Source: https://m.openjurist.org/170/f3d/1169
Timestamp: 2020-01-19 14:13:04
Document Index: 255669702

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12132', '§ 12132', '§ 12131', '§ 12132', '§ 12132', '§ 12132', '§ 12133', '§ 794', '§ 794', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 12132', '§ 12131', '§ 504', '§ 794', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 794', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 701', '§ 504', 'art:\n20', '§ 1681', '§ 794', '§ 12132', '§ 12132', '§ 12132', '§ 12132', '§ 12132']

170 F. 3d 1169 - Zimmerman v. Oregon Department of Justice
170 F3d 1169 Zimmerman v. Oregon Department of Justice
170 F.3d 1169
9 A.D. Cases 215, 15 NDLR P 2, 99
Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1954,
1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2533
Scot L. ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
State of OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellee.
We conclude, then, that the wording of the first clause does not suggest that Congress intended for Title II to apply to employment.2 Almost all other courts have, at least implicitly, adopted the foregoing interpretation.3 In particular, although they have held that Title II applies to employment, they have not done so because of the wording of the first clause. Instead, the courts that have considered that wording have held that it does not apply to employment. See, e.g., Decker, 970 F.Supp. at 578 (so holding). See also Larramendy v. San Mateo County Transit Dist., No. 97-3436, 1998 WL 456283, at * 3 n. 1 (N.D.Cal. July 30, 1998) (holding that Title II does not apply to the plaintiff's employment action, because the "plaintiff is not claiming that he was trying to avail himself of a public service, such as use of a public bus, administered by the District; instead, he is claiming that the District, as employer, violated his rights as an employee"); Iskander v. Rodeo Sanitary Dist., No. C-94 0479-SC, 1995 WL 56578, at * 9 (N.D.Cal. Feb.7, 1995) ("This section concerns the rendering of services to the public by public entities, i.e., public transportation. Title II is inapplicable to the District's composition of employees.") (citation and footnote omitted), aff'd on other grounds, 121 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.1997) (Table).
Some courts have held that the second clause is entirely independent from the first and that it prohibits any form of discrimination by a public entity. See Bledsoe v. Palm Beach County Soil & Water Conservation Dist., 133 F.3d 816, 822 (11th Cir.) ("[T]he language of Title II's antidiscrimination provision does not limit the ADA's coverage to conduct that occurs in the 'programs, services, or activities,' of [a public entity]. Rather, it is a catch-all phrase that prohibits all discrimination by a public entity, regardless of the context.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 72, 142 L.Ed.2d 57 (1998); Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 44-45 (2d Cir.1997) (same) (not an employment action). See also Alberti v. City & County of San Francisco Sheriff's Dep't, 32 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1169 (N.D.Cal.1998) ("The statute's construction evinces congressional intent to keep the term 'or be subject to such discrimination' broad. Although Congress did not insert the word 'employment' it could be read to include all forms of discrimination...."); Downs v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 13 F.Supp.2d 130, 135 (D.Mass.1998) ("The [defendant] focuses exclusively on the access to the 'services, programs, or activities' of public entities guaranteed by the first prong of this section, and disregards the general prohibition on discrimination provided by the second prong.").
Initially, the placement of the second clause in the single sentence that forms 42 U.S.C. § 12132 suggests that the second clause relates back to the same "services, programs, or activities" of a public entity that the first clause covers. Moreover, of course, Title II pertains to "Public Services." See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 1226, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) ("[T]he title of a statute and the heading of a section are tools available for the resolution of a doubt about the meaning of a statute.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Although placement of the second clause and the heading of the section do not, by themselves, unambiguously indicate Congress' intent, the remainder of Title II does.
To prevail on a Title II claim, including a claim under the second clause, a plaintiff must prove that he or she is a "qualified individual with a disability." See 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (so providing); Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir.1997) ("To prove a public program or service violates Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show ... [that] he is a 'qualified individual with a disability.' "), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 423, 139 L.Ed.2d 324 (1997). Title II defines that requirement:
42 U.S.C. § 12131(2) (emphasis added). A plaintiff is not "qualified" to bring any Title II claim unless he or she "meets the essential eligibility requirements" of a government service, program, or activity provided by a public entity. The second clause of § 12132 therefore must relate to a government service, program, or activity; otherwise a plaintiff is not "qualified" to bring a claim under that clause. Using the ordinary meaning of the phrase emphasized above, we return to what we said about the first clause of § 12132. Obtaining or retaining a job is not "the receipt of services," nor is employment a "program[ ] or activit[y] provided by a public entity." Again, the "action" words in the statute assume a relationship between a public entity, on the one hand, and a member of the public, on the other. The former provides an output that the latter participates in or receives.
This court already has hinted at the foregoing interpretation of the second clause. In Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir.1996), this court held that Congress' placement of the word "or" between the two clauses in 42 U.S.C. § 12132 indicates its intent to prohibit two things: "Due to the insertion of 'or' between exclusion from/denial of benefits on the one hand and discrimination by a public entity on the other, we conclude Congress intended to prohibit two different phenomena." Id. at 1483. In particular, Congress intended for the second clause to prohibit intentional discrimination, whereas it intended for the first clause to prohibit disparate treatment of the disabled. See id. ("Congress intended to prohibit outright discrimination, as well as those forms of discrimination which deny disabled persons public services disproportionately due to their disability.").
Even were the wording of Title II ambiguous, by itself, the structure of the ADA as a whole unambiguously demonstrates that Congress did not intend for Title II to apply to employment. See National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U.S. 407, 417, 112 S.Ct. 1394, 118 L.Ed.2d 52 (1992) ("In ascertaining whether the agency's interpretation is a permissible construction of the language, a court must look to the structure and language of the statute as a whole.").
Congress thus crafted extensive employment-specific provisions in Title I. It omitted any mention of employment in Title II. In that circumstance, we must give effect to the different wording and different focus of the two provisions. See Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983) ("[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). See also Patterson, 35 F.Supp.2d 1103, at 1109 (relying, in part, on the different definitions of "qualified individual with a disability" to hold that "Congress never intended for Title II to cover employment disputes").
We turn next to the principle of giving full effect to each provision of a statute. Congress consciously and expressly chose to include the employment practices of state and local governments in Title I. To hold that Title II also governs their employment practices would render Congress' special effort to ensure their inclusion in Title I superfluous. Public employees could avoid the procedural requirements of Title I by pursuing all their claims under Title II. This court generally refuses to interpret a statute in such a manner. See Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 834 (9th Cir.1996) ("We have long followed the principle that [s]tatutes should not be construed to make surplusage of any provision.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Titles I and II of the ADA incorporate their remedies and procedures from different acts: Title I incorporates provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,4 while Title II incorporates provisions of the Rehabilitation Act.5 Title I thereby incorporates Title VII's charge requirement, whereas Title II incorporates the Rehabilitation Act's provisions, which do not require an employee to pursue any administrative relief. See Smith v. Barton, 914 F.2d 1330, 1338 (9th Cir.1990) ("[P]rivate plaintiffs suing under section 504 [of the Rehabilitation Act] need not first exhaust administrative remedies."). Allowing employment claims under Title II would render the charge requirement completely superfluous for public employees.
In conclusion, when viewed as a whole, the text, context and structure of the ADA show unambiguously that Congress did not intend for Title II to apply to employment. Under these circumstances, we do not resort to legislative history, and we do not defer to the Attorney General's regulation. See, e.g., Sloan v. West, 140 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir.1998) ("If the intent of Congress is clear from the face of the statutory language, we must give effect to the unambiguously expressed Congressional intent."); Moyle v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 147 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir.1998) ("When interpreting a statute, we ordinarily first look to the plain meaning of the language used by Congress. But if the statute is ambiguous, we consult the legislative history, to the extent that it is of value, to aid in our interpretation.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), petition for cert. filed, 67 U.S.L.W. 3394 (U.S. Dec. 3, 1998) (No. 98-927).8
E. Rehabilitation Act
1. Express incorporation
However, 42 U.S.C. § 12133 incorporates only one section of the Rehabilitation Act: 29 U.S.C. § 794a. That section includes the Rehabilitation Act's procedural rights, not its substantive rights. Congress' choice to incorporate one section of the Rehabilitation Act, which provides certain procedures, does not demonstrate that Congress also intended to incorporate the rest of the Rehabilitation Act's substance. Indeed, it demonstrates precisely the opposite. See, e.g., Longview Fibre Co. v. Rasmussen, 980 F.2d 1307, 1313 (9th Cir.1992) ("No sensible person accustomed to the use of words in laws would speak so narrowly and precisely of particular statutory provisions, while meaning to imply a more general and broad coverage than the statutes designated. In this case, expressio unius est exclusio alterius.").
