Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_23-cv-01656/USCOURTS-alnd-7_23-cv-01656-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12117ad - Americans with Disabilities Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KIMBER LEIGH PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 7:23-cv-01656-RDP

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint filed by Defendants the Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama (“the Board”), 

University of Alabama Police Department (“UAPD”), Melissa Bailey (“Bailey”), and Calvin 

Kimbrow (“Kimbrow”) (together, “Defendants”). (Doc. # 20). The Motion has been fully briefed

(Docs. # 20, 26, 27) and is ripe for decision. After careful review, and for the reasons discussed 

below, Defendants’ Motion (Doc. # 20) is due to be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

Since birth, Plaintiff Kimber Leigh Parker (“Plaintiff”) has been diagnosed with Cerebral 

Palsy, a disability which affects “her coordination, muscle control, movement, balance, pelvic 

pain, need to use restroom facilities frequently, and her ability to walk/stand/sit for medium-tolong durations of time.” (Doc. # 19 ¶¶ 37-38). Plaintiff also wears special shoes and uses canes, 

walkers, and sometimes wheelchairs due to her medical condition. (Id. ¶ 39). From October 28, 

2013 until December 6, 2021, Plaintiff was a police communications operator, also known as a 

dispatcher, with UAPD. (Id. ¶¶ 40, 46). Her supervisors at work were Defendants Bailey and 

Kimbrow. (Id. ¶ 52).

FILED

 2024 Dec-10 PM 04:22

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 1 of 18
2

In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff contends that Defendants repeatedly 

discriminated against her during her employment with UAPD by denying her reasonable 

accommodations, insulting her, and ignoring her requests for access to the restroom. (Id. ¶¶ 53-

93). Specifically, she alleges that, at various times during her employment, she was denied 

accommodations for her disability, including use of a telephone headset, parking spaces near her 

work location, and the ability to use the restroom or move from her desk when desired. (Id. ¶¶ 63-

68, 75). Plaintiff also contends that her coworkers made fun of her disability on numerous 

occasions by using slurs and making discriminatory comments (id. ¶¶ 54, 73, 82-87) and that she 

was disciplined for tardiness allegedly caused by her disability. (Id. ¶ 65). Plaintiff alleges that 

although she complained of this disability discrimination from April 2021 through November 2021

(id. ¶ 159), Defendants never investigated her complaints and the harassment directed at her 

continued. (Id. ¶¶ 162-64). Plaintiff further alleges that after she complained about the 

discrimination she suffered, Defendants terminated her employment in December 2021. (Id. ¶¶ 60, 

101-03, 238-40, 293). Plaintiff also contends that following her termination, Defendants have 

prevented her from obtaining new employment. (Id. ¶ 109).

II. Standard of Review

A. Rule 12(b)(1) Standard

When “a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court 

should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits.” 

Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 

F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977)); Harris v. Bd. of Trs. Univ. of Ala., 846 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1230 

(N.D. Ala. 2012). A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a party to assert 

a defense of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss should be 

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 2 of 18
3

granted “only if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his 

claim that would entitle plaintiff to relief.” Harris, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 1232 (quoting Ramming, 

281 F.3d at 161). The burden of proof on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction 

is on the party asserting jurisdiction (here, that is Plaintiff). Id. “A federal district court is under a 

mandatory duty to dismiss a suit over which it has no jurisdiction.” Se. Bank, N.A. v. Gold Coast 

Graphics Grp. Partners, 149 F.R.D. 681, 683 (S.D. Fla. 1993) (citing Stanley v. Central Intel.

Agency, 639 F.2d 1146, 1157 (5th Cir. 1991); Marshall v. Gibson’s Prods., Inc. of Plano, 584 F.2d 

668, 671-72 (5th Cir. 1978)).

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion can present either a facial or a factual attack. Willett v. U.S., 24 F. 

Supp. 3d 1167, 1173 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (citing McElmurray v. Consol. Govt. of Augusta-Richmond 

Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007)). “Facial attacks on the complaint ‘require[] the court 

merely to look and see if [the] plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of subject-matter 

jurisdiction, and the allegations in his complaint are taken as true for the purposes of the motion.’” 

Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs., M.D.’s P.A., 104 F.3d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting 

Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1528-29 (11th Cir. 1990)) (other citations omitted). On the 

other hand, “factual attacks” challenge “the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction in fact, 

irrespective of the pleading, and matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony and affidavits, 

are considered.” Id. In other words, when a party raises a factual attack to subject-matter 

jurisdiction, the court is not obligated to take the allegations in the complaint as true, but may 

consider extrinsic evidence such as affidavits. Odyssey Marine Expl., Inc. v. Unidentified 

Shipwrecked Vessel, 657 F.3d 1159, 1169 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 3 of 18
4

B. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint provide “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

However, the complaint must include enough facts “to raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Pleadings that contain nothing more 

than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” do not meet Rule 8 standards, 

nor do pleadings suffice that are based merely upon “labels and conclusions” or “naked 

assertion[s]” without supporting factual allegations. Id. at 555, 557. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion to dismiss, courts view the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

non-moving party. Watts v. Fla. Int’l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007). 

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although “[t]he 

plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’” the complaint must demonstrate 

“more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A plausible claim for 

relief requires “enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal 

evidence” to support the claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. 

In considering a motion to dismiss, a court should “1) eliminate any allegations in the 

complaint that are merely legal conclusions; and 2) where there are well-pleaded factual 

allegations, ‘assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an 

entitlement to relief.’” Kivisto v. Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, PLC, 413 F. App’x 136, 138 

(11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010)). 

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 4 of 18
5

That task is context specific and, to survive the motion, the allegations must permit the court based 

on its “judicial experience and common sense . . . to infer more than the mere possibility of 

misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. If the court determines that well-pleaded facts, accepted as 

true, do not state a claim that is plausible, the claims are due to be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 570. 

Complaints that tender “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’” will 

not survive a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) 

(alteration in original). Stated differently, the complaint must allege enough facts “to raise a 

reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” supporting a claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 556.

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint asserts eight causes of action: Count I –

Discrimination and Harassment under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (against all 

Defendants); Count II – Intimidation, Interference, and Retaliatory Termination under Section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act (against all Defendants); Count III – Disability Discrimination and 

Failure to Accommodate under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (against 

the Board and UAPD); Count IV – Disability Discrimination/Termination under Title I of the ADA

(against the Board and UAPD); Count V – Interference under Titles I and V of the ADA (against 

the Board and UAPD); Count VI – Retaliation under Titles I and V of the ADA (against all 

Defendants); Count VII – Discriminatory Denial of Access and Failure to Accommodate under 

Title II of the ADA (against all Defendants); and Count VIII – Retaliation, Intimidation, and 

Interference under Titles II and V of the ADA (against all Defendants). Plaintiff seeks both 

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 5 of 18
6

injunctive relief and declaratory relief, as well as back pay, reinstatement, compensatory damages, 

and punitive damages. (Doc. # 19 at 94-95).

In her Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 26), Plaintiff concedes 

that UAPD is not a legal entity and thus must be dismissed as a party. (Id. at 2). Therefore, only 

the claims against the Board and the individuals (Bailey and Kimbrow) are in contest.

Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims asserted against them in the action, except 

those asserted against the Board under the Rehabilitation Act in Counts I and II and those against 

Bailey and Kimbrow in Counts III through VIII. Below, the court addresses the claims Defendants 

seek to dismiss.

A. Plaintiff’s Claims Under the Rehabilitation Act Against the Individual 

Defendants (Counts I and II)

Defendants have only moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under the Rehabilitation Act 

(Counts I and II) against Defendants Bailey and Kimbrow. Defendants argue that the claims should 

be dismissed because they are redundant of those against the Board since the Board is already a 

defendant to the Rehabilitation Act claims. (Doc. # 20 at 13-14). Plaintiff has not responded to 

these arguments. (See Doc. # 26).

The court agrees that these claims against the individual defendants should be dismissed. 

