Lambda Legal

Lambda Legal opposes the nomination of U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The 11 judges on this federal appeals court hear a wide range of cases appealed from trial-level federal courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.

Boyle has repeatedly been nominated to the federal appellate bench (by both President George W. Bush and President George H.W. Bush), and repeatedly has failed to win Senate confirmation, largely because of his extreme judicial views and apparent hostility to claims by civil rights litigants who have appeared before him. Indeed, Boyle persistently has demonstrated his willingness to depart from the judicial mainstream and ignore well-established legal precedent in order to rule against plaintiffs in a wide variety of contexts where civil rights are at stake. He appears to have approached cases with a result already in mind, rather than with an open mind to the facts and arguments made in the case, and he has repeatedly undermined the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. The integrity of judicial proceedings are at the very heart of the promise that our legal system makes to members of disadvantaged groups who turn to the courts to protect their civil rights.

Of particular concern to Lambda Legal is Boyle’s consistently radical approach to the Americans with Disabilities Act – an approach marked by disregard for legal precedent and uniform antipathy to the claims of ADA plaintiffs.

Since its enactment in 1990, the ADA has been instrumental in protecting people with HIV from being fired from their jobs or thrown out of their homes. Lambda Legal participated in Bragdon v. Abbott, the first U.S. Supreme Court case recognizing that HIV is a disability covered by the ADA. Since then, Lambda Legal has invoked the ADA and related legislation, such as the federal Rehabilitation Act, to protect people with HIV from discrimination. In Doe v. County of Center, Lambda Legal invoked the ADA to protect the rights of foster parents who care for children with HIV. In another case, Lambda Legal used laws that protect disabled people to ensure that a man could receive care at a nursing home after six different homes refused to help him because he has HIV. Most recently, Lambda Legal struck back against Cirque du Soleil after it fired HIV-positive gymnast Matthew Cusick, claiming that his disability rendered him a “known safety hazard.” Many of these victories would not have been possible if courts followed Boyle’s radically restrictive interpretations of the ADA.

Boyle has been repeatedly criticized by the Fourth Circuit itself for disregarding clearly established legal precedent. Williams v. Avent, Inc., 910 F.Supp. 1124 (E.D.N.C. 1995), aff’d on other grounds by Williams v. Channel Master Satellite Sys., 101 F.3d 346 (4th Cir. 1996). The Fourth Circuit has also criticized Boyle for ignoring the plain terms of the ADA in ruling that courts should defer to an employer’s opinion of whether a reasonable accommodation has been made available to a disabled employee. See Williams v. Avent, supra. In two separate decisions, Boyle has falsely re-characterized the purpose of the ADA as providing “special treatment” for disabled plaintiffs as opposed to equality of work opportunities. Pierce v. King, 918 F.Supp. 932 (E.D.N.C. 1996), aff’d, 131 F.3d 136 (4th Cir. 1997), rev’d, 525 U.S. 802 (1998); Brown v. North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, 987 F.Supp. 451 (E.D.N.C. 1997), aff’d, 166 F.3d 698 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1190 (2001). In both of these cases, Boyle applied an extremely restrictive approach to the ADA, railing against Congress’ authority to apply this crucial civil rights law to states.

Restricting the rights of disabled people harms people living with HIV. When Boyle decides, as he did in Williams v. Avent, Inc., 910 F.Supp. 1124 (E.D.N.C. 1995) that employers cannot be sued “for their irrational perception of a minor impairment,” he gives employers permission to turn their irrational fear of HIV into an excuse to fire dedicated employees. When Boyle rules that it is up to an employer to decide what kind of accommodation is “reasonable” for a disabled employee, he opens the door for employers to fire people with HIV with impunity.

In fact, the public record indicates that in his more than 20 years on the bench Boyle has never ruled in favor a plaintiff in an ADA (or Title VII federal discrimination law) case. (Because Boyle has refused to make his unpublished opinions available as part of the confirmation process, only his published opinions are open to review, reflecting just the portion of his record that he wanted the public to see.)

Boyle has displayed blatant disregard for the rule of law by repeatedly dismissing plaintiffs’ cases using precisely the same unfair procedures for which he has previously been reversed. For example, on at least three occasions Boyle has been reversed by the Fourth Circuit for ignoring clear legal precedent by entering summary judgment against plaintiffs without even giving them notice or an opportunity to respond before dismissing their cases. Williams v. U.S., No. 4:96-CV-14-BO (E.D.N.C. 1998), vac’d by U.S. v. Williams, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5126, 1-2 (4th Cir. 1999); Abdussamadi v. Vandiford, 5:98-HC-96-BO (E.D.N.C. 1998), vac’d by Abdussamadi v. Vandiford, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 18663 at 2 (4th Cir. 1999); Lomas v. Red Storm Entertainment, No. 5:01-CV-237-BO(2) (E.D.N.C. 2001), vac’d by Lomas v. Red Storm Entertainment, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22471, at 17 (4th Cir. 2002). Similarly, Boyle was reversed by the Fourth Circuit for ruling against a plaintiff based solely on the recommendations of a magistrate judge, without even considering the plaintiff’s timely objections. Pierce v. Jones, CA-94-68-5-BO (E.D.N.C. 1995), vac’d Pierce v. Jones, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 50 (4th Cir. 1996). Less than a year later, the Fourth Circuit reversed Boyle in a different case on precisely the same grounds. Hayes v. Grimmer, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 32912 (4th Cir. 1996).

This pattern of obstinate misapplication of legal standards to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims contributes to Boyle’s unusually high reversal rate. Boyle has been reversed more often than any other district court judge nominated to an appeals court by President Bush. In fact, it is not possible to know the full extent of Boyle’s reversals because of serious discrepancies in the questionnaires he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003 and 2005.

Boyle’s fitness to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals is in serious doubt. Lambda Legal therefore calls on the Senate to reject his nomination.