Tennessee in role of ADA spoiler

Guest columnist Jim Ward is president of the National Coalition for
Disability Rights, based in Washington.
January 7, 2004

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a case that could
determine whether Tennessee officials will be allowed to block the doors
Congress meant to open for people who have disabilities.
Instead of directing the state to bring Tennessee's county courthouses
into compliance with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
Atty. Gen. Paul Summers has chosen to fight a lower-court ruling and
challenge the constitutionality of the ADA.









On Jan. 13, the court will hear arguments in Tennessee's appeal of a
lower-court ruling that allowed 1998 lawsuits filed by two people to go
forward. Both individuals had been
denied wheelchair access to courtrooms or other facilities in county
courthouses. At issue in the lawsuits is whether Congress had the
authority to require states to pay monetary damages for violations of
Title II of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination in the provision of
public services.
A ruling in favor of Tennessee's position that the states are protected
from such lawsuits would deliver a cruel blow to the rights and
opportunities safeguarded by the 1990 ADA.
The state will base its legal arguments at the Supreme Court on the
tainted doctrine of states' rights under the 11th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. Although the scope of that amendment has expanded over the
years, it originally was written to protect states from lawsuits "by
citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign
state."
But it was two Tennesseans who brought the lawsuits that challenged the
state's enforcement of courthouse access for disabled people.
One of them is George Lane, a Benton, Tenn., resident who lost a leg in an
auto accident in the mid-1990s. When he was summoned to appear in the Polk
County Courthouse as a defendant in a criminal case, Lane was forced to
crawl up two flights of stairs to the courtroom because the courthouse
lacked an elevator or other ADA-required accommodations.
When a second hearing was scheduled, Lane came to the courthouse and sent
word to the judge that he was there, but he refused to crawl or be carried
up the stairs again. He filed his lawsuit after officials arrested him for
failing to appear in court.
Beverly Jones of Lafayette, Tenn., is a court reporter who relies on a
wheelchair. She filed suit after several requests for wheelchair
accommodations in four county courthouses were ignored and she was forced
to allow a judge to carry her into a courthouse restroom.
The Supreme Court cannot erase the lingering memory of such degrading
incidents, but it can help ensure that other Americans - wherever they
live - can perform their jobs and attend court proceedings without
enduring similar indignities.
A Supreme Court decision three years ago in another case said state
employees cannot use the ADA to seek damages for discrimination in the
workplace. The 5-4 vote in that case, University of Alabama Board of
Trustees vs. Garrett, reveals that the high court is deeply divided on the
issue, but if Tennessee's legal challenge succeeds, it will strike another
major blow to the law.
As the nine justices weigh the arguments in the Tennessee case, they must
remember that laws are much more than words. Fundamentally, laws are about
people.
In deciding to appeal to the Supreme Court, state officials are ignoring
the needs of their disability community and the views of the country. Last
summer a Harris poll revealed that 88 percent of Americans support the
ADA's goal of making public places more accessible to people with
disabilities.
Sadly, the Supreme Court case puts Tennessee on a collision course with
the ADA and the millions of people in all 50 states whose lives have been
enriched by the law. It would be tragic if Tennessee's proud legacy were
tarnished by being known as the state that turned back the clock on this
progress.