G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, last quoted 2001 ·
…decision under the rehabilitation act is also controlled by this court's decision as to the ada in kimel.
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 41 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Abrogated
Schall v. Wichita State University
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See Garrett v. University of Alabama, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act are within the scope *470 of Congressional power and that the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity was effectively abrogated by Congress); Dare v. California, 191 F.3d 1167, 1175 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that the ADA is a “congruent and proportional exercise” of Congress’ enforcement powers under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and that Congress abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity); Martin, 190 F.3d at 1129 (affirming the district court and jo…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilson v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
Ala. Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir.1999), rev’d on other grounds, 531 U.S. 356 , 121 S.Ct. 955 , 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
University of Texas at El Paso v. Herrera
(2×)
In Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trs., 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir.1999), rev'd in part on other grounds, 531 U.S. 356 , 121 S.Ct. 955 , 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001), which preceded Hibbs, the Eleventh Circuit had held that the state had Eleventh Amendment immunity in a self-care case under FMLA.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Batchelor v. South Florida Water Management District
The issue we must decide is whether, in the light of Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 , 123 S.Ct. 1972 , 155 L.Ed.2d 953 (2003), our holding in Gairett v. University of Alabama Board of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir.1999), reversed in part on other grounds, 531 U.S. 356 , 121 S.Ct. 955 , 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001), that Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity through the self-care provision of the FMLA remains good law.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Touvell v. OH Dept Mental Dev
See Laro v New Hampshire, 259 F 3d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 2001); Lizzi v. Alexander, 255 F.3d 128, 136 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1081 (2002), reh’g denied, 535 U.S. 952 (2002); Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 2000); Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. Bd. of Trs., 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 531 U.S. 356 (2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mary Touvell v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
See Laro v. New Hampshire, 259 F.3d 1, 17 (1st Cir.2001); Lizzi v. Alexander, 255 F.3d 128, 136 (4th Cir.2001), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 1081 , 122 S.Ct. 812 , 151 L.Ed.2d 697 (2002), reh’g denied, 535 U.S. 952 , 122 S.Ct. 1352 , 152 L.Ed.2d 254 (2002); Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir.2000); Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. Bd. of Trs., 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir.1999), rev’d on other grounds, 531 U.S. 356 , 121 S.Ct. 955 , 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Garrett v. University of Alabama at Birmingham Board of Trustees
Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218-19 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brockman v. Wyoming Department of Family Services
Dev., 226 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir.2000) (same), overruled in part by Hibbs, - U.S. at -, 123 S.Ct. at 1984 ; Kazmier v. Widmann, 225 F.3d 519, 526-27, 529 (5th Cir.2000) (neither subsection (C) nor subsection (D) of § 2612(a)(1) constitute a valid abrogation of state sovereign immunity), overruled in part by Hibbs, — U.S. at -, 123 S.Ct. at 1984 ; Sims v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 219 F.3d 559, 566 (6th Cir.2000) (the entire FMLA is not a valid attempt by Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity), overruled in part by Hibbs, - U.S. at -, 123 S.Ct. at 1984 ; Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d C…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Purvis v. Williams
That provision states: *195 “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 [the ADA].” Schall then went on to analyze the second prong, noting that the United States Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Garrett v. University of Alabama, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act are within the scope of Congressional power and that the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity was effectively abrogated).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montgomery v. Maryland
Dev., 226 F.3d 223, 228 (3d Cir. 2000); Kazmier v. Widmann, 225 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2000); Sims v. University of Cincinnati, 219 F.3d 559, 566 (6th Cir. 2000); Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 2000); Garrett v. Uni- versity of Ala., 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999), rev'd on other grounds sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dossey Douglas v. California Department of Youth Authority
