10th Circuit Reads Sandoval Narrowly, ADA Broadly

The Tenth Circuit has upheld and enforced regulations adopted to implement Title II of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), rejecting an argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) precludes enforcement of regulatory requirements beyond those specified in a statute.

The court said, "[p]roperly construed, Sandoval holds only that regulations may not create a private cause of action where no such right was intended by Congress in the statute authorizing promulgation of such regulations." Chaffin v. Kansas State Fair Board, 2003 WL 22436243 (10th Cir. Oct. 28, 2003).

Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability by public entities in broad general terms and authorizes the Justice Department to issue regulations to implement the prohibition on discrimination. Enforcement of Title II is identical to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974, which in turn references remedies under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court in Sandoval held that Title VI creates a private right of action to enforce its prohibition on intentional discrimination, but also ruled that Congress did not authorize a private right of action to enforce Title VI regulations that prohibit disparate impact discrimination not prohibited by the statute itself.

In Chaffin, plaintiffs alleged violations of ADA's ban on discrimination and of the regulations requiring accessible bathrooms, seating with visible sight lines for persons using wheelchairs, accessible pathways from parking lots, and failure to prepare an adequate ADA self-evaluation plan. Defendants, the Kansas State Fair Board, argued that because the ADA does not explicitly contain a private right of action to enforce the regulations, plaintiffs had no claim. They argued that only the regulations, not the statute itself, require the particular accommodations sought by plaintiffs. Thus, they insisted, this is the Sandoval situation, with regulations demanding more than is required by the statute.

The Tenth Circuit held that the Fair Board was misinterpreting Sandoval. "Although the court held there was no right of action to enforce regulations regarding disparate impact discrimination that went beyond the substantive provision of §601 of the statute, the Court reaffirmed that the regulations applying the ban on intentional discrimination came within the private right of action to enforce the statute… Thus, the Supreme Court found that the private right of action contained in §601 included a right to vindicate violation of the regulations implementing §601's ban on intentional discrimination because the regulations simply interpreted and implemented the statute and did not substantively expand it."

The Tenth Circuit went on to find that, unlike Title VI, the ADA's prohibitions are not limited to intentional discrimination, but extend to disparate impact discrimination as well. Thus, the court said, the regulations do not expand the obligations under Title II but simply interpret and implement them, providing the details necessary to implement the statutory right created by §12132 of the ADA. Hence, the private cause of action under the statute also applies to the implementing regulations.