Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—N.D. Ala.: Former dean’s associational bias claims against state college barred by sovereign immunity, (Feb 13, 2026)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The college was also immune from her Rehab Act retaliation claim since she alleged she opposed firing/refusing to hire an employee because she was disabled, thus relying on an act that is unlawful under Title I of the ADA.

A former Black dean at an Alabama community college, who claimed she was fired because the college president was displeased by her hiring of a disabled employee who requested the use of a service dog, could not advance ADA and Rehab Act claims of associational disability discrimination and retaliation because the state-run college was entitled to sovereign immunity. Granting the college’s motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction, a federal court explained that the dean could not escape her immunity problem by labeling her ADA associational claim as falling under Title II of the Act instead of Title I, since Title II does not prohibit associational disability. Moreover, her Rehab Act claims were also barred on immunity grounds since they necessarily incorporated Title I (Mitchell v. Gadsen State Community College, No. 4:24-cv-1084-CLM (N.D. Ala. Feb. 9, 2026)).

Hires disabled employee. In 2023, the college opened a position for a dual enrollment specialist, whose responsibilities included visiting schools on behalf of the college. The dean was responsible for selecting a candidate, and she ultimately hired an individual with a disability. The new employee then asked the college’s office of disability services (ODS) to approve her use of a service dog, and ODS approved her request.

President irritated by service dog. The dean claimed that the employee’s use of a service dog while publicly representing the GSCC irritated the college president, who called the dean and berated her for hiring the employee. The dean responded that the employee was a good candidate and she could not have rejected her simply because she requested an accommodation. About 10 days later, the president allegedly fired the dean with no explanation.

Amended complaint. The dean’s lawsuit alleged claims of associational discrimination under the ADA and the Rehab Act as well as a claim of retaliation under the Rehab Act. The court previously granted the college’s motion to dismiss her discrimination claims based on sovereign immunity, but allowed her to replead them. She amended her complaint, and the college filed another motion to dismiss.

Title I versus Title II of ADA. In an attempt to get around the sovereign immunity issue, the dean labeled her ADA discrimination claim as falling under Title II, which prohibits public entities from denying disabled persons the benefit of public services, programs, or activities. However, the substance of her claim still alleged associational discrimination, explained the court, which Title II does not prohibit. Thus, even if her labeling of the claim as a Title II claim was sufficient to plead a Title II claim—which the court stated it was not—dismissal was still warranted since Title II does not create an associational discrimination claim.

Garrett provides immunity. Moreover, the ADA Title I claim that the dean actually alleged also did not survive the college’s motion to dismiss for the same reason the court pointed out in its prior order—sovereign immunity. She alleged that the college fired her for associating with the disabled employee she hired, and GSCC is a community college within the Alabama Community College System that operates as an arm of the State of Alabama. Because the Supreme Court held in Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett that the waiver of sovereign immunity was invalid for claims against the state pled under Title I of the ADA, GSCC was immune from the dean’s claim.

Same result under Rehab Act. The dean also alleged a claim of associational discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehab Act. However, the plain language of Section 504 prohibits only discrimination against “qualified individuals with a disability,” and not their associates, emphasized the court.

While courts have recognized associational claims under Section 504 where the allegedly discriminatory conduct fell under Title I (discrimination in employment) and Title III (discrimination in public accommodations) of the ADA, that’s because both Title I and III expressly prohibit associational discrimination. Title II does not, however, and therefore associational discrimination is not a viable claim under Section 504 in the context of Title II.

Accordingly, in order to claim that her firing violated the Rehab Act, the dean needed to rely on the anti-discrimination provision and “associational clause” of Title I of the ADA, seemingly incorporated by Section 504(d). But even if this Title I work around helped her to avoid the associational standing problem (an issue the court declined to address), “it thrusts [her] head first back into the sovereign immunity problem that doomed [her ADA claim].” That’s because if her Rehab Act claim incorporated Title I of the ADA to determine GSCC’s liability, then the college was entitled to sovereign immunity.

Retaliation claim also tossed. Finally, the court also dismissed the dean’s Rehab Act retaliation claim, which incorporated the anti-retaliation provision from Title V of the ADA. Importantly, she summed up her claim by alleging that she “voiced opposition against a practice that would have been unlawful under the Rehabilitation Act—expressing opposition to refusing to hire and/or terminate an individual who could perform the essential functions of his or job whether with or without reasonable accommodation because such actions are unlawful under the Rehabilitation Act.” Thus, although she packaged her claim as arising out of the Rehab Act, the practice that she opposed—firing/refusing to hire an employee because she was disabled—was an act that is unlawful under Title I of the ADA. And as the Eleventh Circuit has explained, when pleaded against a sovereign state or its agency, this type of retaliation claim is barred by sovereign immunity.

The case is No. 4:24-cv-1084-CLM.

Judge: Maze, C.

Attorneys: Lee David Winston (Winston Cooks) for Janekia Mitchell. Roger Lee Bates (Hand Arendall Harrison Sale) for Gadsden State Community College.

Companies: Gadsden State Community College

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination CoverageLiability Discrimination Discharge Retaliation PublicEmployees AlabamaNews