Denise DeBose v. State of Nebraska

Eighth Circuit

Denise DeBose v. State of Nebraska

186 F.3d 1087

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 9, 1999

Docket97-3541, 97-3544

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 F.3d 1087 (Denise DeBose v. State of Nebraska) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Denise DeBose v. State of Nebraska, 186 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit JUDGE.

The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) fired two of its case investigators, Denise DeBose and James McCullough, because, the NEOC says, they repeatedly and grossly faded to meet their case quotas and performed their work in an untimely fashion. Both Ms. DeBose and Mr. McCullough claim to suffer from clinical depression, and they maintain that their unsatisfactory work performance was due to their disability. They therefore filed suit against the NEOC, alleging that it had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), see 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, in terminating them.

A jury awarded a total of more than $175,000 in back wages and compensatory damages to the plaintiffs and nearly $100,-000 in front pay to Mr. McCullough, and the district court ordered that Ms. DeBose be reinstated to her job. The state of Nebraska argues that the district court erred in holding that the state was not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in denying the state’s motions for judgment as a matter of law.

In Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1010 (8th Cir.1999) (en banc), we held that Congress lacked the power to abrogate a state’s eleventh amendment immunity relative to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165. We think that the principles established in that case apply with equal vigor to Title I of that act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit JUDGE.

The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) fired two of its case investigators, Denise DeBose and James McCullough, because, the NEOC says, they repeatedly and grossly faded to meet their case quotas and performed their work in an untimely fashion. Both Ms. DeBose and Mr. McCullough claim to suffer from clinical depression, and they maintain that their unsatisfactory work performance was due to their disability. They therefore filed suit against the NEOC, alleging that it had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), see 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, in terminating them.

A jury awarded a total of more than $175,000 in back wages and compensatory damages to the plaintiffs and nearly $100,-000 in front pay to Mr. McCullough, and the district court ordered that Ms. DeBose be reinstated to her job. The state of Nebraska argues that the district court erred in holding that the state was not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in denying the state’s motions for judgment as a matter of law.

In Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1010 (8th Cir.1999) (en banc), we held that Congress lacked the power to abrogate a state’s eleventh amendment immunity relative to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165. We think that the principles established in that case apply with equal vigor to Title I of that act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 F.3d 1087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denise-debose-v-state-of-nebraska-ca8-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack