Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/284/251/495452/
Timestamp: 2013-12-10 10:10:56
Document Index: 703937363

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 10', '§ 12112', '§ 12133', '§ 794', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 12201']

284 F.3d 251: Valjeanne Currie, et al., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Group Insurance Commission, et al., Defendants, Appellees :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Federal Case Law > US Courts of Appeals Cases > F.3d > Volume 284 > 284 F.3d 251 - Valjeanne Currie, et al., Plaintiff, ...	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
284 F.3d 251: Valjeanne Currie, et al., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Group Insurance Commission, et al., Defendants, AppelleesUnited States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 284 F.3d 251
The GIC is a state agency, established by state law, to provide state employees with medical, dental, life, and disability insurance. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32A, §§ 1-4, 10D (2000). The long-term disability insurance (LTD) program, which is the policy Currie challenges, provides income assistance to state employees who become disabled and cannot work. The governing statute charges the GIC with establishing a disability insurance plan "on such terms and conditions as it deems to be in the best interest of the commonwealth and its employees." Id. § 10D. The plan is required to be self-supporting; by statute, the Commonwealth may make no contribution to the support of the plan. Id. The plan is also voluntary &#x2014; state employees may choose whether or not they wish to participate. Participating employees pay premiums during the course of their employment. Massachusetts state employees are not permitted to participate in the federal social security system, and so Currie does not have access to the federally sponsored social security net available to most Americans.
The answer is not so plain. While Title I's language clearly covers employment discrimination, and public employers are not exempted from the definition of a covered entity, Title I says nothing about it being an exclusive remedy or avenue for suit. 42 U.S.C. § 12112. It is not unheard of for individuals to have overlapping rights, even within one Act.4 Here, the two Titles grant substantively different rights &#x2014; for instance, while Title I gives successful plaintiffs the opportunity to obtain compensatory and punitive damages, there is no such right under Title II. Id. § 12133 (referencing 29 U.S.C. § 794a). Nor is the language of Title II clear on this question. The words "public services, programs, or activities" do not necessarily exclude employment,5 and the "subjected to discrimination" clause may broaden the scope of coverage further. Moreover, the Department of Justice has promulgated a regulation stating that Title II does cover employment practices. 28 C.F.R. § 35.140 (2001); see also 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, App. A (2001) (elaborating on § 35.140). This regulation is entitled to deference under the Chevron doctrine if the statutory language is unclear. Chevron U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). In addition, Currie cites to legislative history which she says demonstrates that Congress intended Title II to cover employment and to function in the same manner as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Even beyond the difficult statutory interpretation question of whether Title II covers employment, there is a second complicated statutory question &#x2014; whether the "safe harbor" provision of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12201(c)(2), immunizes the LTD. The safe harbor provision states that the ADA shall not be construed as prohibiting a covered organization "from establishing, sponsoring, observing or administering the terms of a bona fide benefit plan that are based on underwriting risks, classifying risks, or administering such risks that are based on or not inconsistent with State law." Id.
Before oral argument in this case, Currie filed a motion with this court requesting a stay i