ADA Title II and Section 504 Enforceable Under Ex parte Young and Section 1983

The following memorandum was prepared by Mark Murphy, Disabilities Law Center, Pittsburgh, counsel for plaintiffs in Frederick L. v. Department of Public Welfare (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2001).

I am pleased to report that the District Court for the Eastern District of PA has issued a generally positive decision on waiver and Ex Parte Young issues in our Frederick L case. The court ruled, however, that Congress did not validly abrogate 11th Amendment immunity in the Title II context.

We filed the case on behalf of a class of residents of a state psychiatric facility (class issues remain pending) asserting violations of Title II, Section 504, and Section 1983 due to the state's failure to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate and for using methods of administration to keep people unnecessarily institutionalized. The Defendants are the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and the Secretary of DPW in her official capacity.

DPW and the Secretary filed a motion to dismiss arguing that:

1. The Title II and 504 claims against DPW are barred by the 11th Amendment;

2. Title II and 504 do not permit claims against the Secretary;

3. Title II and 504 cannot be enforced via Section 1983;

4. Section 504 does not permit a community integration claim;

5. The Title II and 504 claims are barred by the Sandoval decision; and

6. In the alternative, Plaintiffs have not stated a valid community integration claim.
 

In summary, the District Court ruled as follows:

1. The Section 504 claim against DPW is NOT barred by the 11th Amendment. The court agreed with plaintiffs that 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7 is the basis for an effective waiver of immunity.

2. The Title II claim against DPW is barred by the 11th Amendment. Although the court said this was a "close call" it ruled that we did not meet the "legislative record" and "congruence and proportionality" tests. In any event, the question of whether a valid abrogation of immunity in the Title II context exists is now before the Third Circuit in the McAleese case, which was argued on June 25.

3. Title II and 504 permit claims against state officials in their official capacity via Ex Parte Young. The court noted that the EPY footnote in Garrett calls into question the viability of all pre-Garrett holdings on this issue (e.g., Walker in the 7th Circuit).

4. The obligations imposed in Title II and 504 can be enforced via § 1983. The court stated that Defendants failed to show that Congress intended to foreclose use of § 1983 to enforce Title II and Section 504.

5. A community integration claim on behalf of unnecessarily institutionalized persons can be stated using Section 504. To put it another way, the integration mandate recognized in the Olmstead case in the Title II context also exists under Section 504.

6. The Title II and 504 claims are not barred by the holding in Sandoval. The court found that the Title II and 504 regs we rely on interpret the statutory directives against discrimination and do not prohibit otherwise permissible conduct.

7. Plaintiffs have stated valid community integration claims under Title II and Section 504 that cannot be dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss stage.

The opinion is available at www.paed.uscourts.gov. Look under the Recent Opinions heading. The case is listed as L. v. Dept of Public Welfare.