“The Rehabilitation Act prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating 

against individuals with disabilities.” Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trs., 507 F.3d 

1306, 1307 (11th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Rehabilitation Act does not provide for suit against 

individuals. See Pritchard v. S. Co. Servs., 102 F.3d 1118, 1119 n.7 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that 

liability under the Rehabilitation Act lies against an employer, not the individual officers of an 

employer); Garcia v. SUNY Health Scis. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 280 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2001) 

(“[N]either Title II of the ADA nor § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides for individual capacity 

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 6 of 18
7

suits against state officials.”) (collecting cases). Further, “[o]fficial capacity suits are suits against 

state agencies, not against the people through whom agencies act.” Hobbs v. Roberts, 999 F.2d 

1526, 1530 (11th Cir. 1993). “[O]fficial capacity suits represent ‘only another way of pleading an 

action against an entity of which an officer is an agent,’ and a victory against a named individual 

in an official capacity suit is ‘a victory against the entity that employs him.’” Id. (quoting Kentucky 

v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167-68 (1985)); see also McDowell v. Ala. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 2022 

WL 988377, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2022) (dismissing plaintiff’s claims under the 

Rehabilitation Act against individual defendants since plaintiff had already sued the relevant state 

agency).

Where a plaintiff has named a state agency in the same suit, any claim against an officer or 

that agency in his or her official capacity is “duplicative” of the claim against the agency and is 

“due to be dismissed.” Ginwright v. Dep’t of Revenue for Ala., 2013 WL 1187943, at *4 (M.D. 

Ala. Mar. 21, 2013). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims under the Rehabilitation Act (Counts I and II) against 

Bailey and Kimbrow in their official capacities are due to be dismissed since Plaintiff has also 

brought suit against the Board. 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims Under the ADA Against the Board (Counts III-VII)

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claims against the Board under Rule 12(b)(1) 

because they contend that the Board is protected by sovereign immunity, and therefore the court 

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over these claims. (See Doc. # 20 at 4) (citing Thomas v. U.S. 

Postal Serv., 364 F. App’x 600, 601 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[A] dismissal on sovereign immunity 

grounds should be pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because no subject-matter jurisdiction exists.”)).

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 7 of 18
8

The Eleventh Amendment provides:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit 

in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by 

Citizens of another State, by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

U.S. Const. amend. XI. “While the text of the Eleventh Amendment ‘applies only to suits against 

a State by citizens of another State,’ the Supreme Court has construed the Eleventh Amendment 

to apply to suits initiated by citizens against their own States.” Dupree v. Owens, 92 F.4th 999, 

1005 (11th Cir. 2024) (quoting Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001)).

The Eleventh Amendment applies in the instant case because state universities and the boards that 

govern them are state agencies for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Page v. Hicks, 

773 F. App’x 514, 518 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[S]tate universities, such as UAB are ‘arms of the state’ 

and thus are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Pouyeh v. UAB Dep’t of 

Ophthalmology, 625 F. App’x 495, 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (“The Board [of Trustees of the University 

of Alabama] is a state agency.”) (citing Harden v. Adams, 760 F.2d 1158, 1163-64 (11th Cir. 1985) 

(holding that Alabama’s state university boards are state agencies for purposes of the Eleventh 

Amendment).

“The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting States may not 

be sued by private individuals in federal court.” Garrett, 531 U.S. at 363. However, the Eleventh 

Amendment does not provide an absolute bar for lawsuits brought against a state or its agencies. 

The Supreme Court has outlined three situations where there is a “surrender” of Eleventh 

Amendment sovereign immunity: 

(1) when a state waives its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and consents 

to suit in federal court; (2) when Congress, acting pursuant to § 5 of the Fourteenth 

Amendment, abrogates a state’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity by 

expressing an unequivocal intent to do so; and (3) when a state official is sued for 

prospective injunctive relief to end a continuing violation of federal law. 

