PATRICIA GARRETT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF TRUSTEES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR; MILTON ASH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR

11th Cir. | 2001-08-16
Nos. 98-6069, 98-6070
Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, RONEY, Circuit Judge, and COOK, District Judge.
261 F.3d 1242 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2001) Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: This case is before the Court on remand from the United States Supreme Court, see Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001), regarding the issue whether two Alabama state agencies were entitled to sovereign immunity regarding claims brought against them under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213.

The district court in this case entered summary judgment in favor of the state agencies. Adhering to our intervening decision in Kimel v. State Bd. of Regents, 139 F. 3d 1426, 1433 (11th Cir.1998), cert. granted, 525 U.S. 1121, 119 S.Ct. 901, 142 L.Ed.2d 901, cert. dismissed, 528 U.S. 1184, 120 S.Ct. 1236, 145 L.Ed.2d 1131 (2000), we held that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and reversed the judgment of the district court against plaintiffs. See Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F. 3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir.1999).

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals on this question, and reversed our decision, holding that suits in federal court by state employees to recover money damages by reason of the state’s failure to comply with the ADA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In Garrett, we also held that the “decision under the Rehabilitation Act is also controlled by this Court’s decision as to the ADA in Kimel.” 193 F. 3d at 1218.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court regarding both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act must be affirmed based on the Supreme Court’s decision. AFFIRMED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Garrett v. Univ. OF Ala. AT Birmingham Bd. OF Trs., 344 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003)
    …at 967-68. On remand from the Supreme Court, we said that, under the Supreme Court's reasoning, Congress could not abrogate a state's immunity from suit to claims under the Rehabilitation Act. Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 261 F. 3d 1242, 1244 (11th Cir.2001). On rehearing, we remanded the cases for the district court to consider whether the state agencies had waived their immunity to suits under the Rehabilitation Act. Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 276 F…
  • Garrett v. The Univ. OF Ala. AT Birmingham Bd. OF Trs., 276 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2001)
    …. Following the mandate of the Supreme Court, we affirmed the decision of the district court both as to the ADA claim and the claim under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trs., 261 F. 3d 1242 (11th Cir.2001). In their Petition for Rehearing, the plaintiffs, noting that neither the district court, this Court, nor the Supreme Court had addressed the issue, argue that DEFENDANTS HAVE VOLUNTARILY WAIVED THEIR ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY UND…
    1 / 2

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw