U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Garrett Decision: Whither the ADA and Corrections?

NCJ Number
191586
Journal
Corrections Today Volume: 63 Issue: 5 Dated: August 2001 Pages: 24-30
Author(s)
Stanley E. Adelman
Date Published
August 2001
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This article discusses alleged violations of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by State correctional agencies.
Abstract
ADA was signed into law and went into effect January 26, 1992. It is a civil rights law designed to allow disabled people to fully participate in society. It prohibits discrimination in public and private sector employment (Title I), public services, including transportation (Title II), public accommodations, and commercial facilities (Title III), and telecommunications (Title IV). Under ADA, a person is disabled if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment. ADA requires “public entities” to eliminate barriers that exclude disabled people from employment, services and programs, buildings, and transportation systems. Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations require that all public agencies, including prisons, perform a self-evaluation for ADA compliance and devise a plan for modifying non-compliant services, policies, and practices. The principal focus of the regulations is on program accessibility rather than on retrofitting to remove architectural barriers. Also under DOJ, all new construction of, and alterations to, prisons must comply with ADA requirements. In the case of Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that State employees may not sue the State over its alleged failure to comply with Title I of ADA. In reaching its decision, the Court held unconstitutional the ADA provision that expressly permitted employee damage suits against States. This case only invalidates the provision of ADA that allowed disabled people to sue States for money damages for violations of Title I of ADA, but leaves the substance of ADA intact and enforceable against the States and State criminal justice agencies. 18 endnotes