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 8 of 18
9

Harbert Intern., Inc. v. James, 157 F.3d 1271, 1278 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). While 

Plaintiff argues in her Second Amended Complaint that Defendants have waived their immunity 

by accepting federal funds, this argument misses the mark. Both the Supreme Court and the 

Eleventh Circuit have held that accepting federal funding does not constitute a waiver of Eleventh 

Amendment immunity for ADA claims. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 246-47 

(1985) (“[T]he mere receipt of federal funds cannot establish that a State has consented to suit in 

federal court.”); Rizo v. Ala. Dep’t of Hum. Res., 228 F. App’x 832, 835 (11th Cir. 2007). Because 

the Board is not a state official, the third situation does not apply either. (However, the court 

discusses it below in its analysis regarding Defendants Bailey and Kimbrow). Therefore, related 

to the claims brought against the Board, the only dispute is whether the second situation applies. 

See James, 157 F.3d at 1278 (“(2) when Congress, acting pursuant to § 5 of the Fourteenth 

Amendment, abrogates a state’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity by expressing an 

unequivocal intent to do so . . . .”).

The ADA specifically provides: “A state shall not be immune under the eleventh 

amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court of 

competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 12202. Although Congress has 

expressed an intent to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, it also must act pursuant to a valid 

grant of congressional authority, which is found in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bd. 

of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001). “Under Section 5, Congress may (1) 

create a private right of action against the State for actual constitutional violations or (2) respond 

to ‘a pattern of discrimination by the States’ by passing legislation to remedy and deter Fourteenth 

Amendment violations.” Dupree, 92 F.4th at 1006 (quoting Garrett, 531 U.S. at 365). In other 

words, “Congress may enact so-called prophylactic legislation that proscribes facially 

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 9 of 18
10

constitutional conduct, in order to prevent and deter unconstitutional conduct.” Nev. Dep’t of Hum.

Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 721-22 (2003).

However, Congress’s ability to abrogate state sovereign immunity “is cabined, . . . by a 

necessity of balancing ‘congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or 

remedied and the means adopted to that end.’” Dupree, 92 F.4th at 1006 (quoting City of Boerne 

v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 520 (1997)). “Whether a congressional Act passed under § 5 can impose 

monetary liability upon States requires an assessment of both the ‘evil or wrong that Congress 

intended to remedy,’ and the means Congress adopted to address that evil.” Coleman v. Ct. of 

Appeals of Md., 566 U.S. 30, 36 (2012) (quoting City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 520) (internal citation 

and quotations omitted). 

Regarding the ADA, courts employ a three-step inquiry to determine whether Congress’s

response is congruent and proportional: “(1) identify which right Congress sought to enforce when 

it enacted the ADA; (2) examine whether a demonstrated record of unconstitutional discrimination 

existed to support Congress’s decision that preventative legislation was warranted; and (3) 

determine whether the ADA provision at issue is an appropriate response to the history of 

mistreatment.” Dupree, 92 F.4th at 1006 (citing Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Fla., 980 F.3d 763, 771 

(11th Cir. 2020)). This is the lens through which the court must assess whether the Board is 

immune from claims arising under Titles I, II, and V of the ADA. 

i. Title I of the ADA (Counts III-VI)

Title I of the ADA prohibits certain employers, including state employers, from 

“discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual 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 

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 10 of 18
11

employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). This section of the ADA 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 an 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).

In Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, the Supreme Court held that 

the Eleventh Amendment bars private individuals from filing suit against states in federal court 

under Title I of the ADA. 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001). The Court found that Title I of the ADA 

exceeded Congress’s Section 5 authority to proscribe constitutional conduct to remedy and deter 

Fourteenth Amendment violations for two reasons: “(1) Title I’s broad sweep was not sufficiently 

targeted to remedy or prevent unconstitutional discrimination in public employment; and (2) 

Congress failed to identify a pattern of irrational state-employment discrimination against the 

disabled.” Leverette v. Ala. Revenue Dep’t, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (citing Garrett, 

531 U.S. at 372-74). Although Congress found a general pattern of discrimination aimed at the 

disabled, “the great majority of these incidents do not deal with the activities of the States.” 

