Document Body Page Navigation Panel

Pages 1--80 from 99-1240, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA v. GARRETT


Page 1 2
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2000 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA ET AL. v. GARRETT ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 99– 1240. Argued October 11, 2000— Decided February 21, 2001
Respondents Garrett and Ash filed separate lawsuits against petition-ers, Alabama state employers, seeking money damages under Title I

of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits the States and other employers from "discriminat[ ing] against a
qualified individual with a disability because of th[ at] disability . . . in regard to . . . terms, conditions, and privileges of employment," 42
U. S. C. §12112( a). In an opinion disposing of both cases, the District Court granted petitioners summary judgment, agreeing with them
that the ADA exceeds Congress' authority to abrogate the State' s Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Eleventh Circuit reversed on
the ground that the ADA validly abrogates such immunity.
Held: Suits in federal court by state employees to recover money dam-ages by reason of the State' s failure to comply with Title I of the ADA

are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Pp. 4– 17. (a) Congress may abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment im-munity
when it both unequivocally intends to do so and acts pursu-ant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. Kimel v. Florida Bd.
of Regents,
528 U. S. 62, 73. Only the second of these requirements is in dispute here. While Congress may not base abrogation of state
immunity upon its Article I powers, see e. g., id., at 79, it may subject nonconsenting States to federal-court suit when it does so pursuant
to a valid exercise of its power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amend-ment, see e. g., id., at 80. Section 5 authorizes Congress to enforce the
substantive guarantees contained in §1 of that Amendment by en-acting "appropriate legislation." See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S.
507, 536. Because it is this Court' s responsibility, not Congress' , to de- 1
1 Page 2 3
2 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Syllabus
fine the substance of constitutional guarantees, id., at 519– 524, §5 legislation, to the extent it reaches beyond the precise scope of §1' s

protections, must exhibit congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that
end, id., at 520. Pp. 4– 7. (b) The first step in applying these principles is to identify with
some precision the scope of the constitutional right at issue. Here, that inquiry requires examination of the limitations §1 of the Four-teenth
Amendment places upon States' treatment of the disabled. To do so, the Court looks to its prior decisions under the Equal Protec-tion
Clause dealing with this issue. Kimel, supra, at 83. In Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, the Court held, inter
alia,
that mental retardation did not qualify as a "quasi-suspect" classification for equal protection purposes, id., at 435, and that, ac-cordingly,
a city ordinance requiring a special use permit for the op-eration of a group home for the mentally retarded incurred only the
minimum "rational-basis" review applicable to general social and economic legislation, id., at 446. Although "negative attitudes" and
"fear" often accompany irrational biases, their presence alone does not a constitutional violation make. Thus, the Fourteenth Amend-ment
does not require States to make special accommodations for the disabled, so long as their actions toward such individuals are ra-tional.
They could quite hardheadedly— and perhaps hardheart-edly— hold to job-qualification requirements which do not make al-lowance
for the disabled. If special accommodations for the disabled are to be required, they have to come from positive law and not
through the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 7– 10. (c) The requirements for private individuals to recover money dam-ages
against the States— that there be state discrimination violative of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the remedy imposed by Con-gress
be congruent and proportional to the targeted violation— are not met here. First, the ADA' s legislative record fails to show that
Congress identified a history and pattern of irrational employment discrimination by the States against the disabled. See, e. g., Kimel,
supra,
at 89. Because Eleventh Amendment immunity does not ex-tend to local governmental units such as cities and counties, see Lin-coln
County
v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529, 530, the Court rejects respon-dents' contention that the inquiry as to unconstitutional
discrimination should extend to such units as well as to States. Con-gress made a general finding in the ADA that "historically, society
has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination . . . con-tinue
to be a serious and pervasive social problem." 42 U. S. C. §12101( a)( 2). Although the record includes instances to support such 2
2 Page 3 4
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 3
Syllabus
a finding, the great majority of these incidents do not deal with state activities in employment. Even if it were to be determined that the

half a dozen relevant examples from the record showed unconstitu-tional action on the part of States, these incidents taken together fall
far short of even suggesting the pattern of unconstitutional discrimi-nation on which §5 legislation must be based. See, e. g., Kimel, supra,
at 89– 91. Moreover, statements in House and Senate committee re-ports indicate that Congresss targeted the ADA at employment dis-crimination
in the private sector. Second, the rights and remedies created by the ADA against the States raise the same sort of concerns
as to congruence and proportionality as were found in City of Boerne, supra. For example, while it would be entirely rational (and there-fore
constitutional) for a state employer to conserve scarce financial resources by hiring employees able to use existing facilities, the ADA
requires employers to make such facilities readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals, §§ 12112( 5)( B), 12111( 9). The ADA
does except employers from the "reasonable accommodatio[ n]" re-quirement where the employer can demonstrate that accommodation
would impose an "undue hardship" upon it, §12112( b)( 5)( A), but, even with this exception, the accommodation duty far exceeds what is con-stitutionally
required. The ADA' s constitutional shortcomings are apparent when it is compared to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Holding the latter Act to be "appropriate" legislation to enforce the Fif-teenth Amendment' s protection against racial discrimination in voting,
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, this Court emphasized that Congress had there documented a marked pattern of unconstitu-tional
action by the States, see id., at 312, and had determined that litigation had proved ineffective to remedy the problem, see id., at
313. The contrast between the kind of evidence detailed in Katzen-bach, and the evidence that Congress considered in the present case,
is stark. To uphold the ADA' s application to the States would allow Congress to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment law laid down by
this Court in Cleburne. Section 5 does not so broadly enlarge con-gressional authority. Pp. 10– 17.

193 F. 3d 1214, reversed.
REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O' CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J.,

filed a concurring opinion, in which O' CONNOR, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG,
JJ., joined. 3
3 Page 4 5
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________

No. 99– 1240 _________________

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
PATRICIA GARRETT ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

[February 21, 2001]
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

We decide here whether employees of the State of Ala-bama may recover money damages by reason of the State' s
failure to comply with the provisions of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104
Stat. 330, 42 U. S. C. §§ 12111– 12117. 1 We hold that such
—————— 1
Respondents' complaints in the United States District Court alleged violations of both Title I and Title II of the ADA, and petitioners'

"Question Presented" can be read to apply to both sections. See Brief for Petitioners i; Brief for United States I. Though the briefs of the
parties discuss both sections in their constitutional arguments, no party has briefed the question whether Title II of the ADA, dealing
with the "services, programs, or activities of a public entity," 42 U. S. C. §12132, is available for claims of employment discrimination when Title
I of the ADA expressly deals with that subject. See, e. g., Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) ("[ W] here Congress includes
particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts
intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion") (internal quotation marks omitted). The Courts of Appeals are divided 4
4 Page 5 6
2 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Opinion of the Court
suits are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The ADA prohibits certain employers, including the

States, from "discriminat[ ing] against a qualified individ-ual with a disability because of the disability of such
individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee
compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." §§ 12112( a), 12111( 2), (5),
(7). To this end, the Act requires employers to "mak[ e] reasonable accommodations to the known physical or
mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless
[the employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the
[employer' s] business." §12112( b)( 5)( A).
" ' [R] easonable accommodation' may include— "( A) making existing facilities used by employees

readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and (B) job restructuring, part-time or
modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or
devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the pro-vision
of qualified readers or interpreters, and other ——————

on this issue, compare Zimmerman v. Oregon Dept. of Justice, 170 F. 3d 1169 (CA9 1999), with Bledsoe v. Palm Beach Cty. Soil & Water Con-servation
Dist.,
133 F. 3d 816 (CA11 1998). We are not disposed to decide the constitutional issue whether Title II, which has somewhat
different remedial provisions from Title I, is appropriate legislation under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when the parties have not
favored us with briefing on the statutory question. To the extent the Court granted certiorari on the question whether respondents may sue
their state employers for damages under Title II of the ADA, see this Court' s Rule 24.1( a), that portion of the writ is dismissed as improv i-dently
granted. See The Monrosa v. Carbon Black Export, Inc., 359 U. S. 180, 184 (1959). 5
5 Page 6 7
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 3
Opinion of the Court
similar accommodations for individuals with disabili-ties." §12111( 9).

The Act also prohibits employers from "utilizing stan-dards, criteria, or methods of administration . . . that have
the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability." §12112( b)( 3)( A).
The Act defines "disability" to include "( A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having
such an impairment." §12102( 2). A disabled individual is otherwise "qualified" if he or she, "with or without reason-able
accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or
desires." §12111( 8). Respondent Patricia Garrett, a registered nurse, was
employed as the Director of Nursing, OB/ Gyn/ Neonatal Services, for the University of Alabama in Birmingham
Hospital. See App. 31, 38. In 1994, Garrett was dia g-nosed with breast cancer and subsequently underwent a
lumpectomy, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy. See id., at 38. Garrett' s treatments required her to take su b-stantial
leave from work. Upon returning to work in July 1995, Garrett' s supervisor informed Garrett that she
would have to give up her Director position. See id., at 39. Garrett then applied for and received a transfer to an-other,
lower paying position as a nurse manager. See ibid. Respondent Milton Ash worked as a security officer for
the Alabama Department of Youth Services (Department). See id., at 8. Upon commencing this employment, Ash
informed the Department that he suffered from chronic asthma and that his doctor recommended he avoid carbon
monoxide and cigarette smoke, and Ash requested that the Department modify his duties to minimize his exposure to
these substances. See ibid. Ash was later diagnosed with 6
6 Page 7 8
4 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Opinion of the Court
sleep apnea and requested, again pursuant to his doctor' s recommendation, that he be reassigned to daytime shifts

to accommodate his condition. See id., at 9. Ultimately, the Department granted none of the requested relief. See
id., at 8– 9. Shortly after Ash filed a discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he
noticed that his performance evaluations were lower than those he had received on previous occasions. See id., at 9.
Garrett and Ash filed separate lawsuits in the District Court, both seeking money damages under the ADA. 2
Petitioners moved for summary judgment, claiming that the ADA exceeds Congress' authority to abrogate the
State' s Eleventh Amendment immunity. See 989 F. Supp. 1409, 1410 (ND Ala. 1998). In a single opinion dispos-ing
of both cases, the District Court agreed with petition-ers' position and granted their motions for summary
judgment. See id., at 1410, 1412. The cases were consoli-dated on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. The Court of
Appeals reversed, 193 F. 3d 1214 (1999), adhering to its intervening decision in Kimel v. State Bd. of Regents, 139
F. 3d 1426, 1433 (CA11 1998), cert. granted, 525 U. S. 1121, cert. dismissed, 528 U. S. 1184 (2000), that the
ADA validly abrogates the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity.
We granted certiorari, 529 U. S. 1065 (2000), to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals on the question
whether an individual may sue a State for money damages in federal court under the ADA.

I
The Eleventh Amendment provides:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be

—————— 2
Garrett raised other claims, but those are not presently before the Court. 7
7 Page 8 9
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 5
Opinion of the Court
construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, com-menced or prosecuted against one of the United States

by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Sub-jects of any Foreign State."