See, e.g., Cisneros v. Wilson 226 F.3d 1113, 1124 (10th Cir.2000) (upholding Title I as applied to the States); Kilcullen v. New York State Dep’t of Labor, 205 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir.2000) (same); Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir.1999) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Hibbs, United States of America, Intervenor v. Department of Human Resources Charlotte Crawford Nikki Firpo
Dev., 226 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir.2000); Kazmier v. Widmann, 225 F.3d 519, 526, 529 (5th Cir.2000); Sims v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 219 F.3d 559, 566 (6th Cir.2000); Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir.2000); Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1220 (11th Cir.1999), rev’d on other grounds, 531 U.S. 356 , 121 S.Ct. 955 , 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montgomery v. The State Of Maryland
Dev., 226 F.3d 223, 228 (3d Cir. 2000); Kazmier v. Widmann, 225 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2000); Sims v. University of Cincinnati, 219 F.3d 559, 566 (6th Cir. 2000); Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 2000); Garrett v. Uni- versity of Ala., 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999), rev'd on other grounds sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montgomery v. Maryland
Dev., 226 F.3d 223, 228 (3d Cir.2000); Kazmier v. Widmann, 225 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir.2000); Sims v. University of Cincinnati, 219 F.3d 559, 566 (6th Cir.2000); Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir.2000); Garrett v. University of Ala., 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir.1999), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Laro v. New Hampshire
(2×)
But see Kazmier v. Widmann, 225 F.3d 519, 533 (5th Cir. 2000) (Dennis, J. dissenting); Garrett v. University of Ala. Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1220 (11th Cir. 1999) (subsequent history omitted) (Cook, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 43 To summarize, the personal medical leave provision of the FMLA, § 2612(a)(1)(D), on its face has no direct connection to preventing unconstitutional gender discrimination by state employers.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williamson v. Georgia Department of Human Resources
Garrett v. University of Ala., 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lizzi v. Alexander
See, e.g., Chittis-ter; 226 F.3d at 228-29 ; Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir.1999), rev’d on other grounds, 121 S.Ct. at 968 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher T. Lizzi v. Robert Alexander Charles Thomas Phillip Wallace Anthony Johnson Al McCoy Dennise Kurtz, and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Jack Byrd Michael Kurtz, United States of America, Movant. Christopher T. Lizzi v. Robert Alexander Charles Thomas Phillip Wallace Anthony Johnson Al McCoy Dennise Kurtz Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Jack Byrd, and Michael Kurtz, United States of America, Movant. Christopher T. Lizzi v. Robert Alexander Charles Thomas Phillip Wallace Anthony Johnson Al McCoy Dennise Kurtz, and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Jack Byrd Michael Kurtz, United States of America, Movant
See, e.g., Chittister, 226 F.3d at 228-29 ; Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Tr., 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999), rev'd on other grounds, 121 S. Ct. at 968 . 27 In sum, the substantive requirements of the FMLA are"`so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.'" Kimel, 528 U.S. at 82 (quoting City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 532 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Regenia G. Townsel v. State of Missouri
Dev., 226 F.3d 223, 228-29 (3d Cir. 2000) (legislative scheme of FMLA is not congruent or proportional to any identified constitutional harm; noticeably absent from legislative history is finding that sick-leave practices in public employment amount to intentional gender discrimination in violation of equal protection; FMLA provisions do not represent valid exercise of Congress’s power to enforce Fourteenth Amendment and therefore FMLA does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity); Kazmier v. Widmann, 225 F.3d 519, 527-29 (5th Cir. 2000) (section of FMLA allowing leave for plaintiff’s own…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Regenia G. Townsel v. State of Missouri
Dev., 226 F.3d 223, 228-29 (3d Cir.2000) (legislative scheme of FMLA is not congruent or proportional to any identified constitutional harm; noticeably absent from legislative history is finding that sick-leave practices in public employment amount to intentional gender discrimination in violation of equal protection; FMLA provisions do not represent valid exercise of Congress’s power to enforce Fourteenth Amendment and therefore FMLA does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity); Kazmier v. Widmann, 225 F.3d 519, 527-29 (5th Cir.2000) (section of FMLA allowing leave for plaintiffs own “s…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cisneros v. Wilson
(2×)
Because there was little evidence of constitutional violations by the states, the Court held that the provisions of the Patent Remedy Act were "out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventative object." Florida Prepaid, 119 S. Ct. at 2210 . 36 After City of Boerne, 6 a number of circuits, including our circuit, applied the congruence and proportionality test to the ADA. 7 See Garrett v. University of Alabama at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. granted, 120 S. Ct. 1669 (2000); Dare v. California, 191 F.3d 1167, 1174 (9th Cir. 1999), petition for cer…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
David D. Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development David Black Larry Segal
See Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir.2000); Garrett v. University of Alabama at Birmingham Board of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir.1999), cert. granted on different issue, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1669 , 146 L.Ed.2d 479 (2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chittister v. Department of Community & Econ Development
See Hale v. Mann, No. 99-7326, 2000 WL 675209 , at *7 (2d Cir. May 25, 2000); Garrett v. University of Alabama at Birmingham Board of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. granted on different issue, 120 S. Ct. 1669 (2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Root v. Georgia State Board of Veterinary Medicine
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kimel notwithstanding, in Garrett v. Univ. of Alabama at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir.1999), the Eleventh Circuit, stating that it was bound by that portion of its decision in Kimel v. State Bd. of Regents, 139 F.3d 1426 , 1433 (11th Cir.1998), pertaining to the ADA (as opposed to the ADEA), again ruled that the ADA is a valid exercise of the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the states do not have sovereign immunity from claims brought under either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Monroe Hale v. Louis Mann, Deputy Commissioner, Sued in His Individual Capacity and the State of New York Office of Children and Family Services
(2×)
The rights conferred by the FMLA in this case are "so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior." Id. at 532 . 34 Moreover, "[s]erious health conditions are not necessarily related to family and gender discrimination." Garrett v. University of Alabama at Birmingham Bd. of Trus., 193 F.3d 1214, 1220 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. granted in part, 120 S. Ct. 1669 (2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hershel R. Stanley v. Jon E. Litscher, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Corrections
As for the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 : we agree with Kilcullen v. New York State Department of Labor, 205 F.3d 77, 79-80 (2d Cir.2000), and Garrett v. University of Alabama, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir.1999), cert. granted on a different issue, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1669 , 146 L.Ed.2d 479 (2000), that the ada and the Rehabilitation Act are identical for purposes of § 5.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stanley, Hershel R. v. Litscher, Jon
As for the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. sec.794 : we agree with Kilcullen v. New York State Department of Labor, 205 F.3d 77, 79-80 (2d Cir. 2000), and Garrett v. University of Alabama, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. granted on a different issue, No. 99-1240 (Apr. 17, 2000), that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act are identical for purposes of sec.5.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Utah State Tax Commission
See Muller v. Costello, 187 F.3d 298 (2d Cir.1999); Coolbaugh v. Louisiana, 136 F.3d 430 (5th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 819 , 119 S.Ct. 58 , 142 L.Ed.2d 45 (1998); Clark v. California, 123 F.3d 1267 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 , 118 S.Ct. 2340 , 141 L.Ed.2d 711 (1998); Martin v. Kansas, 190 F.3d 1120 (10th Cir.1999); Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 139 F.3d 1426 (11th Cir.1998), cert. granted, 525 U.S. 1121 , 119 S.Ct. 901 , 142 L.Ed.2d 901 (1999), cert. dismissed, — U.S. m-, 120 S.Ct. 631 , 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000); Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Tr…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Laro v. NH
(2×)
University of Alabama, 193 F.3d 1214, 1217 (11th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Collier v. Clayton County Community Service Board
See Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trs., 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir.1999), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
cited
Cited "see"
Garrett v. University of Alabama
See Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Patricia Garrett v. The University of Alabama at Birmingham Board of Trustees, the United States of America, Intervenor. Milton Ash v. Alabama Department of Youth Services, the United States of America, Intervenor
See Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Fronczak v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
See Garrett v. University of Alabama, 193 F.3d 1214 (1999), cert. granted, 529 U.S. 1065 , 120 S.Ct. 1669 , 146 L.Ed.2d 479 (2000). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Bylsma v. Bailey
See Garrett v. The University of Alabama at Birmingham Board of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir.1999), cert. granted on another issue sub nom, 529 U.S. 1065 , 120 S.Ct. 1669 , 146 L.Ed.2d 479 (2000).