Garrett, 531 U.S. at 369 (emphasis added). Because the Court found that there was no pattern of 

unconstitutional employment discrimination by the states, it held that Title I was not a valid 

exercise of Congress’s Section 5 power. For this reason, Title I did not validly abrogate the Board’s 

Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Therefore, it is clear that the Board is immune from Plaintiff’s claims under Title I of the 

ADA (Counts III-VI). Thus, these claims against the Board are due to be dismissed.

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 11 of 18
12

ii. Title II of the ADA (Counts VII and VIII)

Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason 

of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, 

programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 

U.S.C. § 12132. “Circuits are split on whether Title II applies to disability discrimination in public 

employment, with some holding that it does not apply in this context, leaving Title I as the 

exclusive ADA remedy for claims of disability discrimination in both public and private 

employment.” Culverhouse v. S. Union Cmty. Coll., 2021 WL 2417154, at *5 (M.D. Ala. June 14, 

2021) (citing Brumfield v. City of Chicago, 735 F.3d 619, 622 (7th Cir. 2013); Elwell v. Okla. Ex 

rel. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Okla., 693 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2012); Zimmerman v. Or. Dep’t 

of Just., 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999)). However, the Eleventh Circuit has held that Title II 

encompasses employment discrimination by public entities. Bledsoe v. Palm Beach Cnty. Soil &

Water Conservation Dist., 133 F.3d 816, 820 (11th Cir. 1998).

In Garrett, the Supreme Court left open the question of whether Congress abrogated 

Eleventh Amendment immunity under Title II claims. “[I]t chose not to address whether 

individuals ‘may sue their state employers for damages under Title II of the ADA.’” Leverette, 

453 F. Supp. 2d at 1344 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (citing Garrett, 531 U.S. at 360 n.1). However, the 

Court later held in United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) that “Title II validly abrogates 

sovereign immunity when it proscribes conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment.” 

Leverette, 453 F. Supp. 2d at 1344. But, our circuit “it left to the lower courts to determine, on a 

case-by-case basis, the much thornier question of whether conduct that violates Title II but does 

not violate the Fourteenth Amendment is nevertheless valid under Congress’s § 5 enforcement 

power.” Id. (citing Georgia, 546 U.S. at 882).

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 12 of 18
13

In her Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 26), Plaintiff relies on the 

Supreme Court’s holding in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) and argues that Title II 

abrogates sovereign immunity “for the purpose of effectuating Congress’s intent of combating 

discrimination in the administration of public programs and services.” (See Doc. # 26 at 5 (citing 

Lane, 541 U.S. at 522-23)). However, Lane is inapposite here. In Lane, the Supreme Court took 

an as-applied approach to Title II claims – concluding that abrogation of Eleventh Amendment 

immunity under Title II is a context-specific question. 541 U.S. at 516-17. Specifically, the Lane 

Court held that Title II claims regarding access to the courts for the disabled were not barred by 

the Eleventh Amendment. Id. Therefore, Lane did not involve employment discrimination and its 

holding was “narrowly crafted and limited to cases implicating the accessibility of judicial 

services.” Clifton v. Ga. Merit Sys., 478 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1367 (N.D. Ga. 2007). As Defendants 

correctly state in their reply brief, “[t]he Lane Court specifically addressed Title II’s application to 

access to the court system, not any other context.” (Doc. # 27 at 4 (citing Lane, 541 U.S. at 530-

31)); see also Dupree, 92 F.4th at 1007 (“[T]he patterns addressed in Lane do not relate to 

employment discrimination.”). Based on the Court’s as-applied analysis in Lane, abrogation of 

Eleventh Amendment immunity under Title II is a context-specific question.

Although neither the Supreme Court nor the Eleventh Circuit have ruled on whether 

employment discrimination claims under Title II are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, many 

district courts in the Eleventh Circuit have. For example, the district court in Leverette v. Alabama 

Revenue Department held that “because, with Title I, Congress did not validly abrogate sovereign

immunity with regard to state-employment discrimination against the disabled, Congress did not 

do so with Title II either.” 453 F. Supp. 2d at 1345. In support of its holding, the court explained 

that “it would be illogical to find that history of state discrimination against the disabled in 

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 13 of 18
14

employment is insufficient to permit Congress to enact Title I, but that same history is somehow 

sufficient to allow Congress to fashion Title II.” Id. Other district courts have adopted this same 

reasoning. See, e.g., Clifton v. Ga. Merit Sys., 478 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (“Congress 

did not validly abrogate sovereign immunity with regard to state employment discrimination 

actions under Title II.”); Williamson v. Ga. Dep’t of Hum. Res. & Ga. Reg’l Hosp., 150 F. Supp. 