Although by its terms the Amendment applies only to suits against a State by citizens of another State, our
cases have extended the Amendment' s applicability to suits by citizens against their own States. See Kimel v.
Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 72– 73 (2000); College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense
Bd.,
527 U. S. 666, 669– 670 (1999); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 54 (1996); Hans v. Louisiana, 134
U. S. 1, 15 (1890). The ult imate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting States may not be sued
by private individuals in federal court. See Kimel, supra, at 73.
We have recognized, however, that Congress may abro-gate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it
both unequivocally intends to do so and "act[ s] pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority." 528 U. S., at 73.
The first of these requirements is not in dispute here. See 42 U. S. C. §12202 (" A State shall not be immune under
the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in [a] Federal or State court of com-petent
jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter"). The question, then, is whether Congress acted within its con-stitutional
authority by subjecting the States to suits in federal court for money damages under the ADA.
Congress may not, of course, base its abrogation of the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity upon the powers
enumerated in Article I. See Kimel, supra, at 79 (" Under our firmly established precedent then, if the [Age Dis-crimination
in Employment Act of 1967] rests solely on Congress' Article I commerce power, the private petition-ers
in today' s cases cannot maintain their suits against 8
8 Page 9 10
6 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Opinion of the Court
their state employers"); Seminole Tribe, supra, at 72– 73 (" The Eleventh Amendment restricts the judicial power

under Article III, and Article I cannot be used to circum-vent the constitutional limitations placed upon federal
jurisdiction"); College Savings Bank, supra, at 672; Flor-ida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College
Savings Bank,
527 U. S. 627, 636 (1999); Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 730– 733 (1999). In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer,
427 U. S. 445 (1976), however, we held that "the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which
it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment." Id., at
456 (internal citation omitted). As a result, we concluded, Congress may subject nonconsenting States to suit in
federal court when it does so pursuant to a valid exercise of its §5 power. See ibid. Our cases have adhered to this
proposition. See, e. g., Kimel, supra, at 80. Accordingly, the ADA can apply to the States only to the extent that
the statute is appropriate §5 legislation. 3 Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, in
relevant part:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce the substantive guarantees contained
in §1 by enacting "appropriate legislation." See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 536 (1997). Congress is not
limited to mere legislative repetition of this Court' s constitu-——————
3 It is clear that Congress intended to invoke §5 as one of its bases for
enacting the ADA. See 42 U. S. C. §12101( b)( 4). 9
9 Page 10 11
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 7
Opinion of the Court
tional jurisprudence. "Rather, Congress' power ' to enforce' the Amendment includes the authority both to remedy and

to deter violation of rights guaranteed thereunder by pro-hibiting a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including
that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendment' s text." Kimel, supra, at 81; City of Boerne, supra, at 536.
City of Boerne also confirmed, however, the long-settled principle that it is the responsibility of this Court, not
Congress, to define the substance of constitutional guaran-tees. 521 U. S., at 519– 524. Accordingly, §5 legislation
reaching beyond the scope of §1' s actual guarantees must exhibit "congruence and proportionality between the
injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end." Id., at 520.

II
The first step in applying these now familiar principles is to identify with some precision the scope of the constitu-tional

right at issue. Here, that inquiry requires us to examine the limitations §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment
places upon States' treatment of the disabled. As we did last Term in Kimel, see 528 U. S., at 83, we look to our
prior decisions under the Equal Protection Clause dealing with this issue.
In Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432 (1985), we considered an equal protection challenge to
a city ordinance requiring a special use permit for the operation of a group home for the mentally retarded. The
specific question before us was whether the Court of Ap-peals had erred by holding that mental retardation quali-fied
as a "quasi-suspect" classification under our equal protection jurisprudence. Id., at 435. We answered that
question in the affirmative, concluding instead that such legislation incurs only the minimum "rational-basis" 10
10 Page 11 12
8 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Opinion of the Court
review applicable to general social and economic legisla-tion. 4 Id., at 446. In a statement that today seems quite

prescient, we explained that
"if the large and amorphous class of the mentally re-tarded were deemed quasi-suspect for the reasons

given by the Court of Appeals, it would be difficult to find a principled way to distinguish a variety of other
groups who have perhaps immutable disabilities set-ting them off from others, who cannot themselves
mandate the desired legislative responses, and who can claim some degree of prejudice from at least part
of the public at large. One need mention in this re-spect only the aging, the disabled, the mentally ill,
and the infirm. We are reluctant to set out on that course, and we decline to do so." Id., at 445– 446.

Under rational-basis review, where a group possesses "distinguishing characteristics relevant to interests the
State has the authority to implement," a State' s decision to act on the basis of those differences does not give rise to
a constitutional violation. Id., at 441. "Such a classific a-tion cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if
there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose."
Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 320 (1993) (citing Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U. S. 1 (1992); New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S.
297, 303 (1976) (per curiam)). Moreover, the State need not ——————
4 Applying the basic principles of rationality review, Cleburne struck
down the city ordinance in question. 473 U. S., at 447– 450. The Court' s reasoning was that the city' s purported justifications for the ordinance

made no sense in light of how the city treated other groups similarly situated in relevant respects. Although the group home for the men-tally
retarded was required to obtain a special use permit, apartment houses, other multiple-family dwellings, retirement homes, nursing
homes, sanitariums, hospitals, boarding houses, fraternity and sorority houses, and dormitories were not subject to the ordinance. See ibid. 11
11 Page 12 13
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 9
Opinion of the Court
articulate its reasoning at the moment a particular decision is made. Rather, the burden is upon the challenging party

to negative " ' any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. ' " Heller,
supra,
at 320 (quoting FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S. 307, 313 (1993)).
JUSTICE BREYER suggests that Cleburne stands for the broad proposition that state decisionmaking reflecting
"negative attitudes" or "fear" necessarily runs afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment. See post, at 5 (dissenting opin-ion)
(quoting Cleburne, 473 U. S., at 448). Although such biases may often accompany irrational (and therefore
unconstitutional) discrimination, their presence alone does not a constitutional violation make. As we noted in
Cleburne: "[ M] ere negative attitudes, or fear, unsubstan-tiated by factors which are properly cognizable in a zoning
proceeding, are not permissible bases for treating a home for the mentally retarded differently . . . ." Id., at 448
(emphasis added). This language, read in context, simply states the unremarkable and widely acknowledged tenet
of this Court' s equal protection jurisprudence that state action subject to rational-basis scrutiny does not vio-late
the Fourteenth Amendment when it "rationally fur-thers the purpose identified by the State." Massachusetts
Bd. of Retirement
v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307, 314 (1976) (per curiam).
Thus, the result of Cleburne is that States are not r e-quired by the Fourteenth Amendment to make special
accommodations for the disabled, so long as their actions towards such individuals are rational. They could quite
hard headedly— and perhaps hardheartedly— hold to job-qualification requirements which do not make allowance
for the disabled. If special accommodations for the dis-abled are to be required, they have to come from positive 12
12 Page 13 14
10 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Opinion of the Court
law and not through the Equal Protection Clause. 5
III
Once we have determined the metes and bounds of the constitutional right in question, we examine whether

Congress identified a history and pattern of unconstitu-tional employment discrimination by the States against
the disabled. Just as §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to actions committed "under color of state
law," Congress' §5 authority is appropriately exercised only in response to state transgressions. See Florida
Prepaid,
527 U. S., at 640 (" It is this conduct then— unre-medied patent infringement by the States— that must give
rise to the Fourteenth Amendment violation that Congress sought to redress in the Patent Remedy Act"); Kimel, 528
U. S., at 89 (" Congress never identified any pattern of age discrimination by the States, much less any discrimination
whatsoever that rose to the level of constitutional viola-tion"). The legislative record of the ADA, however, simply
fails to show that Congress did in fact identify a pattern of irrational state discrimination in employment against the
disabled. Respondents contend that the inquiry as to unconstitu-tional
discrimination should extend not only to States themselves, but to units of local governments, such as
cities and counties. All of these, they say, are "state a c-tors" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brief for

—————— 5
It is worth noting that by the time that Congress enacted the ADA in 1990, every State in the Union had enacted such measures. At least

one Member of Congress remarked that "this is probably one of the few times where the States are so far out in front of the Federal Govern-ment,
it' s not funny." Hearing on Discrimination Against Cancer Victims and the Handicapped before the Subcommittee on Employment
Opportunities of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1987). A number of these provisions, however, did
not go as far as the ADA did in requiring accommodation. 13
13 Page 14 15
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 11
Opinion of the Court
Respondents 8. This is quite true, but the Eleventh Amendment does not extend its immunity to units of local

government. See Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529, 530 (1890). These entities are subject to private claims for
damages under the ADA without Congress' ever having to rely on §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to render them
so. It would make no sense to consider constitutional violations on their part, as well as by the States the m-selves,
when only the States are the beneficiaries of the Eleventh Amendment.
Congress made a general finding in the ADA that "his-torically, society has tended to isolate and segregate indi-viduals
with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with
disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem." 42 U. S. C. §12101( a)( 2). The record assembled
by Congress includes many instances to support such a finding. But the great majority of these incidents do not
deal with the activities of States. Respondents in their brief cite half a dozen examples
from the record that did involve States. A department head at the University of North Carolina refused to hire
an applicant for the position of health administrator be-cause he was blind; similarly, a student at a state unive r-sity
in South Dakota was denied an opportunity to prac-tice teach because the dean at that time was convinced
that blind people could not teach in public schools. A microfilmer at the Kansas Department of Transportation
was fired because he had epilepsy; deaf workers at the University of Oklahoma were paid a lower salary than
those who could hear. The Indiana State Personnel Office informed a woman with a concealed disability that she
should not disclose it if she wished to obtain employment. 6
—————— 6
The record does show that some States, adopting the tenets of the 14
14 Page 15 16
12 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Opinion of the Court
Several of these incidents undoubtedly evidence an unwillingness on the part of state officials to make the sort

of accommodations for the disabled required by the ADA. Whether they were irrational under our decision in
Cleburne is more debatable, particularly when the inci-dent is described out of context. But even if it were to be
determined that each incident upon fuller examination showed unconstitutional action on the part of the State,
these incidents taken together fall far short of even sug-gesting the pattern of unconstitutional discrimination on
which §5 legislation must be based. See Kimel, 528 U. S., at 89– 91; City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 530– 531. Congress,
in enacting the ADA, found that "some 43,000,000 Ameri-cans have one or more physical or mental disabilities." 42
U. S. C. §12101( a)( 1). In 1990, the States alone employed more than 4.5 million people. U. S. Dept. of Commerce,
Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 338 (119th ed. 1999) (Table 534). It is telling, we
think, that given these large numbers, Congress assem-bled only such minimal evidence of unconstitutional state
discrimination in employment against the disabled. JUSTICE BREYER maintains that Congress applied Title
I of the ADA to the States in response to a host of inci-dents representing unconstitutional state discrimination
in employment against persons with disabilities. A close review of the relevant materials, however, undercuts that
conclusion. JUSTICE BREYER' s Appendix C consists not of legislative findings, but of unexamined, anecdotal ac-counts
of "adverse, disparate treatment by state officials."
——————
eugenics movement of the early part of this century, required extreme measures such as sterilization of persons suffering from hereditary

mental disease. These laws were upheld against constitutional attack 70 years ago in Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927). But there is no
indication that any State had persisted in requiring such harsh meas-ures as of 1990 when the ADA was adopted. 15
15 Page 16 17
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 13
Opinion of the Court
Post, at 3. Of course, as we have already explained, "ad-verse, disparate treatment" often does not amount to a