examined
Cited "see"
Kazmier v. Widmann
(6×)
See Garrett v. University of Alabama, 193 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 1999). 22 The FMLA's statement of purpose reflects that one of its primary purposes is to "minimize[] the potential for employment discrimination on the basis of sex by ensuring generally that leave is available for... compelling family reasons, on a gender-neutral basis." 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (b)(4). 23 See The Parental and Medical Leave Act of 1987: Hearings on S.249 Before the Subcommittee on Children, Families, Drugs and Alcoholism of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Part 2, 100th Cong. 536 (1987) (Statement of P…
discussed
Cited "see"
Margaret A. Walker v. Missouri Department of Corrections
See Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214 , 1218 (11th Cir.1999), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1669 , 146 L.Ed.2d 479 (2000); see also 68 U.S.L.W. 3649 (Apr. 17, 2000) (explaining that "Question presented [is]: Does the 11th Amendment bar suits by private citizens , in federal court under Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states?”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Margaret A. Walker v. MO Dept. of
See Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. granted, 120 S. Ct. 1669 (2000); see also 68 U.S.L.W. 3649 (Apr. 17, 2000) (explaining that “Question presented [is]: Does the 11th Amendment bar suits by private citizens in federal court under Americans with Disabilities Act against nonconsenting states?”). -3- A true copy.
cited
Cited "see"
Garrett v. University of AL
See Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Garrett v. University of AL
See Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Serafin v. Connecticut Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services
(2×)
Since the Court issued its ruling on the motion to dismiss, however, the clear ma *276 jority of courts that have considered this issue have reached a contrary conclusion. 3 See, e.g., Hale, 219 F.3d at 66-67 ; Philbrick v. University of Conn., 90 F.Supp.2d 195 (D.Conn.2000); McGregor v. Goord, 18 F.Supp.2d 204 (N.D.N.Y.1998); see also Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir.1999), cert. granted in part, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1669 , 146 L.Ed.2d 479 (2000); Kilvitis v. County of Luzerne, 52 F.Supp.2d 403 (M.D.Pa.1999); Sims v. University of Cincinnat…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Joseph C. Kilcullen v. New York State Department of Labor, United States of America, Intervenor
See, e.g., Garrett v. University of Alabama at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir.1999) (applying circuit’s prior decision on ADA to Rehabilitation Act); Coolbaugh v. Louisiana, 136 F.3d 430, 438 (5th Cir.1998) (holding that Congress validly abrogated immunily under the ADA and indicating that analysis is identical for Rehabilitation Act); Clark v. California, 123 F.3d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir.1997) (holding abrogation valid for both ADA and Rehabilitation Act); Crawford v. Indiana Dep't of Corrections, 115 F.3d 481, 487 (7th Cir.1997) (holding abrogation valid for both ADA…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Garrett
v.
University of AL
v.
University of AL
98-6069.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Oct 26, 1999.
193 F.3d 1214
Published
Patricia GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Defendant- Appellee,
The United States of America, Intervenor.
Milton Ash, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Alabama Department of Youth Services, Defendant-Appellee,
The United States of America, Intervenor.
Nos. 98-6069, 98-6070.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 16, 2001.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. (Nos. 97-0092-CV-AR-S, 97-92179-CV-AR-S), William M. Acker, Jr., Judge. ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, RONEY, Circuit Judge, and COOK*, District Judge.
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Defendant- Appellee,
The United States of America, Intervenor.
Milton Ash, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Alabama Department of Youth Services, Defendant-Appellee,
The United States of America, Intervenor.
Nos. 98-6069, 98-6070.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 16, 2001.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. (Nos. 97-0092-CV-AR-S, 97-92179-CV-AR-S), William M. Acker, Jr., Judge. ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, RONEY, Circuit Judge, and COOK*, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This case is before the court on remand from the United States Supreme Court, see Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001), regarding the issue whether two Alabama state agencies were entitled to sovereign immunity regarding claims brought against them under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. The district court in this case entered summary judgment in favor of the state agencies. Adhering to our intervening decision in Kimel
v. State Bd. of Regents, 139 F.3d 1426, 1433 (11th Cir.1998), cert. granted, 525 U.S. 1121, 119 S.Ct. 901, 142 L.Ed.2d 901, cert. dismissed, 528 U.S. 1184, 120 S.Ct. 1236, 145 L.Ed.2d 1131 (2000), we held that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and reversed the judgment of the district court against plaintiffs.
See Garrett v. University of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir.1999). The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals on this question, * Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. and reversed our decision, holding that suits in federal court by state employees to recover money damages
by reason of the state's failure to comply with the ADA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In Garrett, we also held that the "decision under the Rehabilitation Act is also controlled by this Court's decision as to
the ADA in Kimel." 193 F.3d at 1218. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court regarding both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act must be affirmed based on the Supreme Court's decision.
AFFIRMED.