2d 1375, 1381 (S.D. Ga. 2001) (“Because Congress failed to adequately identify a pattern of 

irrational State conduct when it enacted Title II, it improperly abrogated the States’ Eleventh 

Amendment immunity.”). The court agrees with the reasoning in Clifton: “In sum, a plaintiff 

should not be permitted to circumvent the holding of Garrett immunizing states from employment 

discrimination claims brought pursuant to Title I of the ADA by commencing suit under Title II, 

a subchapter which lacks any of the procedural protections afforded employers under Title I.” 478 

F. Supp. 2d at 1368.

Based on these cases, the court concludes that the Board is also immune from Plaintiff’s 

claims under Title II of the ADA (Counts VII and VIII).

iii. Title V of the ADA (Counts V, VI, and VIII)

“A retaliation claim under Title V is predicated on an individual suffering a harm [after]

asserting rights under a separate ADA provision.” Dupree, 92 F.4th at 1007. Here, Plaintiff brings 

three different claims involving Title V. In her claims asserted in Counts V, VI, and VIII. Under 

Counts V and VI, the separate ADA provision coupled with Title V is Title I, and with respect to 

her claim asserted in Count VIII, the separate ADA provision is Title II.

Plaintiff’s claims under Title I and Title V (Counts V and VI) can be quickly disposed of. 

In Dupree v. Owens, the Eleventh Circuit held that sovereign immunity applies to Title V claims 

when brought in conjunction with Title I claims. 92 F.4th at 999. In support of its holding, the 

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 14 of 18
15

Eleventh Circuit found that there was no evidence of a pattern of retaliation or disability 

discrimination by the states. Id. Because there was no evidence of such pattern, the court concluded 

that “Title V cannot serve as a congruent and proportional remedy when paired with a Title I 

claim.” Id. at 1007. The Eleventh Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Garrett, which 

found that sovereign immunity was not abrogated under Title I. See id. (“Garrett demonstrated 

that Title I was not a valid exercise of Congress’ Section 5 power because of the lack of evidence 

regarding a pattern of unconstitutional employment discrimination by the States.”) (citing Garrett, 

531 U.S. at 374). As the Eleventh Circuit explained, “when the underlying provision – here, Title 

I – does not allow a plaintiff to assert a claim against the State, it logically follows that a Title V 

claim that is based on the exercise of a right arising only from Title I cannot be levied against the 

State.” Id. Because Dupree clearly states that sovereign immunity is not abrogated when Title V 

claims are paired with Title I claims, Plaintiff’s Counts V and VII against the Board are due to be 

dismissed.

The claim asserted in Count VIII is more nuanced because it involves a Title II and Title 

V claim, which the Eleventh Circuit did not address in Dupree. And, as stated above, neither the 

Supreme Court nor the Eleventh Circuit have spoken on the applicability of Eleventh Amendment 

immunity to employment discrimination claims under Title II. Therefore, this appears to be a 

question of first impression. Based on the analyses in Garrett, Dupree, and the district court cases 

addressing Title II employment discrimination claims, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim 

arising under Titles II and V (Count VIII) should also be dismissed because it is barred by the 

Eleventh Amendment. 

Again, in Dupree, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that because sovereign immunity was 

not abrogated under Title I (pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Garrett), then it follows

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 15 of 18
16

that sovereign immunity was also not abrogated under a Title V claim which relied on a Title I 

claim. 92 F.4th at 1007. Consistent with this reasoning, because the court has concluded that

sovereign immunity is not abrogated under a Title II claim, then the court now concludes that 

sovereign immunity is also not abrogated under a Title V claim that relies on a Title II claim.