constitutional violation where rational-basis scrutiny applies. These accounts, moreover, were submitted not
directly to Congress but to the Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities, which
made no findings on the subject of state discrimination in employment. 7 See the Task Force' s Report entitled From
ADA to Empowerment (Oct. 12, 1990). And, had Congress truly understood this information as reflecting a pattern of
unconstitutional behavior by the States, one would expect some mention of that conclusion in the Act' s legislative
findings. There is none. See 42 U. S. C. §12101. Al-though JUSTICE BREYER would infer from Congress' gen-eral
conclusions regarding societal discrimination against the disabled that the States had likewise participated in
such action, post, at 3, the House and Senate committee reports on the ADA flatly contradict this assertion. After
describing the evidence presented to the Senate Commit-tee on Labor and Human Resources and its subcommittee
(including the Task Force Report upon which the dissent relies), the Committee' s report reached, among others, the
following conclusion: "Discrimination still persists in such critical areas as employment in the private sector, public
accommodations, public services, transportation, and telecommunications." S. Rep. No. 101– 116, p. 6 (1989)
(emphasis added). The House Committee on Education ——————
7 Only a small fraction of the anecdotes JUSTICE BREYER identifies in
his Appendix C relate to state discrimination against the disabled in employment. At most, somewhere around 50 of these allegations

describe conduct that could conceivably amount to constitutional violations by the States, and most of them are so general and brief that
no firm conclusion can be drawn. The overwhelming majority of these accounts pertain to alleged discrimination by the States in the provi-sion
of public services and public accommodations, which areas are addressed in Titles II and III of the ADA. 16
16 Page 17 18
14 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Opinion of the Court
and Labor, addressing the ADA' s employment provisions, reached the same conclusion: "[ A] fter extensive review and

analysis over a number of Congressional sessions, . . . there exists a compelling need to establish a clear and
comprehensive Federal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability in the areas of employment in the
private sector,
public accommodations, public services, transportation, and telecommunications." H. R. Rep. No.
101– 485, pt. 2 p. 28 (1990) (emphasis added). Thus, not only is the inference JUSTICE BREYER draws unwarranted,
but there is also strong evidence that Congress' failure to mention States in its legislative findings addressing dis-crimination
in employment reflects that body' s judgment that no pattern of unconstitutional state action had been
documented. Even were it possible to squeeze out of these examples a
pattern of unconstitutional discrimination by the States, the rights and remedies created by the ADA against the
States would raise the same sort of concerns as to congru-ence and proportionality as were found in City of Boerne,
supra.
For example, whereas it would be entirely rational (and therefore constitutional) for a state employer to
conserve scarce financial resources by hiring employees who are able to use existing facilities, the ADA requires
employers to "mak[ e] existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with dis-abilities."
42 U. S. C. §§ 12112( 5)( B), 12111( 9). The ADA does except employers from the "reasonable accommoda-tio[
n]" requirement where the employer "can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship
on the operation of the business of such covered entity." §12112( b)( 5)( A). However, even with this exception, the
accommodation duty far exceeds what is constitutionally required in that it makes unlawful a range of alternate
responses that would be reasonable but would fall short of imposing an "undue burden" upon the employer. The Act 17
17 Page 18 19
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 15
Opinion of the Court
also makes it the employer' s duty to prove that it would suffer such a burden, instead of requiring (as the Consti-tution

does) that the complaining party negate reasonable bases for the employer' s decision. See ibid.
The ADA also forbids "utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration" that disparately impact the
disabled, without regard to whether such conduct has a rational basis. §12112( b)( 3)( A). Although disparate im-pact
may be relevant evidence of racial discrimination, see Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 239 (1976), such evi-dence
alone is insufficient even where the Fourteenth Amendment subjects state action to strict scrutiny. See,
e. g., ibid. ("[ O] ur cases have not embraced the proposition that a law or other official act, without regard to whether
it reflects a racially discriminatory purpose, is unconstitu-tional solely because it has a racially disproportionate
impact"). The ADA' s constitutional shortcomings are apparent
when the Act is compared to Congress' efforts in the Vot-ing Rights Act of 1965 to respond to a serious pattern of
constitutional violations. In South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301 (1966), we considered whether the Voting
Rights Act was "appropriate" legislation to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment' s protection against racial discrimi-nation
in voting. Concluding that it was a valid exercise of Congress' enforcement power under §2 of the Fifteenth
Amendment, 8 we noted that "[ b] efore enacting the measure, Congress explored with great care the problem of racial
discrimination in voting." Id., at 308. In that Act, Congress documented a marked pattern of
unconstitutional action by the States. State officials, Congress found, routinely applied voting tests in order to

—————— 8
Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment is virtually identical to §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 18
18 Page 19 20
16 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Opinion of the Court
exclude African-American citizens from registering to vote. See id., at 312. Congress also determined that litigation

had proved ineffective and that there persisted an other-wise inexplicable 50-percentage-point gap in the registra-tion
of white and African-American voters in some States. See id., at 313. Congress' response was to promulgate in
the Voting Rights Act a detailed but limited remedial scheme designed to guarantee meaningful enforcement of
the Fifteenth Amendment in those areas of the Nation where abundant evidence of States' systematic denial of
those rights was identified. The contrast between this kind of evidence, and the
evidence that Congress considered in the present case, is stark. Congressional enactment of the ADA represents its
judgment that there should be a "comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against
individuals with disabilities." 42 U. S. C. §12101( b)( 1). Congress is the final authority as to desirable public pol-icy,
but in order to authorize private individuals to recover money damages against the States, there must be a pat-tern
of discrimination by the States which violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and the remedy imposed by
Congress must be congruent and proportional to the tar-geted violation. Those requirements are not met here, and
to uphold the Act' s application to the States would allow Congress to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment law laid
down by this Court in Cleburne. 9 Section 5 does not so ——————
9 Our holding here that Congress did not validly abrogate the States'
sovereign immunity from suit by private individuals for money dam-ages under Title I does not mean that persons with disabilities have no

federal recourse against discrimination. Title I of the ADA still pre-scribes standards applicable to the States. Those standards can be
enforced by the United States in actions for money damages, as well as by private individuals in actions for injunctive relief under Ex parte
Young,
209 U. S. 123 (1908). In addition, state laws protect ing the rights of persons with disabilities in employment and other aspects of life 19
19 Page 20 21
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 17
Opinion of the Court
broadly enlarge congressional authority. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore

Reversed.

——————
provide independent avenues of redress. See n. 5, supra. 20
20 Page 21 22
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 1
KENNEDY, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________
No. 99– 1240 _________________

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
PATRICIA GARRETT ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

[February 21, 2001]
JUSTICE KENNEDY, with whom JUSTICE O' CONNOR joins, concurring.

Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well
from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, ra-tional reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to
guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves. Quite apart from any historical
documentation, knowledge of our own human instincts teaches that persons who find it difficult to perform rou-tine
functions by reason of some mental or physical im-pairment might at first seem unsettling to us, unless we
are guided by the better angels of our nature. There can be little doubt, then, that persons with mental or physical
impairments are confronted with prejudice which can stem from indifference or insecurity as well as from mali-cious
ill will. One of the undoubted achievements of statutes designed
to assist those with impairments is that citizens have an incentive, flowing from a legal duty, to develop a better
understanding, a more decent perspective, for accepting persons with impairments or disabilities into the larger
society. The law works this way because the law can be a teacher. So I do not doubt that the Americans with Dis- 21
21 Page 22 23
2 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
KENNEDY, J., concurring
abilities Act of 1990 will be a milestone on the path to a more decent, tolerant, progressive society.

It is a question of quite a different order, however, to say that the States in their official capacities, the States as
governmental entities, must be held in violation of the Constitution on the assumption that they embody the
misconceived or malicious perceptions of some of their citizens. It is a most serious charge to say a State has
engaged in a pattern or practice designed to deny its citizens the equal protection of the laws, particularly
where the accusation is based not on hostility but instead on the failure to act or the omission to remedy. States can,
and do, stand apart from the citizenry. States act as neutral entities, ready to take instruction and to enact
laws when their citizens so demand. The failure of a State to revise policies now seen as incorrect under a new un-derstanding
of proper policy does not always constitute the purposeful and intentional action required to make out a
violation of the Equal Protection Clause. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976).
For the reasons explained by the Court, an equal protec-tion violation has not been shown with respect to the
several States in this case. If the States had been tran s-gressing the Fourteenth Amendment by their mistreat-ment
or lack of concern for those with impairments, one would have expected to find in decisions of the courts of
the States and also the courts of the United States exten-sive litigation and discussion of the constitutional viola-tions.
This confirming judicial documentation does not exist. That there is a new awareness, a new conscious-ness,
a new commitment to better treatment of those disadvantaged by mental or physical impairments does
not establish that an absence of state statutory correctives was a constitutional violation.
It must be noted, moreover, that what is in question is not whether the Congress, acting pursuant to a power 22
22 Page 23 24
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 3
KENNEDY, J., concurring
granted to it by the Constitution, can compel the States to act. What is involved is only the question whether the

States can be subjected to liability in suits brought not by the Federal Government (to which the States have con-sented,
see Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 755 (1999)), but by private persons seeking to collect moneys from the
state treasury without the consent of the State. The predicate for money damages against an unconsenting
State in suits brought by private persons must be a federal statute enacted upon the documentation of patterns of
constitutional violations committed by the State in its official capacity. That predicate, for reasons discussed
here and in the decision of the Court, has not been estab-lished. With these observations, I join the Court' s opinion. 23
23 Page 24 25
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 1
BREYER, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________
No. 99– 1240 _________________

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
PATRICIA GARRETT ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

[February 21, 2001]
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.

Reviewing the congressional record as if it were an administrative agency record, the Court holds the statu-tory
provision before us, 42 U. S. C. §12202, unconstitu-tional. The Court concludes that Congress assembled
insufficient evidence of unconstitutional discrimination, ante, at 12, that Congress improperly attempted to "re-write"
the law we established in Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432 (1985), ante, at 16, and
that the law is not sufficiently tailored to address unconsti-tutional discrimination, ante, at 14– 15.
Section 5, however, grants Congress the "power to en-force, by appropriate legislation" the Fourteenth Amend-ment'
s equal protection guarantee. U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §5. As the Court recognizes, state discrimination in em-ployment
against persons with disabilities might " ' run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause' " where there is no
" ' rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose. ' " Ante, at 8
(quoting Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 320 (1993)). See also Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., supra, at 440
(stating that the Court will sustain a classification if it is "rationally related to a legitimate state interest"). In my 24
24 Page 25 26
2 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
view, Congress reasonably could have concluded that the remedy before us constitutes an "appropriate" way to en-force

this basic equal protection requirement. And that is all the Constitution requires.