On the other hand, the Rehabilitation Act also applied (and still does apply) to private entities that receive federal financial assistance. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(b) ("[T]he term 'program or activity' means all operations of ... an entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization ....") (emphasis added). See also Jacobson v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that private airlines are subject to the Rehabilitation Act if they receive federal subsidies). Congress did not make private entities subject to Title II; instead, they are subject only to Titles I, III, and V. In other words, Congress also limited the reach of the Rehabilitation Act in Title II.
Plaintiff and amicus note that Title II contains wording that is similar to the wording found in § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Before the enactment of the ADA, the Supreme Court had held that § 504 applies to employment. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 631-34, 104 S.Ct. 1248, 79 L.Ed.2d 568 (1984). Plaintiff and amicus argue that we must interpret Title II, likewise, to apply to employment. See, e.g., Bledsoe, 133 F.3d at 821 ("It is significant that Congress intended Title II to work in the same manner as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, because Section 504 was so focused on employment discrimination that Congress enacted subsequent legislation to clarify that Section 504 applied to other forms of discrimination in addition to employment discrimination.") (citing Consolidated Rail, 465 U.S. at 626-32, 104 S.Ct. 1248); Alberti, 32 F.Supp.2d 1164, ----, 1998 WL 954876, at * 5 ("Congress modeled Title II of the ADA after the Rehabilitation Act.... [W]hen Congress passed the ADA in 1990, it was clearly established that the Rehabilitation Act covers employment discrimination.") (citing Consolidated Rail, 465 U.S. at 624, 104 S.Ct. 1248); Downs, 13 F.Supp.2d at 135 ("[L]anguage in § 504 very similar to that of 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (and similarly devoid of express reference to employment) had long been understood to prohibit employment discrimination.") (citing Consolidated Rail, 465 U.S. at 632, 104 S.Ct. 1248); Ethridge v. Alabama, 847 F.Supp. 903, 906 (M.D.Ala.1993) ("A primary purpose of § 12131 was to extend the reach of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ... Section 504, including its amendments and regulations, clearly applies to employment discrimination.") (citing Consolidated Rail, 465 U.S. at 626, 104 S.Ct. 1248).
We turn first to the statutory text. "[W]hen a legislature borrows an already judicially interpreted phrase from an old statute to use it in a new statute, it is presumed that the legislature intends to adopt not merely the old phrase but the judicial construction of that phrase." Long v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 767 F.2d 1578, 1581 (9th Cir.1985) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). See also Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 63 F.3d 828, 832 n. 3 (9th Cir.1995) ("The legislative history of the ADA indicates that Congress intended judicial interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act be incorporated by reference when interpreting the ADA."). That rule of interpretation makes sense, however, only when the new statute contains materially the same phrase as is found in the old statute. Here, Congress chose not to adopt the broad wording of the Rehabilitation Act.
29 U.S.C. § 794 (1984) (emphasis added); Consolidated Rail, 465 U.S. at 632, 104 S.Ct. 1248. The Rehabilitation Act's phrase "under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" is broader than Title II's phrase, "in ... the services, programs, or activities of a public entity."
The focus of the emphasized phrase in § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is the receipt of Federal financial assistance. See Consolidated Rail, 465 U.S. at 631-36, 104 S.Ct. 1248 (discussing the meaning of the requirement that a program receive Federal financial assistance). Discrimination is prohibited under any program or activity that receives such assistance. This focus naturally encompasses the entire operation of the program or activity, for its federal funding may well flow into compensation for employees.
