Waives state's sovereign immunity to liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and certain other federal acts

• Democratic27
• Republican1

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why James Sanders Jr. says this is needed

On February 22, 2001, the US Supreme Court ruled in Board of Trustees v. Garrett that in the enactment of the ADA, the US Congress had exceeded its power to authorize lawsuits by residents against their own states under the 11th Amendment. On January 11, 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled in Kimel, J. Daniel Jr. v. Florida Board of Regents that in the enactment of the ADEA, the US Congress had exceeded its power to author- ize lawsuits by residents against their own states under the 11th Amend- ment. On June 23, 1999 the US Supreme Court ruled in Alden, John v. Maine that a state's immunity from suit under FLSA is beyond congres- sional power to abrogate by Article I legislation. These rulings allow states to opt to hold themselves to the standards that were originally set out by the ADA, the ADEA, and the FLSA prior to those decisions by waiving their sovereign immunity and thereby permitting actions in state and federal courts. These rulings effectively took away the protection for state employees under these laws while upholding the same protection for privately employed individuals, creating a disparity. This bill will ensure that all employees, including those employed by the state, have the same protections. Waiver under the ADA will provide redress for failure to accommodate state employees with disabilities and failure to provide access for the disabled public to government services, programs and activities. On May 27, 2003, the US Supreme Court ruled in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs that the family medical care provision of FMLA is a valid exercise of congressional power to abrogate the states' 11th Amendment immunity from suit by individuals, because it remedies gender discrimination. As with ADA, AREA and FLSA, a state will be required to consent unequivocally to a waiver of its sovereign immu- nity, to ensure that state employees have the same protection as private sector employees under the FMLA. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORIGINAL PRINT AND AMENDED VERSION: The amended bill adds the words "in state and federal courts" because case law has demonstrated that courts require very specific language to waive sovereign immunity, stating that sovereign immunity is waived "((o))nly where stated by the most express language or by such over- whelming implication from the text as ((will)) leave no room for any other reasonable construction." Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 239-240 (1985). Unless the intention to waive sovereign immu- nity in state and federal courts is explicitly stated, courts interpret the waiver for state courts only. See Galusha v. N.Y. Dept't of Env't Conservation, 92 F.Supp.2d 66 (N.D.N.Y. 1999); Port Ruth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299 (1990).

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.