I
The Court says that its primary problem with this statutory provision is one of legislative evidence. It says

that "Congress assembled only . . . minimal evidence of unconstitutional state discrimination in employment."
Ante, at 12. In fact, Congress compiled a vast legislative record documenting " ' massive, society-wide discrimina-tion'
" against persons with disabilities. S. Rep. No. 101– 116, pp. 8– 9 (1989) (quoting testimony of Justin Dart,
chairperson of the Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities). In addi-tion
to the information presented at 13 congressional hearings (see Appendix A, infra), and its own prior experi-ence
gathered over 40 years during which it contemplated and enacted considerable similar legislation (see Appendix
B, infra), Congress created a special task force to assess the need for comprehensive legislation. That task force
held hearings in every State, attended by more than 30,000 people, including thousands who had experienced
discrimination first hand. See From ADA to Empower-ment, Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of
Americans with Disabilities, 16 (Oct. 12, 1990) (hereina f-ter Task Force Report). The task force hearings, Congress'
own hearings, and an analysis of "census data, national polls, and other studies" led Congress to conclude that
"people with disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status in our society, and are severely disadvantaged
socially, vocationally, economically, and educationally." 42 U. S. C. §12101( a)( 6). As to employment, Congress found
that "[ t] wo-thirds of all disabled Americans between the age of 16 and 64 [were] not working at all," even though a 25
25 Page 26 27
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 3
BREYER, J., dissenting
large majority wanted to, and were able to, work produc-tively. S. Rep. No. 101– 116, at 9. And Congress found

that this discrimination flowed in significant part from "stereotypic assumptions" as well as "purposeful unequal
treatment." 42 U. S. C. §12101( a)( 7). The powerful evidence of discriminatory treatment
throughout society in general, including discrimination by private persons and local governments, implicates state
governments as well, for state agencies form part of that same larger society. There is no particular reason to
believe that they are immune from the "stereotypic as-sumptions" and pattern of "purposeful unequal treatment"
that Congress found prevalent. The Court claims that it "make[ s] no sense" to take into consideration constitu-tional
violations committed by local governments. Ante, at 71. But the substantive obligation that the Equal Protec-tion
Clause creates applies to state and local governmen-tal entities alike. E. g., Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488
U. S. 469 (1989). Local governments often work closely with, and under the supervision of, state officials, and in
general, state and local government employers are simi-larly situated. Nor is determining whether an apparently
"local" entity is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immu-nity as simple as the majority suggests— it often requires
a " ' detailed examination of the relevant provisions of [state] law. ' " Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U. S. 425,
430, n. 6 (1997) (quoting Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 719– 721 (1973)).
In any event, there is no need to rest solely upon evi-dence of discrimination by local governments or general
societal discrimination. There are roughly 300 examples of discrimination by state governments themselves in the
legislative record. See, e. g., Appendix C, infra. I fail to see how this evidence "fall[ s] far short of even suggesting
the pattern of unconstitutional discrimination on which §5 legislation must be based." Ante, at 12. 26
26 Page 27 28
4 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
The congressionally appointed task force collected nu-merous specific examples, provided by persons with dis-abilities

themselves, of adverse, disparate treatment by state officials. They reveal, not what the Court describes
as "half a dozen" instances of discrimination, ante, at 11, but hundreds of instances of adverse treatment at the
hands of state officials— instances in which a person with a disability found it impossible to obtain a state job, to
retain state employment, to use the public transportation that was readily available to others in order to get to work,
or to obtain a public education, which is often a prerequi-site to obtaining employment. State-imposed barriers also
frequently made it difficult or impossible for people to vote, to enter a public building, to access important gov-ernment
services, such as calling for emergency assis-tance, and to find a place to live due to a pattern of irra-tional
zoning decisions similar to the discrimination that we held unconstitutional in Cleburne, 473 U. S., at 448.
See Appendix C, infra. As the Court notes, those who presented instances of
discrimination rarely provided additional, independent evidence sufficient to prove in court that, in each instance,
the discrimination they suffered lacked justification from a judicial standpoint. Ante, at 12 (stating that instances of
discrimination are "described out of context"). Perhaps this explains the Court' s view that there is "minimal
evidence of unconstitutional state discrimination." Ibid. But a legislature is not a court of law. And Congress,
unlike courts, must, and does, routinely draw general conclusions— for example, of likely motive or of likely
relationship to legitimate need— from anecdotal and opin-ion-based evidence of this kind, particularly when the
evidence lacks strong refutation. See Task Force Report 16, 20 (task force "met many times with significant repre-sentatives
of groups opposed to [the] ADA," and as to the general public, although the task force received "about 27
27 Page 28 29
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 5
BREYER, J., dissenting
2,000 letters" in support of the ADA, there was only "one letter in opposition"); S. Rep. No. 101– 116, at 10 (summa-rizing

testimony that many reasonable accommodations cost "less than $50," and the expense of others, such as
hiring employees who can interpret for the deaf, is "fre-quently exaggerated"). In reviewing §5 legislation, we
have never required the sort of extensive investigation of each piece of evidence that the Court appears to contem-plate.
Compare ante, at 12– 13, with Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 652– 656 (1966) (asking whether
Congress' likely conclusions were reasonable, not whether there was adequate evidentiary support in the record). Nor
has the Court traditionally required Congress to make findings as to state discrimination, or to break down the
record evidence, category by category. Compare ante, at 13 (noting statements in two congressional Reports that
mentioned state discrimination in public services and transportation but not in employment), with Morgan,
supra,
at 654 (considering what Congress "might" have concluded); 384 U. S., at 652 (holding that likely discrim i-nation
against Puerto Ricans in areas other than voting supported statute abolishing literacy test as qualification
for voting). Regardless, Congress expressly found substantial unjus-tified
discrimination against persons with disabilities. 42 U. S. C. §12101( 9) (finding a pattern of "unnecessary dis-crimination
and prejudice" that "costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from
dependency and nonproductivity" (emphasis added)). See also 2 Legislative History of the Americans with Disabili-ties
Act (Leg. Hist.) (Committee Print compiled for the House Committee on Education and Labor), Ser. No. 102–
B, p. 1620 (1990) (testimony of Arlene B. Mayerson) (de-scribing "unjustifiable and discriminatory loss of job op-portunities");
id., at 1623 (citing study showing " ' strong evidence that employers' fears of low performance among 28
28 Page 29 30
6 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
disabled workers are unjustified' "). Moreover, it found that such discrimination typically reflects "stereotypic

assumptions" or "purposeful unequal treatment." 42 U. S. C. §12101( 7). See also 2 Leg. Hist. 16 22 (testimony
of Arlene B. Mayerson) (" Outmoded stereotypes whether manifested in medical or other job ' requirements' that are
unrelated to the successful performance of the job, or in decisions based on the generalized perceptions of supervi-sors
and hiring personnel, have excluded many disabled people from jobs for which they are qualified"). In making
these findings, Congress followed our decision in Cleburne, which established that not only discrimination against
persons with disabilities that rests upon "a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group," 473 U. S., at 447
(quoting Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534 (1973) (omission in Cleburne)), violates the Four-teenth
Amendment, but also discrimination that rests solely upon "negative attitude[ s]," "fea[ r]," 473 U. S., at
448, or "irrational prejudice," id., at 450. Adverse treat-ment that rests upon such motives is unjustified discrimi-nation
in Cleburne' s terms. The evidence in the legislative record bears out Con-gress'
finding that the adverse treatment of persons with disabilities was often arbitrary or invidious in this sense,
and thus unjustified. For example, one study that was before Congress revealed that "most . . . governmental
agencies in [one State] discriminated in hiring against job applicants for an average period of five years after treat-ment
for cancer," based in part on coworkers' misguided belief that "cancer is contagious." 2 Leg. Hist. 1619– 1620
(testimony of Arlene B. Mayerson). A school inexplicably refused to exempt a deaf teacher, who taught at a school
for the deaf, from a "listening skills" requirement. Gov-ernment' s Lodging 1503. A State refused to hire a blind
employee as director of an agency for the blind— even though he was the most qualified applicant. Id., at 974. 29
29 Page 30 31
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 7
BREYER, J., dissenting
Certain state agencies apparently had general policies against hiring or promoting persons with disabilities. Id.,

at 1159, 1577. A zoo turned away children with Downs Syndrome "because [the zookeeper] feared they would
upset the chimpanzees." S. Rep. No. 101– 116, at 7. There were reports of numerous zoning decisions based upon
"negative attitudes" or "fear," Cleburne, supra, at 448, such as a zoning board that denied a permit for an obvi-ously
pretextual reason after hearing arguments that a facility would house " ' deviants' " who needed " ' room to
roam, ' " Government' s Lodging 1068. A complete listing of the hundreds of examples of discrimination by state and
local governments that were submitted to the task force is set forth in Appendix C, infra. Congress could have rea-sonably
believed that these examples represented signs of a widespread problem of unconstitutional discrimination.

II
The Court' s failure to find sufficient evidentiary support may well rest upon its decision to hold Congress to a strict,

judicially created evidentiary standard, particularly in respect to lack of justification. JUSTICE KENNEDY' s em-pirical
conclusion— which rejects that of Congress— rests heavily upon his failure to find "extensive litigation and
discussion of constitutional violations," in "the courts of the United States." Ante, at 2 (KENNEDY, J., concurring)
(emphasis added). And the Court itself points out that, when economic or social legislation is challenged in court
as irrational, hence unconstitutional, the "burden is upon the challenging party to negative any reasonably conceiv-able
state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Or as Justice Brandeis, writing for the Court, put the matter many years ago, " ' if any state of facts
reasonably can be conceived that would sustain' " chal-lenged legislation, then " ' there is a presumption of the 30
30 Page 31 32
8 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
existence of that state of facts, and one who assails the classification must carry the burden of showing . . . that

the action is arbitrary. ' " Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U. S. 176, 185 (1935) (quoting Borden' s Farm
Products Co.
v. Baldwin, 293 U. S. 194, 209 (1934)). Im-posing this special "burden" upon Congress, the Court fails
to find in the legislative record sufficient indication that Congress has "negative[ d]" the presumption that state
action is rationally related to a legitimate objective. Ante, at 9.
The problem with the Court' s approach is that neither the "burden of proof" that favors States nor any other rule
of restraint applicable to judges applies to Congress when it exercises its §5 power. "Limitations stemming from the
nature of the judicial process . . . have no application to Congress." Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112, 248 (1970)
(Brennan, White, and Marshall, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Rational– basis review— with its pre-sumptions
favoring constitutionality— is "a paradigm of judicial restraint." FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc.,
508 U. S. 307, 314 (1993) (emphasis added). And the Con-gress of the United States is not a lower court.
Indeed, the Court in Cleburne drew this very institu-tional distinction. We emphasized that "courts have been
very reluctant, as they should be in our federal system and with our respect for the separation of powers, to closely
scrutinize legislative choices." 473 U. S., at 441. Our invocation of judicial deference and respect for Congress
was based on the fact that "[§] 5 of the [Fourteenth] Amendment empowers Congress to enforce [the equal
protection] mandate." Id., at 439 (emphasis added). Indeed, we made clear that the absence of a contrary
congressional finding was critical to our decision to apply mere rational-basis review to disability discrimination
claims— a "congressional direction" to apply a more strin-gent standard would have been "controlling." Ibid. See 31
31 Page 32 33
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 9
BREYER, J., dissenting
also Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 248 (1976) (refus-ing to invalidate a law based on the Equal Protection Clause

because a disparate impact standard "should await legisla-tive prescription"). Cf. Mitchell, supra, at 284 (Stewart, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part) (" Congress may paint with a much broader brush than may this Court,
which must confine itself to the judicial function of deciding individual cases and controversies upon individual records").
In short, the Court' s claim that "to uphold the Act' s applica-tion to the States would allow Congress to rewrite the Four-teenth
Amendment law laid down by this Court in Cleburne," ante, at 16, is repudiated by Cleburne itself.
There is simply no reason to require Congress, seeking to determine facts relevant to the exercise of its §5
authority, to adopt rules or presumptions that reflect a court' s institutional limitations. Unlike courts, Congress
can readily gather facts from across the Nation, assess the magnitude of a problem, and more easily find an appropri-ate
remedy. Cf. Cleburne, supra, at 442– 443 (addressing the problems of the "large and diversified group" of per-sons
with disabilities "is a difficult and often a technical matter, very much a task for legislators guided by quali-fied
professionals and not by the perhaps ill-informed opinions of the judiciary"). Unlike courts, Congress di-rectly
reflects public attitudes and beliefs, enabling Con-gress better to understand where, and to what extent,
refusals to accommodate a disability amount to behavior that is callous or unreasonable to the point of lacking
constitutional justification. Unlike judges, Members of Congress can directly obtain information from constitu-ents
who have first-hand experience with discrimination and related issues.
Moreover, unlike judges, Members of Congress are elected. When the Court has applied the majority' s bur-den
of proof rule, it has explained that we, i. e., the courts, do not " ' sit as a superlegislature to judge the wisdom or 32
32 Page 33 34
10 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
desirability of legislative policy determinations. ' " Heller, 509 U. S., at 319 (quoting New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S.

