from asthma for a long time in his life. He requested that management should enforce strict laws on smokers around the compound by use of posters around the gate. Ash also wanted the vehicle he was using to be serviced for them not to release the dangerous gas in this case carbon monoxide. He also asked for change of time so he would work during the day of which he was denied but the chance was given to other workers who had not asked for the position. Garrett worked as the University nurse and had also been diagnosed with cancer of the breast which was so severe that she had to undergo chemotherapy and radiation treatment time and again. The two workers complained of being discriminated at their place of work. The University management had failed to allocate a better job to Ash that would improve his condition and on the other hand the management opted to transfer Garrett since she was always absent for treatment. She had also been harassed by her boss asking her to get another job elsewhere and the supervisor had recruited another person to her position. One of the employees in the University had informed Garret that their supervisor disliked disabled people and that she always avoided them by either transferring them of making them leave the job completely. This led to the two employees suing the University management for damages. They argued that management had violated their rights according to Title 1 of ADA which forbid unfairness in employment due to disability. The University as the defender reacted with an action to dismiss the claims basing on the eleventh amendment which outlawed the suit. Both cases were discharged on the fact that legislature had specifically abrogated the supreme protection of the states. The issue brought forward was whether the legislature could abrogate states protection under the fourteenth amendment supremacy that imposes the equal protection clause. The results of the case stated that in passing ADA, the legislature showed that they were contented with all the requirements needed and had also made it so clear to offer immunity and to allow states to be sued in case discrimination occur in reference to fourteenth amendment. It is also stated that the state lacked flexibility while amending the above law. The clause against discrimination has been analysed under the protection clause and has been known to be based on logics meaning that it is legal. Court held that ADA failed to analyse more on the damages caused to disabled at their place of work. It was also concluded that few profits are reserved in employing workers who are not disabled. In racial discrimination and other kinds of discrimination, the method used by courts is different in standards as compared to one used in reviewing legal matters. In a similar case of Village of Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Corporation, it was held that being given unequal treatment in terms of colour and race does not amount to discrimination. The decisions that were made in the between University of Alabama v. Garret indicated that the Supreme Court had scheduled to limit the powers held by the Congress in ratifying rights. It can also be argued that the impact of these decisions was less on ADA Courts ruling (Scott, 1998).  Since this case is against an individual, the law of independence protection which states equality does not apply. The decision made by Garrett had other consequences which included if the Congress was capable of offering protection rights against discrimination. The historical experience with disabled individuals was also curtailed. These Court decisions therefore pose a major difference between the role of the Congress and the context of the Supreme Court when ADA was being passed. It is therefore concluded that the responsible body for the damages caused to the disabled people lies with the states. The dissent showed some statements which included two thirds of people with disabilities in America were not employed and they aged from 16 years to 64. Though most of them wanted to be employed as they had the ability to do so, assumptions that are stereotypic in addition to poor treatment were dominant. The method used to analyse this case had several problems in that the court favoured the states and the judicial process was also affected by several limitations. The court also stated that ADA did not allow conditions for reasonable accommodations in that employers were not allowed to display unjustified suffering to their employees. ADA prohibits the use of policies and methods of management that is meant to underestimate the rights of disabled individuals. This also applies in other discriminations such as racial as demonstrated in the case between Washington v. Davis though being given unequal treatment as evidence is not adequate. The ability of government to file a case against states was however not attended to by Garrett (Garrett, 2004).  The court’s review in respect to the case relied on two principles which stated that it was accountable to characterise what really constitutes constitutional agreements and not the Congress. It was also stated that for legislation to go beyond its scope, it had to be supported by congruency and proportionality. The Fourteenth Amendment also permits all the citizens to obtain equal opportunities and protection as per the laws proposed though the above is not written. It is also proposed that special groups of people ought to be given special protection and not discriminated. Cases involving discrimination is severe analysed especially race. Gender cases are analysed at the middle level since it is also a discrimination against females as there is history on the above though in certain conditions, gender is acceptable. Another case involving disability in Cleburne where the plaintiff insisted that states should standardise disability reviews and not rationalise since defendants have always had an explanation relating the policy used thus their burden is lowered. The court was also responsive that most defendants used reasons which were only meant to discriminate people suffering from mental retardation. According to Ash and Garrett, Cleburne were in favour of methods used in the protection clause which prohibit people from acting under negative forces which lead to unfavourable treatment to disabled people. It was concluded that the Supreme Court had barely read the Cleburne for them to show that the contents were not satisfactory as attitudes expressed were not included thus a plaintiff had to give enough evidence for sustaining decisions. Therefore the evidence used by the plaintiff was not sufficient since they used personal accounts and other reports that did not prove a logical reason referred to the issue at hand. The evidence given was rejected as the court had been given much credit on legislature matters more than the Congress thus it gave orders referring to certain distinctive practices and analysis. According to David (2001) these actions showed that the two government institutions were not working in the same line and this would be the turning point in reference to the laws stipulated in the constitution. Factors that lead to this division of work include the fact that Court could not allow the Congress to use unconstitutional evidence from the local government. Court gave no reason for the states to act differently from other cities and counties but the reason given is that the local governments were not supposed to use evidence from the Eleventh Amendment. The Court supported this indicating that few examples in the record talk about states. It also showed that in other states people with disabilities were being sterilised though this was done in the 1990s. It was then clear that Congress was not allowed to use the past reasons in order to get to the standards of the Court. It was held that the pattern of prejudice was not included in the ADA. Evidence of discrimination contained in the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities was said to be irrelevant and anecdotal as it showed that state officials treat people unequally. The records also did not involve employment discrimination but one that takes place in the public services. The responsibilities of the Task Force were therefore considered as unsatisfying to the case in question. Conclusion There are various kinds of theories used in analysing the above case which include the differing powers between the Court and the Congress and the effort of the Court to declare that it has more powers than the Congress. This was concluded that the Court wanted to support states and to protect it from Congress interference. The other reason is that Court wanted to protect employers who broke laws regarding work place discrimination. This acts shows that the court does not support changes and also disregard historical evidence that involved accounts of societies which had been discriminated due to their disabilities. These records were written by Task Force which had been assigned a duty by the Congress to carry out a national survey and write a report on the findings on people with disabilities. It can therefore be noted that ADA will remain as an obstacle on the path that leads to a developing society. References The Americans with Disabilities Act, (2003). The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett. David, D. (2001). States’ Rights vs. States’ Immunity. Rockwell. Garrett, E. (2004). Dont do it, justice. The courts prestige has been hard-won. Chief Justice John Marshall made the court respected. Washington. Scott, D. (1998). Seriatim: The Supreme Court before John Marshall. New York University Press.   Read More