One-hundred-and-two-year-old Dorsey Pierce, a resident of the Buckhannon Board and Care Home, was told by his state of West Virginia that he could not continue to live at Buckhannon because of a law called the "self-preservation rule" that prohibited the home from housing people who could not exit the facility without aid in the case of a fire. Buckhannon, Mr. Pierce and other residents sued the state, saying that this law discriminated against people with disabilities. Before the case could be decided, however, the West Virginia Legislature repealed the self-preservation rule, and thus the Court said that it no longer needed to rule on the case. Even though they didn't technically win their case in a court of law, Mr. Pierce and the home believed that it was their lawsuit that had lead to the repeal of this law and the favorable outcome and asked the Court to award them attorneys' fees. The Supreme Court ruled that because they had not won the suit in court they couldn't get their money back.
Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources (2001)
Erna Boldt, 80 years old, knew she was competent to handle her own finances. But, her son Leroy disagreed. As the two battled it out in court, Erna felt that her son was taking advantage of her. So she complained to Oregon state officials and asked them to enforce the state’s elder abuse laws that prevented financial exploitation.
But after four complaints, state officials never responded. So she sued the Oregon Attorney General and other officials, alleging that they violated the Constitution’s 14th Amendment and the Older Americans Act, a federal statute that directs states to investigate elder abuse.
The U.S. District Court of Oregon held that Erna did not have a right to bring a lawsuit forcing the state officials to investigate elder abuse. The Older Americans Act did not allow individuals to force state officials to comply with it, and further, the statute only recommended, not required, that states investigate elder abuse. Additionally, the 14th Amendment did not give Erna the right to sue either. Erna has appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
This case is the result of a 2005 U.S. Supreme court ruling, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, which limited an individual’s right to sue under the 14th Amendment. Boldt’s case illustrates the effect that Gonzales had in limiting a person’s right to sue for statutory enforcement. Thus, although this is only a lower court opinion, it represents a trend in courts across the country.
After this ruling, it will be much more difficult to require states to investigate instances of elder abuse. Older Americans like Erna no longer have a way to ask the courts to ensure that their rights are being protected.
Boldt v. Meyers (2007)
Judy Jones started working at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in 1974. She drove buses and subway trains. In 1984, she was promoted to a supervisory position, but she found that despite getting very good job evaluations, her career hit a brick wall. She could not move up any higher. Judy thought that she was being discriminated against because of her age and she complained. After she filed a lawsuit, she was fired on trumped up charges. After being out of work for over three years, a jury found that Judy had been retaliated against for complaining about age discrimination. They awarded her over $200,000 in damages and she got her job back.
But the Supreme Court had said in Kimel v. Florida State University (above) that individuals have no right to sue state employers for money damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In light of that decision, the Transit Authority was able to argue that it was immune from suit. Thus, Judy never recovered the $200,000 that she had been awarded for the discrimination she experienced. Judy still works at Metro, getting to work by 4:30 a.m. every morning to keep things running on time. It is tragic that she had to endure this discrimination and never get any compensation for the injury she experienced.
Jones v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (courtesty of civilrights.org)
Daniel Kimel and other librarians at Florida State University sued the State of Florida for discriminating against them because of their age, by paying them less than younger workers in the same position and by not promoting them. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that although the university's pay policy disproportionately hurt older workers, Daniel Kimel could not bring his case in federal court. Through a narrow reading of the Constitution's Eleventh Amendment that prohibits private suits against states, the Court ruled that states couldn't be sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000)
For more information about the rights of senior citizens, go that section.