297, 303 (1976) (per curiam)). To apply a rule designed to restrict courts as if it restricted Congress' legislative
power is to stand the underlying principle— a principle of judicial restraint— on its head. But without the use of this
burden of proof rule or some other unusually stringent standard of review, it is difficult to see how the Court can
find the legislative record here inadequate. Read with a reasonably favorable eye, the record indicates that state
governments subjected those with disabilities to seriously adverse, disparate treatment. And Congress could have
found, in a significant number of instances, that this treatment violated the substantive principles of justifica-tion—
shorn of their judicial-restraint-related presump-tions— that this Court recognized in Cleburne.

III
The Court argues in the alternative that the statute' s damage remedy is not "congruent" with and "proportional"

to the equal protection problem that Congress found. Ante, at 14 (citing City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507,
520 (1997)). The Court suggests that the Act' s "reasonable accommodation" requirement, 42 U. S. C. §12112( b)( 5)( A),
and disparate impact standard, §12112( b)( 3)( A), "far excee[ d] what is constitutionally required." Ante, at 14.
But we have upheld disparate impact standards in con-texts where they were not "constitutionally required."
Compare Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 432 (1971), with Washington, supra, at 239, and City of Rome v.
United States, 446 U. S. 156, 172– 173 (1980), with Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 62 (1980) (plurality opinion).
And what is wrong with a remedy that, in response to unreasonable employer behavior, requires an employer to
make accommodations that are reasonable? Of course, what is "reasonable" in the statutory sense and what is 33
33 Page 34 35
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 11
BREYER, J., dissenting
"unreasonable" in the constitutional sense might differ. In other words, the requirement may exceed what is neces-sary

to avoid a constitutional violation. But it is just that power— the power to require more than the minimum–
that §5 grants to Congress, as this Court has repeatedly confirmed. As long ago as 1880, the Court wrote that §5
"brought within the domain of congressional power" what-ever "tends to enforce submission" to its "prohibitions" and
"to secure to all persons . . . the equal protection of the laws." Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (1880). More
recently, the Court added that §5' s "draftsmen sought to grant to Congress, by a specific provision applicable to the
Fourteenth Amendment, the same broad powers expressed in the Necessary and Proper Clause, Art. I, §8, cl. 18."
Morgan, 384 U. S., at 650 (citing McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421 (1819)).
In keeping with these principles, the Court has said that "[ i] t is not for us to review the congressional resolution of
"the various conflicting considerations— the risk or perva-siveness of the discrimination in governmental serv-ices
. . . , the adequacy or availability of alternative reme-dies, and the nature and significance of the state interests
that would be affected." 384 U. S., at 653. "It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Con-gress
might resolve the conflict as it did." Ibid. See also South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 324 (1966)
(interpreting the similarly worded enforcement Clause of the Fifteenth Amendment to permit Congress to use "any
rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition"). Nothing in the words "reasonable accommodation" sug-gests
that the requirement has no "tend[ ency] to enforce" the Equal Protection Clause, Ex parte Virginia, supra, at
346, that it is an irrational way to achieve the objective, Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 324, that it would fall outside
the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause, Morgan, supra, at 650, or that it somehow otherwise exceeds the 34
34 Page 35 36
12 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
bounds of the "appropriate," U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §5. The Court' s more recent cases have professed to follow

the longstanding principle of deference to Congress. See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 81 (2000)
(" Congress' §5 power is not confined to the enactment of legislation that merely parrots the precise wording of the
Fourteenth Amendment." Rather, Congress can prohibit a "somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which
is not itself forbidden by the Amendment' s text"); Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings
Bank,
527 U. S. 627, 639 (1999) (" ' Congress must have wide latitude' ") (quoting City of Boerne, supra, at 519– 520); City
of Boerne,
521 U. S., at 528 (reaffirming Morgan); 521 U. S., at 536 (Congress' "conclusions are entitled to much defer-ence").
And even today, the Court purports to apply, not to depart from, these standards. Ante, at 7. But the Court' s
analysis and ultimate conclusion deprive its declarations of practical significance. The Court ' sounds the word of
promise to the ear but breaks it to the hope. '
IV
The Court' s harsh review of Congress' use of its §5 power is reminiscent of the similar (now– discredited)

limitation that it once imposed upon Congress' Commerce Clause power. Compare Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298
U. S. 238 (1936), with United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 123 (1941) (rejecting Carter Coal' s rationale). I could
understand the legal basis for such review were we judg-ing a statute that discriminated against those of a pa r-ticular
race or gender, see United States v. Virginia, 518 U. S. 515 (1996), or a statute that threatened a basic con-stitutionally
protected liberty such as free speech, see Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844
(1997); see also Post & Siegel, Equal Protection by Law: Federal Antidiscrimination Legislation After Morrison
and Kimel, 110 Yale L. J. 441, 477 (2000) (stating that the 35
35 Page 36 37
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 13
BREYER, J., dissenting
Court' s recent review of §5 legislation appears to approach strict scrutiny); 1 L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law

§5– 16, p. 959 (3d ed. 2000) (same). The legislation before us, however, does not discriminate against anyone, nor
does it pose any threat to basic liberty. And it is difficult to understand why the Court, which applies "minimum
' rational-basis' review" to statutes that burden persons with disabilities, ante, at 7– 8, subjects to far stricter scr u-tiny
a statute that seeks to help those same individuals. I recognize nonetheless that this statute imposes a
burden upon States in that it removes their Eleventh Amendment protection from suit, thereby subjecting them
to potential monetary liability. Rules for interpreting §5 that would provide States with special protection, how-ever,
run counter to the very object of the Fourteenth Amendment. By its terms, that Amendment prohibits
States from denying their citizens equal protection of the laws. U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1. Hence "principles of
federalism that might otherwise be an obstacle to congres-sional authority are necessarily overridden by the power to
enforce the Civil War Amendments ' by appropriate legisla-tion. Those Amendments were specifically designed as an
expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sover-eignty." City of Rome, 446 U. S., at 179. See also Fitz-patrick
v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 456 (1976); Ex parte Vir-ginia, supra, at 345. And, ironically, the greater the
obstacle the Eleventh Amendment poses to the creation by Congress of the kind of remedy at issue here— the decen-tralized
remedy of private damage actions— the more Congress, seeking to cure important national problems,
such as the problem of disability discrimination before us, will have to rely on more uniform remedies, such as fed-eral
standards and court injunctions, 42 U. S. C. §12188( a)( 2), which are sometimes draconian and typically
more intrusive. See College Savings Bank v. Florida Pre-paid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 704– 705 36
36 Page 37 38
14 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
BREYER, J., dissenting
(1999) (BREYER, J., dissenting). Cf. ante, at 15, n. 8. For these reasons, I doubt that today' s decision serves any

constitutionally based federalism interest. The Court, through its evidentiary demands, its non-deferential
review, and its failure to distinguish between judicial and legislative constitutional competencies, im-properly
invades a power that the Constitution assigns to Congress. Morgan, 384 U. S., at 648, n. 7 (The "sponsors
and supporters of the [Fourteenth] Amendment were primarily interested in augmenting the power of Con-gress").
Its decision saps §5 of independent force, effec-tively "confin[ ing] the legislative power . . . to the insignifi-cant
role of abrogating only those state laws that the judicial branch [is] prepared to adjudge unconstitutional."
Id., at 648– 649. Whether the Commerce Clause does or does not enable Congress to enact this provision, see, e. g.,
Seminole Tribe of Fla.
v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 100– 185 (1996) (SOUTER, J., joined by GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ.,
dissenting); College Savings Bank, supra, at 699– 700 (BREYER, J., dissenting), in my view, §5 gives Congress the
necessary authority. For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent. 37
37 Page 38 39
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 15
Appendix A to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
APPENDIX A TO OPINION OF BREYER, J.
Congressional hearings on the Americans with Disabilities Act

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989: Hearings on H. R. 2273 before the House Committee on the Judiciary and
the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989).

Americans with Disabilities Act: Hearing on H. R. 2273 and S. 933 before the Subcommittee on Transportation
and Hazardous Materials of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1990).

Americans with Disabilities Act: Hearings on H. R. 2273 before the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the
House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1990).

Americans with Disabilities: Telecommunications Relay Services, Hearing on Title V of H. R. 2273 before the Sub-committee
on Telecommunications and Finance of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 101st Cong.,
1st Sess. (1990).
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989: Hearing on H. R. 2273 before the Subcommittee on Select Education of the

House Committee on Education and Labor, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989).

Field Hearing on Americans with Disabilities Act: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Select Education of the House
Committee on Education and Labor, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989).

Hearing on H. R. 2273, The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989: Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Select Education and Employment Opportunities of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 101st Cong., 38
38 Page 39 40
16 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix A to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
1st Sess. (July 18 & Sept. 13, 1989) (two hea rings)
Oversight Hearing on H. R. 4498, Americans with Dis-abilities Act of 1988: Hearing before the Subcommittee on

Select Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1989)

Americans with Disabilities Act: Hearing before the House Committee on Small Business, 101st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1990); Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989: Hearings on S. 933 before the Senate Committee on Labor and
Human Resources and the Subcommittee on the Handi-capped, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989) (May 1989 Hea r-ings).

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988: Joint Hearing on S. 2345 before the Subcommittee on the Handicapped of
the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the Subcommittee on Select Education of the House
Committee on Education and Labor, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1989). 39
39 Page 40 41
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 17
Appendix B to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
APPENDIX B TO OPINION OF BREYER, J.
Disability discrimination laws enacted by Congress prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act

Act of June 10, 1948, ch. 434, 62 Stat. 351
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U. S. C. §4151 et seq.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. §701 et seq.
Education of the Handicapped Act, Pub. L. 91– 230, Title VI, 84 Stat. 175 (reenacted in 1990 as the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act, 20 U. S. C. §1400 et seq.)
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. §6000 et seq.

Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, 42 U. S. C. §1973ee et seq.
Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, 49 U. S. C. §41705
Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986, 42 U. S. C. §10801

Fair Housing Amendments of 1988, 42 U. S. C. §3604. 40
40 Page 41 42
18 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
APPENDIX C TO OPINION OF BREYER, J.
Submissions made by individuals to the Task Force on Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities.

See the Government' s Lodging (available in Clerk of Court' s case file).

ALABAMA Page No.
00002 discrimination against the mentally ill in city zoning process

00003 inaccessible exercise equipment at University of Alabama
00004 school failed to train teachers how to work with students with learning disabilities
00005 courts failed to provide interpretive services for deaf people
00006 lack of accessible police and court services for deaf people
00007 inaccessible public transportation
00008 child denied public education because of cerebral palsy

00009 inaccessible public transportation, which pre-vented persons with disabilities from getting to
work
00010 inaccessible public buildings and services; inac-cessible transportation

00011 inaccessible public schools; inaccessible public transportation
00013 inaccessible public schools; inaccessible public transportation 41
41 Page 42 43
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 19
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00014 failure to enforce building codes requiring access for persons with disabilities

00015 inaccessible courthouse
00017 lack of instructions for use of voting machine by blind people; inaccessible restrooms in newly

renovated State House
00021 inaccessible public transportation
00023 inaccessible public transportation
00024 failure to enforce state and local laws protecting persons with disabilities

00025 schools failed to provide an adequate education for children with disabilities
00026 inaccessible public transportation
00027 man denied vocational rehabilitation services based on his cerebral palsy; inaccessible public

transportation
00031 vocational rehabilitation agency failed to provide services for schizophrenics; zoning discrimination

against group homes
00032 school failed to provide an adequate education
00033 school failed to provide an adequate education
ALASKA Page No.

