Sixth Circuit Rules on ADA Title II

A recent Sixth Circuit decision concluded that Congress did not validly abrogate states’ sovereign immunity for an ADA Title II claim brought by a woman who used a wheelchair and was sentenced to an inaccessible drug and alcohol treatment program.

This article was written by Jennifer Mathis, Senior Staff Attorney with the Bazelon Center for Mental Health.

A recent Sixth Circuit decision concluded that Congress did not validly abrogate states’ sovereign immunity for an ADA Title II claim brought by a woman who used a wheelchair and was sentenced to an inaccessible drug and alcohol treatment program.  Haas v. Quest Recovery Services, Inc., 2006 WL 773615 (6th Cir. Mar. 27, 2006).  Rachel Haas was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol after she was involved in a car accident in which she was severely injured.  Following the accident, Haas’ leg was amputated above the knee, a metal rod was placed in her arm, and she began using a wheelchair.  After pleading guilty to the criminal charge, she was sentenced by a municipal court judge to 36 days of house arrest and participation in two driver intervention programs at Quest Recovery Services.  At Quest, Haas was required to crawl up six flights of stairs because there was no elevator.  The program also served her meals in the basement, forcing her to crawl up and down the stairs several times a day.  She eventually fell down three flights of stairs and displaced the rod in her arm.  Haas ultimately failed the program because of her “unacceptable” attitude, and served six days in jail. 

Haas sued Quest and the state of Ohio in federal court, bringing claims under the ADA and Section 504, and additional state law claims against Quest.  She sought $6 million in damages.  The district court dismissed the ADA claim against Ohio on Eleventh Amendment grounds but found that Ohio had waived immunity for purposes of the 504 claim.  Haas voluntarily dismissed all claims against Quest and settled her 504 claim against the state.  She appealed the denial of her ADA claim against Ohio.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the ruling that Congress had not validly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity for Haas’ ADA claim.  It relied on prior circuit precedent (Popovich v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, 276 F.3d 808 (6th Cir. 2002) (en banc)) to conclude that Congress could abrogate sovereign immunity for ADA claims that are due process type claims, but not equal protection type claims.  Plaintiffs argued that the Supreme Court’s Hibbs decision clarified that Congress can abrogate immunity based on equal protection principles.  The court distinguished Hibbs on the ground that it involved Congress’s response to a history of gender discrimination, where heightened scrutiny was applied, whereas disability-based equal protection claims receive only rational basis scrutiny.  The court also refused to characterize Haas’ claims as within the area of “access to courts” for which Congress validly abrogated sovereign immunity under the ADA, per Tennessee v. Lane (the court considered the ADA claim against Ohio to include only Ohio’s role as the landlord of the inaccessible building that was leased to Quest; it concluded that Ohio could not be liable for the municipal court’s decision to sentence Haas to an inaccessible program because judicial immunity applied).

Plaintiffs’ decision to appeal the ADA claim after settling the 504 claim is somewhat puzzling.  Both claims were based on the same conduct and the ADA would not provide additional relief beyond what 504 would provide.  In fact plaintiffs had a much clearer claim for damages under 504 given the law on waiver of immunity.    This case points to the need for caution in bringing ADA claims against a state entity when parallel 504 claims exist.  In most circumstances, an ADA Title II claim against a state will not provide any more relief than a 504 claim, and carries significant risks.  Those risks should also be weighed carefully, of course, in deciding whether to appeal an unfavorable decision.

In any event, the Sixth Circuit’s approach of categorically disallowing ADA Title II claims against states based on equal protection principles seems inconsistent with Lane.  First, this approach ignores that heightened scrutiny is applied to equal protection claims involving fundamental rights (and many ADA Title II claims involve fundamental rights, although the ADA claim in this case -- as limited by the court to Ohio’s duty as a landlord to ensure that the facilities it leases to private entities are accessible -- may not implicate a fundamental right).  Moreover, the Supreme Court in Lane considered a variety of constitutional violations, including rational basis equal protection claims in areas such as zoning and education, in concluding that Congress acted based on a sufficient record of disability-based discrimination.  While it may be difficult to establish that Congress abrogated immunity under the ADA in non-fundamental rights areas, Lane suggests that the Sixth Circuit is incorrect in bypassing the congruence and proportionality analysis and categorically determining that no abrogation is possible for any ADA claims based on equal protection principles.

Notably, a number of courts have concluded, using the congruence and proportionality analysis in the wake of Lane, that Congress did validly abrogate immunity even for ADA Title II claims that do not implicate fundamental rights.  See, e.g., Constantine v. Board of Rectors of George Mason University, 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2005); Association for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Florida International University, 405 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2005) (both involving accommodations in higher education).  Lane’s application of the congruence and proportionality test is sufficiently flexible that reasonable arguments may be made to support abrogation of immunity for at least some ADA claims that do not implicate fundamental rights (though caution should be exercised in raising ADA Title II claims against states in these areas).

The decision was not recommended for publication.