Moreover, unlike Title II of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act contained several employment-related provisions. For example, Congress limited the application of § 504 to an "otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States, as defined in section 706(7)." 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1984). In turn, 29 U.S.C. § 706(7) defines that term solely in relation to employment. See 29 U.S.C. § 706(7)(A) (1984) ("[T]he term 'handicapped individual' means any individual who (i) has a physical or mental disability which for such individual constitutes or results in a substantial handicap to employment; and (ii) can reasonably be expected to benefit in terms of employability.") (emphasis added). See also 29 U.S.C. § 706(7)(B) (1984) ("For purposes of sections 793 and 794 of this title as such sections relate to employment, such term does not include any individual who is an alcoholic or drug abuser whose current use of alcohol or drugs prevents such individual from performing the duties of the job in question or whose employment, by reason of such current alcohol or drug abuse, would constitute a direct threat to property or the safety of others.") (emphasis added).
In fact, one of Congress' express purposes in enacting the Rehabilitation Act was to "promote and expand employment opportunities in the public and private sectors for handicapped individuals." See Consolidated Rail, 465 U.S. at 626, 104 S.Ct. 1248 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 701(8) (1973)). These textual and contextual clues demonstrated that Congress intended for the Rehabilitation Act to apply to employment despite the absence of an express mention of employment in § 504 itself.
By contrast, Title II contains no employment-specific provisions. Congress placed all of those provisions in Title I. Unlike the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act has no separate title specifically governing employment. See, e.g., Consolidated Rail, 465 U.S. at 632 n. 13, 104 S.Ct. 1248 (contrasting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because, "[a]s the Court of Appeals observed, it was unnecessary to extend Title VI more generally to ban employment discrimination, as Title VII comprehensively regulates such discrimination").
The Supreme Court's interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (which the Supreme Court also has held applies to employment) highlights the effect of that difference in statutory structure. See North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982) (construing Title IX). Title IX provides in part:
20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (emphasis added). As does the Rehabilitation Act, Title IX contains the phrase "under any ... program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," which is broader than the corresponding phrase in Title II of the ADA. The Supreme Court noted that the wording of Title IX was "broad" and that it "favor[ed]" inclusion of employees. North Haven, 456 U.S. at 520, 522, 102 S.Ct. 1912. Even so, before concluding that Title IX covered employment, the Court reasoned:
There is no need under the ADA to interpret Title II broadly "to give [the ADA] the scope that its origins dictate." Unlike both Title IX and the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA contains a detailed, separate employment discrimination title. Title I protects nearly all state and local government employees even if Title II does not apply to employment. See Bledsoe v. Palm Beach Soil & Water Conservation Dist., 942 F.Supp. 1439, 1444 n. 4 (S.D.Fla.1996) ("The Court recognizes that the Supreme Court has construed similar language in the Rehabilitation Act to include employment. However, the Rehabilitation Act only applied to any 'program or activity,' and added that these were to be construed to include 'all operations' of the covered entities. The Court believes that by ... creating an entire new section devoted to employment, Congress meant to bifurcate the ADA into one section dealing with public and private employment relationships, and one section dealing with government services.") (citation omitted), rev'd, 133 F.3d 816 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 72, 142 L.Ed.2d 57 (1998).10
Finally, as noted above, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act to incorporate the employment provisions from Title I of the ADA. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(d) (quoted at p. 2345 above). Because Congress expressly linked the Rehabilitation Act's employment provisions to Title I (but not to Title II), "[i]t would seem rather bizarre to find an employment cause of action in Title II of the ADA on the grounds that Title II is tied to the Rehabilitation Act, when the Rehabilitation Act itself ties its employment cause of action to Title I." Bledsoe, 942 F.Supp. at 1446.