00038 school placed child with cerebral palsy in special education classes

00041 inaccessible restrooms in state legislature infor-mation office
00042 inaccessible areas at new Alaska Performing Arts Center 42
42 Page 43 44
20 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00044 inaccessible public transportation, which pre-vented persons with disabilities from getting to

work
00046 lack of curb cuts in sidewalks near apartment building for persons with disabilities

00048 child erroneously placed in special education classes
00049 inaccessible new performing arts center
00050 Alaska Psychiatric Institute failed to provide interpretive services for deaf patients

00052 state and local agencies disregarded laws requir-ing accessibility
00055 jail failed to provide person with disability medi-cal treatment
00056 inaccessible government buildings in Seward
00057 inaccessible public transportation
00058 city failed to train employees how to communicate with people with hearing impairments

00059 segregated seating and inaccessibility at new performing arts center
00061 inaccessibility of State Ferry Columbia and Alaska Railroad; denial of job interview because
person was in a wheelchair
00062 inaccessible new performing arts center
00063 person using a respirator denied access to Alaska State Division of Medical Assistance

00065 inaccessible city hall
00067 school district retaliated against teacher for ask-ing to be assigned to an accessible classroom 43
43 Page 44 45
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 21
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00069 inaccessible public transportation
00070 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public transporta-tion

00071 state agencies failed to provide interpretive serv-ices for deaf people
00072 department of motor vehicles failed to provide interpretive services
00073 inaccessibility of Seward City Hall and other state and local buildings
00075 state university failed to assist in covering ex-pense of interpretive services for deaf graduate
student
00076 inaccessible public buildings
00077 inaccessible public school
ARIZONA Page No.

00090 survey showing inaccessibility problems in city of Phoenix' s public services

00110 inaccessible public transportation
00112 inaccessible restrooms at state recreation areas
00116 department of motor vehicles failed to provide visual signs or other assistance for people with

hearing impairments
00117 person with disability denied police officer job
00119 Arizona Department of Economic Security took 31ŕ2 to 4 years to fix unsafe van lift

00121 county paratransit refused to provide transporta-tion to college 44
44 Page 45 46
22 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00124 department of motor vehicles placed restrictions on driver' s license because of deafness

00125 teacher with hearing impairment denied numer-ous jobs
00127 department of motor vehicles failed to assist deaf people
00129 inaccessible entrance, restroom, water fountain, and office at building leased by State
00130 woman injured trying to use inaccessible restroom at roadside rest stop; lack of curb cuts
00131 inaccessible social service agencies
ARKANSAS Page No.

00136 public school failed to enforce accommodations for student

00138 public school teacher refused to allow student with disability to use authorized calculator
00139 state university failed to inform student with hearing impairment about activities and rules
00140 lack of curb cuts
00141 inaccessible public transportation
00143 inaccessible office area at public housing for per-sons with disabilities

00144 inaccessible public transportation
00145 inaccessible state office of human services; state agencies failed to hire persons with disabilities

00146 failure to enforce handicapped parking law
00147 school erroneously placed child with mobility impairment in special education classes 45
45 Page 46 47
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 23
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00149 public schools failed to provide interpretive serv-ices for deaf people

00150 inaccessible public transportation
00153 person with disability forced to resign employ-ment because of architectural barriers

00154 public school held meetings and conferences at inaccessible locations
00155 physical barriers prevented citizens from voting
00156 rehabilitation services failed to assist people with all kinds of disabilities

00159 inaccessible city and county buildings
00161 human services office relocated to inaccessible building

00163 lack of curb cuts
CALIFORNIA Page No.

00166 inaccessible public recreation sites
00168 California Relay System failed to provide tele-phone access to other States for deaf people

00180 public transit failed to provide visual signs for deaf people
00181 inaccessible public transportation
00202 California Children' s Services refused to help with cost of caring for child with head injury at home

00206 inaccessible county buildings
00208 deaf people denied access to state agencies that lacked TDD' s

00210 deaf people denied access to state agencies that lacked TDD' s 46
46 Page 47 48
24 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00211 public transit failed to provide visual signs for deaf people

00212 public transit failed to provide visual signs for deaf people
00213 limited out-of-state telephone relay services
00214 inaccessible public transportation limited access to community college

00215 inaccessible public transportation
00218 deaf people denied access to state agencies that lacked TDD' s

00219 state mental health services failed to provide access for deaf people
00220 government failed to provide interpretive services for deaf people
00221 inaccessible public transportation; lack of curb cuts
00222 inaccessible public transportation
00223 inaccessible airport; inaccessible public transpor-tation

00224 California Relay Service failed to enable deaf people to make interstate calls
00225 California Relay Service failed to enable deaf people to make interstate calls
00226 inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible restrooms in public buildings
00227 University of California attempted to terminate employees with disabilities for taking medical
leave
00231 state agencies failed to provide TDD' s 47
47 Page 48 49
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 25
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00232 person denied opportunity to serve on jury be-cause county failed to provide interpretive serv-ices

for deaf people
00236 public school district failed to provide TTD for deaf parents

00237 California Relay Service failed to enable deaf people to make interstate calls
00240 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public transport a-tion
00241 inaccessible public transportation
00244 inaccessible public transportation
00245 California Civil Service Exam held at high school with inaccessible restrooms

00246 inaccessible restrooms in county administration building; lack of curb cuts
00247 inaccessible public transportation prevented persons with disabilities from getting to work;
States failed to enforce laws requiring accessibil-ity

00248 inaccessible public transportation
00249 California Relay Service failed to enable deaf people to make interstate calls

00250 inaccessible public transportation
00252 inaccessible public transportation
00253 inaccessible public transportation
00254 inaccessible county courthouse; street signals too fast for safe crossing by wheelchair

00255 public functions failed to provide interpretive services for deaf people 48
48 Page 49 50
26 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00258 deaf people denied access to state agencies that lacked TDD' s

00261 California Basic Educational Skills Test discrim i-nated against deaf adults who wanted to become
teachers of deaf students
00262 department of motor vehicles required doctors to report patients with seizure disorders and revoked

such patients' licenses, but did not require re-porting of other conditions that could cause erratic
driving
COLORADO Page No.

00266 person in wheelchair passed by five bus drivers, all of whom claimed that lifts were broken

00267 lack of curb cuts and ramps; inaccessible public transportation
00268 inaccessible public transportation
00269 inaccessible public transportation
00270 persons with disabilities placed in segregated public housing

00271 inaccessible public transportation
00272 lack of curb cuts forced person in wheelchair to use street

00273 inaccessible county courthouse
00274 inaccessible public transportation
00275 inaccessible public transportation in small cities; public schools failed to assist students with di s-abilities

00276 inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible public facilities and recreation sites 49
49 Page 50 51
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 27
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00277 political parties held caucuses at inaccessible private home

00280 children with developmental disabilities required to attend segregated schools
00281 public school system refused to transfer student with disabilities from special to regular school un-til
she brought suit
00283 vocational rehabilitation agency refused to take referrals from psychiatric halfway house; person

denied driver' s license in Virginia because of men-tal illness

CONNECTICUT Page No.
00285 public school inaccessible to parent with disability
00289 state university denied renewal of contract for graduate assistantship because of age and dis-ability

DELAWARE Page No.
00301 inaccessible public high school; inaccessible public transportation

00302 inaccessible public schools; inaccessible public transportation
00303 inaccessible voting machines; inadequate handi-capped parking
00308 man with physical disability spent 45 minutes crawling into polling place because it was inacces-sible
to wheelchairs
00310 inaccessible public transportation; public cere-mony held at inaccessible building 50
50 Page 51 52
28 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00314 failure to enforce laws requiring handicapped parking spaces, which were usually occupied by

police cars
00315 high percentage of children with disabilities placed in segregated schools

00317 restrictive zoning limited reintegration of institu-tionalized people into community
00319 inaccessible voting system
00323 inaccessible public transportation
00325 inaccessible public transportation made person with disability late for work; inaccessible library

and other public buildings
00329 State refused to fund services for people with mental illness

00330 state transit system provided special vouchers for persons with physical disabilities, but not for
mentally ill
00331 state criminal justice system failed to provide psychiatric treatment

00333 State kept child with schizophrenia in Delaware State Hospital because it lacked services for peo-ple
who could be released
00335 state labor department' s restrictive policies pre-vented persons with disabilities from applying for

employment
00336 failure to enforce laws requiring handicapped parking spaces, which were usually occupied by

police cars
00337 public transportation refused to transport person carrying oxygen 51
51 Page 52 53
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 29
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00338 staff and patients at Delaware State Hospital sexually abused women patients

00343 inaccessible public transportation
00345 state police interrogated deaf citizens without providing interpretive services

00347 vocational high school sought to transfer student back to special segregated school
GEORGIA Page No.
00362 public colleges failed to provide assistance for students with learning disabilities

00365 University of Georgia students with disabilities faced architectural barriers, inaccessible public
transportation, lack of housing, and failure to en-force handicapped parking laws

00366 inaccessible classrooms at University of Georgia
00367 University of Georgia located its office of handi-capped services in inaccessible second floor office

00370 University of Georgia charged students with learning disabilities $600 per quarter for services
that other students with disabilities received at no cost

00371 Learning Disability Adult Clinic at University of Georgia charged unreasonable fees
00372 inaccessible public transportation
00374 traffic court failed to provide interpretive services for deaf person

HAWAII Page No.
00444 inaccessible public transportation 52
52 Page 53 54
30 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00446 inaccessible public transportation
00448 state university failed to enforce handicapped parking laws

00451 state employee in wheelchair forced to resign job because frequently unable to get to office due to
broken elevator in state building; State Commis-sion on the Handicapped refused employee' s re-quest
for reasonable accommodation
00452 state university failed to provide blind student with timely or adequate books on tape for course-work;

lack of signs or information for blind people using public transit

00455 person with disability denied opportunity to tes-tify because department of labor held hearing in
an inaccessible room
00456 state employment agency refused to provide in-terpretive services for deaf people

00457 public school put three-year-old deaf child in same class as fourth graders
00458 quadriplegic person who had California driver' s license denied license by Hawaii
00460 state government office refused to interview per-sons with emotional disorder or history of alco-holism

00461 inaccessible state buildings
00462 person with mobility impairment denied serious consideration for state job due to unreliability of

accessible public transportation
00463 inaccessible public transportation prevented person with disability from getting to work; inac-cessible

public buildings 53
53 Page 54 55
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 31
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00464 lack of curb cuts forced person in wheelchair to use street

00467 elevators in public buildings not marked for blind people; bus drivers failed to announce stops for
blind people
00468 inaccessible public transportation; bus drivers harassed mentally retarded passengers

00469 inaccessible public transportation
00472 state mental health system had restrictive insti-tutional policies

00473 state social service employees placed limits on opportunities for persons with disabilities based
on stereotypical assumptions
00474 lack of curb cuts and ramps
00475 inaccessible public transportation
00476 inaccessible public transportation
00477 inaccessible public library
00479 denial of certain licenses to persons with mental disabilities

00480 inaccessible restroom in state park; lack of curb cuts
00484 state and local government meetings failed to provide interpretive services for deaf people
00485 students with disabilities unable to participate in school interscholastic sports
00486 blind people prevented from traveling outside State because quarantine laws permitted no ex-emption
for their guide dogs 54
54 Page 55 56
32 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00487 state mental health services unavailable for deaf people due to failure to train staff

