In Yerdon v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, 20 F.4th 1150 (2d Cir. 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiff’s claim of disability discrimination unser the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
From the decision:
Because Congress did not identify a history and pattern of retaliation by states against their employees who challenge discrimination against the disabled, Congress did not have the constitutional authority to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity for ADA retaliation claims, at least to the extent those claims are predicated on an alleged violation of Title I of the ADA.3 Indeed, if “the underlying provision *1155 – here, Title I – does not allow a plaintiff to assert a claim against the [s]tate, 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 [s]tate.” Dupree v. Owens, 92 F.4th 999, 1007 (11th Cir. 2024).
In reaching this holding, we join every other circuit that has pronounced on this issue, see Stanley, 105 F.4th at 866; Dupree, 92 F.4th at 1007; Block v. Tex. Bd. of L. Exam’rs, 952 F.3d 613, 619 (5th Cir. 2020); Demshki v. Monteith, 255 F.3d 986, 988–89 (9th Cir. 2001), and affirm the long-standing and universal consensus of district courts in this circuit, see, e.g., Padilla v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Lab., No. 09-cv-5291 (CM), 2010 WL 3835182, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2010) (“[E]very district court in this Circuit to consider the issue has concluded that sovereign immunity bars Title V claims.”); Quadir v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Lab., 39 F. Supp. 3d 528, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“[D]istrict courts within this Circuit have consistently extended Garrett’s holding to ADA Title V retaliation claims – at least to the extent that those claims are predicated on ADA Title I discrimination claims.”); Chiesa v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Lab., 638 F. Supp. 2d 316, 323 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (“If a state is immune from underlying discrimination, then it follows that the state must be immune from claims alleging retaliation for protesting against discrimination.”); Davis v. Vt., Dep’t of Corr., 868 F. Supp. 2d 313, 322 (D. Vt. 2012) (“[T]he district courts in the Second Circuit that have addressed the issue have all concluded that Title V claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.”); Emmons v. City Univ. of N.Y., 715 F. Supp. 2d 394, 408 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); Murray v. Tanea, 357 F. Supp. 3d 226, 231 (W.D.N.Y. 2019).
In addition to his claims against the DMV, Yerdon has asserted claims against two state officials, Poitras and Seeloff. It is unclear whether Yerdon intended to file those claims against Poitras and Seeloff in their individual or official capacities, but to the extent these claims are asserted against Poitras and Seeloff in their official capacities, they are also barred by sovereign immunity. See Ford, 316 F.3d at 354 (holding that sovereign immunity bars suits against state officials when sued in their official capacities).
The court further joined other circuits in holding “that Title I does not permit suits against individual employees” and therefore affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims against two defendants in their individual capacities.