Therefore, Count VIII is due to be dismissed.

iv. Neither Money Damages nor Injunctive Relief are Recoverable Against 

the Board

To be clear, the Board is immune from both monetary damages and injunctive relief under 

Titles I, II, and V of the ADA. In her Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 

26), Plaintiff contends, “[w]hile monetary damages may not be recoverable, the Courts have been 

clear that injunctive relief is.” (Id. at 3). However, this characterization misses the mark. In Garrett, 

the Supreme Court specifically answered the question of whether states could be sued in federal 

court for money damages under the ADA. The Court did not consider injunctive relief because 

respondents were only seeking money damages under Title I. Garrett, 531 U.S. at 356. Plaintiff 

appears to rely on a footnote in Garrett in asserting that injunctive relief may be sought against 

the Board. The footnote states “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 by 

private individuals in actions for injunctive relief under Ex Parte Young.” 531 U.S. at 374 n.9. 

Plaintiff, however, incorrectly reads this footnote. Private individuals may only seek injunctive 

relief under Ex Parte Young against individual state officers in their official capacities. The Ex 

Parte Young exception does not apply to the Board, which is a state entity and not a state officer.

See Edwards v. Learfield Commc’ns, LLC, 687 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 1303 (N.D. Fla. 2023) (“Ex 

Parte Young’s narrow exception to immunity ‘has no application in suits against the States and 

their agencies, which are barred regardless of the relief sought.’”) (quoting P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer 

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 16 of 18
17

Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993)) (internal citation omitted). The Board is

thus immune from suit for both monetary damages and injunctive relief under Titles I, II, and V 

of the ADA.

C. Plaintiff’s Claims under the ADA Against Bailey and Kimbrow (Counts VIVIII)

As discussed above, one of the three situations where Eleventh Amendment immunity is 

“surrendered” is when a state official is sued for prospective injunctive relief to end a continuing 

violation of federal law. Harbert Intern., Inc. v. James, 157 F.3d 1271, 1278 (11th Cir. 1998) 

(citations omitted). Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Parte Young, a plaintiff challenging

a state official’s action on federal grounds may seek prospective injunctive relief. 209 U.S. 123

(1908). See also Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Fla., 980 F.3d 763 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Pennhurst 

State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 102-03 (1984)). Again, as the Supreme Court 

explained in Garrett, the “ADA still prescribes standards applicable to the States. Those standards 

can be enforced by . . . private individuals in actions for injunctive relief under Ex Parte Young.” 

531 U.S. at 374 n.9.

Defendants concede in their response that claims for injunctive relief may be brought 

against Bailey and Kimbrow in their official capacities pursuant to the doctrine set out in Ex Parte 

Young. (Doc. # 27 at 1). However, they contend that Plaintiff may only seek prospective injunctive 

relief from Bailey and Kimbrow. The court agrees. “The Ex Parte Young exception permits 

lawsuits against state officers that seek prospective equitable relief to end continuing legal 

violations, though crucially, it does not extend to claims for retrospective relief.” Culverhouse v. 

S. Union Cmty. Coll., 2021 WL 2417154, at *3 (M.D. Ala. June 14, 2021) (citing Edelman v. 

Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 664-66, 668 (1974)). Moreover, “[t]he ADA provides only prospective 

injunctive relief for violations, and does not allow for damages for past discrimination or past 

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 17 of 18
18

remedied violations.” Norkunas v. Seahorse NB, LLC, 444 F. App’x 412, 416 (11th Cir. 2011) 

(citing 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1)). “If the prospective relief sought is ‘measured in terms of a 

monetary loss resulting from a past breach of a legal duty,’ it is the functional equivalent of money 

damages and Ex Parte Young does not apply.” Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of Fla. 

Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1220 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting Edelman, 415 

U.S. at 669). Therefore, Plaintiff may only seek prospective injunctive relief as it applies to her 

ADA claims against Defendants Bailey and Kimbrow.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 20) is due to be 

granted in part and denied in part. An order consistent with this memorandum opinion will be 

entered contemporaneously. 

DONE and ORDERED this December 10, 2024.

_________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:23-cv-01656-RDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 18 of 18