00488 inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible city and county buildings
00490 handi-van refused service to person paralyzed from waist down
00491 inaccessible public transportation
00492 state agencies failed to monitor conditions in community residential facilities for persons with

disabilities
00494 inaccessible public transportation
00495 inaccessible public transportation
00496 inadequate assistance for deaf person at court appearance

IDAHO Page No.
00502 inaccessible public transportation
00505 inaccessible public transportation
00506 adult victims of abuse with developmental dis-abilities denied equal rights to testify in court

00507 inaccessible public recreation activities
00508 inaccessible public transportation
00509 lack of curb cuts
00510 inaccessible public transportation
00511 city and county failed to provide assistance for deaf people at public meetings

00514 inaccessible public transportation 55
55 Page 56 57
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 33
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00515 public school failed to provide adequate assistance for students with disabilities

00516 inaccessible public transportation
00517 public defenders' offices and public meetings failed to provide interpretive services for deaf

people; police harassed persons with disabilities who appeared to be intoxicated

00518 vocational rehabilitation agency lacked TTY service
00521 government agencies lacked staff to assist people with head injuries
00522 inaccessible public transportation
00523 inaccessible public transportation
00524 inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible public buildings

00528 limited access at new county courthouse, library, and city hall
00531 school district refused to hire licensed teacher because of speech impediment
00533 public school failed to provide assistance for deaf student
00537 public school failed to provide interpretive serv-ices for deaf student
00540 Idaho lacked statewide telephone relay service for deaf people
00541 department of employment and department of health and welfare lacked telephone access for
deaf people 56
56 Page 57 58
34 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00543 inaccessible restrooms at public high school; student in wheelchair denied admission to regular

classes
ILLINOIS Page No.

00546 state system for providing ballots to people unable to enter polling place and special bus service
caused long wait outside in cold weather
00548 schools that mainstream deaf children refused to hire deaf teacher

00553 government failed to provide interpretive services for deaf people at public hearing on school budget
00554 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public transport a-tion
00559 department of rehabilitation limited services to persons with disabilities by threatening place-ment
in nursing home
00569 police stations lacked TTY service
00572 deaf people arrested and held in jail overnight without explanation because of failure to provide

interpretive services
00573 inaccessible polling place
00574 inaccessible public schools prevented attendance at PTA meetings

00575 inaccessible public transportation
00576 inaccessible public transportation
00578 lack of curb cuts and ramps for wheelchairs
00579 most state housing agencies lacked telecommuni-cations devices or interpretive services for deaf

people 57
57 Page 58 59
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 35
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00581 state and local government agencies lacked tele-communications devices for deaf people

00583 emergency medical, police, and fire services lacked TDD' s or personnel trained to receive TDD calls
00585 inaccessible public pools; inaccessible restrooms in municipal building
00586 inaccessible public transportation
00587 inaccessible polling place
00588 inaccessible polling place
00589 inaccessible public transportation
00590 inaccessible public transportation
00591 inaccessible library
00592 inaccessible voting system
00594 inaccessible polling place
00595 lack of curb cuts
00596 inaccessible public transportation
00597 inaccessible public transportation
00600 inaccessible public transportation
00603 inaccessible public transportation
00605 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public buildings; inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible

polling place
INDIANA Page No.

00608 state vocational rehabilitation agency refused to help person it classified as severely disabled

00609 for five years, state vocational rehabilitation agency failed to provide assistance 58
58 Page 59 60
36 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00612 inadequate curb cuts
00613 inaccessible public transportation
00616 inaccessible public transportation
00618 inadequate curb cuts
00619 inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible public facilities

00621 inaccessible public transportation
00622 government agencies failed to provide interpretive services and TTY/ TDD' s for deaf people

00629 deaf counselors discouraged from applying for jobs as rehabilitation counselors for deaf people
00637 staff at state psychiatric facilities abused and physically dragged patients
00644 person with disability dismissed as director of deaf unit at Central State Hospital
00651 public meetings held at inaccessible locations
00653 inaccessible polling place
00655 state counselors failed to provide rehabilitation assistance to person with head injury

IOWA Page No.
00659 person dismissed as city bus operator after seek-ing treatment for mental illness

00664 state commission failed to supply necessary equipment for deaf and blind employee
00665 high school limited opportunities for mentally retarded student to be integrated 59
59 Page 60 61
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 37
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
KANSAS Page No.

00670 Kansas Commission of Civil Rights denied legally blind person job as investigator because of limited
ability to drive and refused to allow accommoda-tion that would have permitted use of public
transportation
00673 police failed to provide interpretive services after arresting deaf man

00676 Kansas Department of Transportation fired per-son because she had epilepsy
00679 state investigator failed to examine employment discrimination claims
00685 inaccessible public transportation
00695 county failed to assist mentally ill with housing and vocational opportunities

00696 damaged sidewalks and poor street lighting posed risk to persons with disabilities
00704 inaccessible city-owned arena
KENTUCKY Page No.

00706 bus driver bypassed person standing at stop with guide dog

00709 inaccessible public transportation
00712 department of employment services failed to make reasonable accommodations for persons with dis-abilities

00717 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public transport a-tion
00720 inaccessible public transportation 60
60 Page 61 62
38 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00723 state employment service refused to place person in wheelchair

00724 inaccessible public buildings
00729 public library, police department, and state uni-versity library lacked personnel trained to use

TTY devices
00731 state university failed to provide assistance to parttime teacher with a disability

00732 State prevented deaf teachers from teaching deaf students by requiring courses such as music edu-cation

00733 inaccessible public transportation
00736 inaccessible public transportation
00740 Kentucky School for the Deaf preferred hiring hearing teachers rather than deaf teachers

LOUISIANA Page No.
00743 inaccessible housing for graduate students at Louisiana State University

00745 inaccessible public transportation
00748 police assumed person with coordination problems was drunk

00751 inaccessible public transportation
00752 vocational rehabilitation program failed to provide services for person with head injury

00753 inaccessible public transportation prevented persons with disabilities from getting to work
00758 inaccessible voting machine 61
61 Page 62 63
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 39
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00759 Louisiana Sheriffs Pension and Relief Fund de-nied membership to person with disability

00773 inaccessible public transportation; lack of curb cuts
00776 inaccessible buildings at Louisiana State Univer-sity
MAINE Page No.
00778 inadequate sidewalk ramps; failure to enforce handicapped parking laws

00780 failure to enforce state regulations requiring accessibility in public buildings
00782 town refused request for interpretive services for deaf people at town meeting
MARYLAND Page No.
00785 public transportation unsafe for persons with disabilities

00787 public libraries, state prison and other state of-fices lacked TDD' s
00788 department of human relations failed to provide interpretive services for deaf people and did not
answer TTY calls
00789 vocational rehabilitation counselors failed to help deaf people find jobs

00797 inaccessible public transportation
00798 state hospital refused to provide interpretive services for deaf people 62
62 Page 63 64
40 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
MASSACHUSETTS Page No.

00808 Office for Children refused to license blind person as day care assistant

00812 inaccessible courthouse
00813 inaccessible restrooms in state building and state armory

00816 state college threatened to terminate employee because of blindness
00829 Massachusetts Adoption Exchange refused to let family with mother who had muscular dystrophy
adopt child
00835 department of vocational rehabilitation hired able-bodied person instead of qualified person in

wheelchair
MICHIGAN Page No.

00920 person denied admission to University of Michi-gan Medical School because of speech impediment

00921 inaccessible state university campuses
00922 65 percent of voting precincts in Detroit inaccessi-ble

00923 buses with lifts often failed to stop for people in wheelchairs or their lifts did not work
00924 state employee threatened with discipline for serving on and attending meetings of Equal Em-ployment
Opportunity Commission advisory committee

00925 state university stadium lacked accessible rest-rooms, water fountains, and telephones 63
63 Page 64 65
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 41
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00926 inaccessible public transportation
00928 school system failed to hire teachers who could communicate with deaf students

00932 state university denied interpretive services to part-time deaf student
00933 public transportation refused to serve persons in wheelchairs; public agency refused to provide in-terpretive
services for deaf people
00939 state university had transportation system for students with disabilities but not for faculty and

staff
00947 state university lacked adequate curb ramps
00950 state denied driver' s license to person with epi-lepsy

00958 inaccessible public recreation facilities
00960 inaccessible government buildings
00961 state university denied sabbatical proposal of faculty member with disability

00963 Michigan Rehabilitation Services placed people in inappropriate positions
00964 Michigan Rehabilitation Services failed to ac-commodate mentally ill persons
00968 inaccessible public transportation
00969 man with disability forced to use girls' restroom at state job

00970 person with disability terminated from county job and banned from future county employment 64
64 Page 65 66
42 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
MINNESOTA Page No.

00974 person with disability and score of 100 was final-ist for job as director of agency for the blind, but
able-bodied person with score of 70 was hired
00980 person with cerebral palsy humiliated at inter-view for job with state department of education

MISSISSIPPI Page No.
00853 inaccessible public transportation
00855 inaccessible beaches, pools, and parks
00984 inaccessible classrooms and library at Mississippi School for the Deaf

00985 no state agency to provide or coordinate commu-nity service programs for deaf adults
00986 inaccessible classrooms at Mississippi School for the Deaf
00987 public programs failed to provide interpretive services for deaf people; government failed to post
caution signs warning drivers of deaf children
00988 inaccessible polling places and voting booths
00989 inaccessible public buildings
00990 courts refused to pay for qualified interpretive services for deaf people

00992 inaccessible state university building
00993 teacher denied position at public elementary school because of need for braces and a cane to

walk
00994 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public school rooms; inaccessible public transportation 65
65 Page 66 67
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 43
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
00996 inaccessible department of motor vehicles
00997 inaccessible public transportation; inaccessible public facilities

00998 inaccessible courthouses
00999 state university instructor refused to teach blind person

01000 inaccessible public transportation
01001 inaccessible polling place; city employee required to go outside to get to restroom

MISSOURI Page No.
01003 lack of curb cuts
01004 inaccessible restrooms in public buildings; lack of curb cuts

01006 public schools segregated children with disabili-ties; inaccessible school buildings
01009 inaccessible public transportation and public buildings such as post offices, libraries, schools,
and polling places
01010 state university tried to discourage blind person' s chosen field of study

01013 inaccessible public transportation
01015 courthouse failed to provide amplified sound system in courtrooms

MONTANA Page No.
01017 inadequate curb cuts
01022 inadequate curb cuts in downtown area 66
66 Page 67 68
44 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
01023 state agencies refused to make reasonable ac-commodations to paraplegics seeking employment

01024 inaccessible polling place
01026 person in wheelchair forced to vote in street
01027 inaccessible polling place
NEBRASKA Page No.

01029 government failed to provide interpretive services for deaf people serving on juries, commissions,
and committees
01031 local school district failed to provide interpretive services for deaf child

01034 inaccessible entrance at office of county assistance
NEVADA Page No.

01038 local government failed to provide assistance for people with head injuries

01043 inaccessible government buildings and public facilities
01044 person with disability denied access to public transportation because it took too long to get on
and off bus
01046 community college refused to provide interpretive services for deaf people

01050 city ordinance prevented mentally ill from living in residential areas
01051 inaccessible public transportation; inadequate curb cuts and ramps
01053 failure to enforce handicapped parking laws 67
67 Page 68 69
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 45
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
01054 lack of sidewalk and crosswalk accommodations for persons in wheelchairs

NEW HAMPSHIRE Page No.
01057 state agency failed to assist persons with head injuries despite availability of state surplus funds

01061 vocational rehabilitation counselor tried to cut off funds and assistance to person with disability
NEW JERSEY Page No.
01067 commission for the blind and visually impaired demoted visually impaired person

01068 zoning commission denied permission to open home for persons with head injuries
01069 architectural barriers on Cumberland County College campus
01072 inadequate curb cuts
NEW MEXICO Page No.