The only exception appears to be Dominguez v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa, 974 F.Supp. 732, 736-37 (S.D.Iowa 1997)
The Eleventh Circuit in Bledsoe stated that "[e]xtensive legislative commentary regarding the applicability of Title II to employment discrimination, however, is so pervasive as to belie any contention that Title II does not apply to employment actions." Bledsoe, 133 F.3d at 821. We again part ways with the Eleventh Circuit. We have reviewed the legislative history thoroughly and find it ambiguous at best. More importantly, we are bound by what Congress actually enacted
The major exception is the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Bledsoe. Like the cases listed infra at footnote 13, that court relied primarily on the ADA's legislative history and the Attorney General's regulation. See Bledsoe, 133 F.3d at 821-22. However, the court also justified its result with reference to the second clause of § 12132, which it described as a " 'catch-all phrase that prohibits all discrimination by a public entity.' " Id. at 822 (citation omitted); see also Alberti, 32 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1169 (relying on the second clause of § 12132); Downs, 13 F.Supp.2d at 135 (relying on the second clause of § 12132). However, for reasons that we already have discussed, we do not think that this reading of the statutory text is correct
See, e.g., Holmes v. Texas A & M Univ., 145 F.3d 681, 683-84 (5th Cir.1998); Doe v. University of Maryland Med. Sys., 50 F.3d 1261, 1264-65 & n. 9 (4th Cir.1995); Motto v. City of Union City, No. 95-5678, 1997 WL 816509, at * 8 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 1997); Davoll v. Webb, 943 F.Supp. 1289, 1297 (D.Colo.1996); Dertz v. City of Chicago, 912 F.Supp. 319, 323-25 (N.D.Ill.1995), reconsidered in part on other grounds, 1997 WL 85169 (Feb. 24, 1997); Doe v. County of Milwaukee, 871 F.Supp. 1072, 1074 (E.D.Wis.1995); Eisfelder v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, 847 F.Supp. 78, 83-84 (W.D.Mich.1993); Finley v. Giacobbe, 827 F.Supp. 215, 219 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y.1993)
See, e.g., Hernandez v. City of Hartford, 959 F.Supp. 125, 133 (D.Conn.1997) ("On its face, Title II prohibits discrimination in 'public services'. A plain reading of the section does not reveal whether Title II covers employment discrimination addressed more specifically in Title I. The regulations under and the legislative history of ADA Title II make it clear, however, that § 12132 prohibits employment discrimination by public entities on the basis of disability.") (footnote and citation omitted); Wagner v. Texas A & M Univ., 939 F.Supp. 1297, 1309 (S.D.Tex.1996) ("Although it is not apparent from the plain language of § 12132, the regulations issued by the Department of Justice make it clear that the prohibition against discrimination by public entities includes employment discrimination."). See also Winfrey v. City of Chicago, 957 F.Supp. 1014, 1023 n. 7 (N.D.Ill.1997) (similar); Silk v. City of Chicago, No. 95 C 0143, 1996 WL 312074, * 10 (N.D.Ill. June 7, 1996) (similar); Benedum v. Franklin Township Recycling Center, No. 95-1343, 1996 WL 679402, at * 5 (W.D. Pa. Sept 12, 1996) (similar); Petersen v. Univ. of Wisconsin Bd. of Regents, 818 F.Supp. 1276, 1278 (W.D.Wis.1993) (similar)
See, e.g., Bledsoe, 133 F.3d at 821; Alberti, 32 F.Supp.2d at 1169-70; Downs, 13 F.Supp.2d at 135; Ethridge, 847 F.Supp. at 906
See, e.g., Saylor v. Ridge, 989 F.Supp. 680, 688 (E.D.Pa.1998) ("We are inclined to follow the reasoning and holdings of our brethren which also appears to be the view followed by the majority of courts nationwide which have confronted this issue."). See also Magee v. Nassau County Medical Center, 27 F.Supp.2d 154, 159 (E.D.N.Y.1998) (similar); Fobar v. City of Dearborn Heights, 994 F.Supp. 878, 885 n. 3 (E.D.Mich.1998) (similar); Bruton v. Southeastern Penn. Transp. Auth., No. 94-CV-3111, 1994 WL 470277, at * 2 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 19, 1994) (similar)