Gibson v. Arkansas Dept. of Correction

• Citation: 265 F.3d 718
• Decision Date: 13 June 2001
• Docket Number: 01-1114,Nos. 01-1038,s. 01-1038
• Parties: (8th Cir. 2001) LINDA R. GIBSON; LARRY DOUGLAS BROWN APPELLANTS, v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; THOMAS MARS APPELLEES. Submitted:
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Page 718

265 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2001)

LINDA R. GIBSON; LARRY DOUGLAS BROWN APPELLANTS, v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; THOMAS MARS APPELLEES.

Nos. 01-1038, 01-1114

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Submitted: June 13, 2001

Filed: September 12, 2001

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied: October 16, 2001

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Before Loken, Morris Sheppard Arnold, and Hall,¹ Circuit Judges.

Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Circuit Judge.

This consolidated appeal requires us to determine whether state officials can be sued in their official capacity for injunctive relief under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Linda Gibson works for the Arkansas Department of Correction. She alleges that her employer discriminated against her because of an alleged disability arising from an on-the-job injury. Larry Brown suffered back injuries while working for the Arkansas State Police. He is suing his former employer for failure to accommodate his alleged disability. Neither district court examined the merits of either case, instead concluding that Congress did not intend for such suits when it created the ADA's remedial scheme. In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 121 S. Ct. 955 (2001), we conclude that the ADA's remedial scheme is not comprehensive and reverse.

I.

In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56 (1908), the Supreme Court held that when a state official acts in violation of the Constitution or federal law, he is acting ultra vires and is no longer entitled to the State's immunity from suit. In effect, Ex parte Young creates a legal fiction: a state official stops being a state official when he does something contrary to federal law. The Ex parte Young doctrine permits only prospective injunctive relief; no money damages are available. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 664, 667-68 (1974).

In Garrett, the Supreme Court held that state employees could not sue their employers for money damages under the ADA; the states and their agencies are immune to such suits under the Eleventh Amendment. See Garrett, 121 S. Ct. at 967-68. But the Court did not hold the same for suits against individual defendants in their "official" state capacities. In fact, even though it was not part of the holding of the case, the Court indicated that individuals could sue state officials for injunctive relief under the ADA:

Our holding here that Congress did not validly abrogate the States' sovereign immunity from suit by private individuals for money damages under Title I does not mean that persons with disabilities have no federal recourse against discrimination. Title I of the ADA still prescribes standards applicable to the States. Those standards can be enforced by the United States in actions for money damages, as well as private individuals in actions for injunctive relief under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714 (1908). In addition, state laws protecting the rights of persons with disabilities in employment and other aspects of life provide independent avenues of redress.

Id. at 968 n.9.

The appellees contend that the above statement is mere dictum and this court should rule that suits under Ex parte Young are not available under the ADA. They argue that the statement conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.² We disagree.

First, the Garrett footnote is not contrary to Supreme Court precedent. Plaintiffs seek only prospective injunctive relief. The Supreme Court recently explained that when the relief sought is prospective injunctive relief, the request "is ordinarily sufficient to invoke the Young fiction." Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261, 281 (1997). The Eleventh Amendment is not a bar to "federal jurisdiction over a suit against a state official when that suit seeks only prospective injunctive relief in order to 'end a continuing violation of federal law.'" Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996).

Second, the main case relied on by the State, Seminole Tribe, dealt with a Congressional act markedly different from the ADA: the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"). In Seminole Tribe, an Indian tribe sued the governor of Florida under IGRA. The Supreme Court held that Ex parte Young did not apply to the tribe's suit against the governor because Congress did not intend to authorize federal jurisdiction under Ex parte Young to enforce IGRA. See Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 75 n.17 & 76.

IGRA provides that certain forms of gaming can be conducted on Indian lands only if the gaming complies with a compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1). Upon receiving a request from the Indian tribe to enter into such a compact, "the State shall negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith to enter into such a compact." 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A). IGRA authorizes the tribe to sue the State in federal district court if the State does negotiate, but the district court's remedial authority is severely limited. If the court determines that the State failed to negotiate in good faith, it can only "order the State and Indian Tribe to conclude such a compact within a 60-day period." If the State still fails to negotiate, the district court can only order the appointment of a mediator. Finally, if the mediator cannot bring the sides to an agreement, IGRA requires the mediator to inform the Secretary of the Interior, who is empowered to authorize gaming even in the absence of a compact. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B).

In holding that the Ex parte Young doctrine was not available to enforce IGRA, the Supreme Court explained: "[W]here Congress has prescribed a detailed remedial scheme for the enforcement against a State of a statutorily created right, a court should hesitate before casting aside those limitations and permitting an action against a state officer based upon Ex parte Young." Id. at 74, 116 S.Ct. 1114. As evidence of this remedial scheme that prevented the application of Ex parte Young, the Court cited the statute's limiting of the district court's remedial authority to: 1) ordering the State and the tribe to negotiate a compact within 60 days; 2) if that fails, requiring the parties to submit proposals to a mediator. See id. The Court opined that allowing actions against an official under Ex parte Young would greatly expand the remedial powers available, allowing a district court to issue contempt sanctions against state officials that Congress did not intend to authorize. See id. at 75, 116 S.Ct. 1114. We have already commented that Seminole Tribe holds the Ex parte Young doctrine inapplicable in IGRA cases because IGRA revealed a Congressional intent to prescribe a limited remedial scheme. See Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska v. State of Nebraska, 121 F.3d 427, 432 (8th Cir. 1997).

There are significant differences between the ADA and IGRA that make use of the Ex parte Young doctrine appropriate for one and not for the other. First, there are several enforcement mechanisms for Titles I and II of the ADA. The ADA makes all the remedies of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applicable to ADA Title I plaintiffs. See 1990 U.S.C.A.A.N. 445, 472. This means that remedies such as equitable orders and contempt proceedings are possible. Equitable relief such as injunctions are also available to enforce ADA rights. Thus, the...