01080 state university denied entry into school of social work to blind person but admitted partially
sighted person with lower grades
01083 New Mexico lacked statewide TDD relay service
01091 prisoners with developmental disabilities sub-jected to longer terms and abused by other prison-ers

in state correctional system
01092 inaccessible public transportation
01095 University of New Mexico failed to provide assis-tance for blind student

01097 city and county government offices lacked TDD' s 68
68 Page 69 70
46 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
01098 University of New Mexico hospital failed to pro-vide interpretive services for deaf patients

01099 University of New Mexico failed to provide inter-pretive services for deaf students
01100 inaccessible buildings on University of New Mex-ico campus
NEW YORK Page No.
01109 state agencies failed to hire persons with disabili-ties

01114 custodian in public high school denied request of person with disability to use locked elevator
01119 at state legislature, person in wheelchair had to wait 45 minutes to use freight elevator
01129 public village meetings held in second floor meet-ing room with no elevator; many polling places in-accessible

01130 lack of curb cuts; failure to enforce handicapped parking laws
01134 inaccessible state parks and public beaches
NORTH CAROLINA Page No.

01144 public elementary school initially denied admis-sion and then charged extra fee for child with
Down' s Syndrome to attend afterschool day care program

01155 blind people told not to participate in regular public parks and recreation programs
01158 state agencies, other than services for the blind and vocational rehabilitation, employed few per-sons
with disabilities 69
69 Page 70 71
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 47
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
01161 police arrested and jailed deaf person without providing interpretive services

NORTH DAKOTA Page No.
01170 person with disability denied access to driver' s license exam because held in inaccessible room

01172 inaccessible polling places
01175 lack of curb cuts; failure to enforce handicapped parking laws; inaccessible polling places; inacces-sible

city government meetings
01178 failure to enforce handicapped parking laws
01183 inaccessible polling places; inaccessible state and local government buildings

01185 government agencies failed to enforce policies regarding hiring persons with disabilities; inac-cessible
polling places; inaccessible public build-ings

01186 state and local government failed to hire persons with disabilities; inaccessible polling places
01187 failure to enforce handicapped parking laws
01196 person with head-injury disability denied consid-eration for position of election polls inspector

OHIO Page No.
01215 city failed to trim trees regularly, which posed a hazard to blind people

01216 inaccessible state, county, and city buildings
01218 inaccessible social service agency offices; inacces-sible public transportation 70
70 Page 71 72
48 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
01221 vocational rehabilitation agency denied assistance to person with disability

01224 rehabilitation services agency failed to assist paranoid schizophrenic
01229 vocational rehabilitation agency discouraged person with disability from being a nurse
01230 persons with disabilities denied jobs because of inaccessible public transportation
01231 blind person denied driver' s license though legally eligible
01234 inaccessible public transportation; lack of curb cuts
01235 public paratransit system often left passengers stranded
01236 vocational rehabilitation agency steered person with mental disability to menial job, despite his
Ph. D. degree
01239 police failed to provide interpretive services for deaf person who was arrested

01241 Cleveland State University lacked wheelchair ramps
01242 inaccessible public transportation
OKLAHOMA Page No.

01251 Tulsa Housing Authority failed to communicate with and provide information to tenants with dis-abilities

01258 state employment office lacked TDD or workers with interpretive skills; state university paid deaf 71
71 Page 72 73
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 49
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
employees less than hearing employees; state agencies made no effort to hire deaf applicants

01265 police officer pointed gun at person with disability who could not get out of car quickly
01266 inaccessible public transportation
01269 person with speech impediment denied numerous state jobs

01271 inaccessible restrooms at city parks
01275 state government held meeting at hotel with inaccessible restrooms

01278 person in wheelchair worked at polling place with inaccessible restrooms
01280 inaccessible polling places
01286 qualified blind person who offered to provide own driver denied job as state social worker

OREGON Page No.
01370 blind people unable to access printed material from state government

01375 school system barred child with cerebral palsy from physical education class and gave her
cleaning job instead
01377 person with two college degrees and extensive professional experience turned down for appro-priate

state government jobs and advised to seek entry-level jobs because of his disability

01378 commission for the handicapped lacked funds to enforce laws 72
72 Page 73 74
50 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
PENNSYLVANIA Page No.

01391 public library had restrictive policy regarding issuance of library cards to residents of group
homes
01397 government failed to provide interpretive services for deaf people at school budget hearing

01399 inaccessible public transportation
01407 inaccessible polling places
01408 inaccessible public transportation
01409 inaccessible polling places
01410 inaccessible polling place
01413 inaccessible public transportation; lack of curb cuts

01421 inaccessible public library
01423 inaccessible automatic ticket dispensers on Penn-sylvania Turnpike

01425 bus drivers refused to transport person in wheel-chair
01427 inaccessible county offices
01429 lack of curb cuts
01430 GED programs offered at inaccessible public schools; bus drivers unwilling or unable to use

wheelchair lifts
01432 child unable to enroll in first grade because of inaccessible classroom

01434 lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public transport a-tion
01435 lack of curb cuts in rural areas 73
73 Page 74 75
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 51
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
01436 inaccessible polling place
01439 unsafe curb cuts
01441 inaccessible state office building
SOUTH CAROLINA Page No.

01454 government failed to provide 911 emergency service for deaf people

01457 state and local agencies, library, and police and fire departments lacked TDD' s; government failed
to provide interpretive services for deaf people at meetings

SOUTH DAKOTA Page No.
01466 school district failed to provide adequate services to child with disability

01467 traffic light and fire hydrant placed where they posed obstacle to blind pedestrians and those in
wheelchairs who needed to use curb cuts
01469 inaccessible polling places
01470 inaccessible public transportation
01472 State failed to hire persons with disabilities wit h-out giving a reason

01475 criminal court failed to provide interpretive serv-ices for deaf people
01476 state university denied blind student opportunity to practice teach as required for teaching certifi-cate 74
74 Page 75 76
52 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
TEXAS Page No.

01483 poles obstructed sidewalks; lack of curb cuts; inaccessible public transportation

01503 state teachers' exam required deaf teachers who wanted to teach deaf children to pass section on
speech assessment and listening
01514 medical examination required for renewal of driver' s license despite unblemished 20-year

driving record
01520 inadequate handicapped parking spaces
01521 state vocational rehabilitation agency refused to assist college student who chose to major in politi-cal

science
01522 employee of county human services agency denied handicapped parking place

01526 failure to enforce handicapped parking laws
01527 inaccessible state university transportation sys-tem

01529 denial of driver' s licenses or accommodations to take driver' s test
01531 inaccessible buildings at state university
01536 state hospital sought to discharge mentally ill boy with HIV

01540 special transit system refused to transport man with mental retardation though he could not use
regular bus
01542 deaf man not permitted to take state cosmetology exam with assistance from interpreter 75
75 Page 76 77
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 53
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
01543 blind man not permitted to take state chiropractic exam because he could not read x-rays alone

01549 deaf instructors unable to pass state te achers' exam for teachers of deaf students that assessed
speech and language skills
01551 inadequate handicapped parking and enforcement
UTAH Page No.

01554 state rehabilitation service had never hired deaf counselor or administrator

01556 child denied admission to public school because first-grade teacher refused to teach him
01563 public school failed to implement state review panel findings regarding accommodation for child
with disability
01576 state office for persons with disabilities failed to hire such persons; inaccessible public transporta-tion

01577 state government denied persons with disabilities upper level management jobs
01580 rehabilitation services agency discriminated against employee with reading disability
01581 qualified blind teacher denied job and told that school needed teacher who could also coach foot-ball,
but school hired sighted person who was not a coach

01584 inaccessible public transportation
01586 inaccessible government office 76
76 Page 77 78
54 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
01587 public school teacher refused to give child with learning disability his grades and said he did not

belong in public school
01592 Utah denied mainstream education to child with Down' s Syndrome, though child had been main-streamed

in another State
01595 person with disability involuntarily hospitalized and abused by state university hospital

01613 inaccessible public high school facilities
VERMONT Page No.

01634 zoning board denied use permit for community mental health center

VIRGINIA Page No.
01642 student with learning disability misclassified as mentally retarded and deemed ineligible to take
drama class at public school
01646 inaccessible buildings at state school for blind and deaf youth

01647 failure to enforce handicapped parking laws
01654 inaccessible restrooms in government buildings; failure to enforce handicapped parking laws

01656 state programs for persons with disabilities failed to communicate with deaf people
01660 lack of state institutional care to rehabilitate people with head injuries
01663 inaccessible traffic court
01664 inaccessible public transportation
01667 lack of curb cuts 77
77 Page 78 79
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 55
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
01668 inaccessible public transportation prevented persons with disabilities from voting

01671 state and local government failed to provide inter-pretive services for deaf people at meetings
01674 lack of curb cuts outside county courthouse
01675 deaf people denied access to 911 emergency serv-ices

01676 inaccessible courthouse
01677 inaccessible public transportation
01678 lack of curb cuts and ramp for access to court-house

01679 inaccessible county courthouse
01680 inaccessible courthouse and library
01682 inaccessible high school
01683 lack of curb cuts at city' s main intersection
01684 person in wheelchair received ticket for obstruct-ing street traffic even though sidewalks not acces-sible

01686 inaccessible transportation on state university campus
WASHINGTON Page No.
01690 deaf people required to pay for interpretive serv-ices in court

01692 state government' s lack of TDD deterred deaf people from applying for employment
01694 government office lacked TDD and interpretive services for deaf people 78
78 Page 79 80
56 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA. v. GARRETT
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
01696 state human rights commission lacked staff to pursue case of discrimination against blind person

01706 community college failed to provide interpretive services for deaf students or to assist students
with disabilities in other ways
01716 local sheriff ' s department discontinued TDD
01717 inaccessible restroom at state ferry terminal
WEST VIRGINIA Page No.

01742 inaccessible public transportation
01745 sheriff denied person with disability use of eleva-tor in courthouse

01746 law enforcement agencies lacked ability to com-municate with deaf people
WISCONSIN Page No.
01752 public school recreation program refused to pro-vide interpretive services for deaf child

01755 state university hospital and sheriff ' s office failed to provide TDD' s or trained personnel
01756 inaccessible polling places
01767 person with disabilities denied admission to graduate study at state university

01758 inaccessible city hall
01759 state offices lacked TDD' s and failed to provide material in braille or on tape

01760 department of motor vehicles revoked person with diabetes' driver' s license despite doctor' s report
01761 inaccessible public transportation; lack of curb cuts or ramps 79
79 Page 80
Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2001) 57
Appendix C to opinion of BREYER, J., dissenting
01766 department of motor vehicles tried to revoke license of person who used hand controls in car

01767 inaccessible polling places
01771 blind and deaf people denied equal access to jury service

WYOMING Page No.
01773 State lacked telephone relay system for deaf people

01775 inaccessible state buildings
01777 department of motor vehicles denied driver' s license to person with epilepsy

01780 inaccessible buildings at state university
01781 zoning board denied permit for group home for persons with disabilities

01786 person in wheelchair denied marriage license because courthouse was inaccessible 80

Page Navigation Panel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
80