* Editor in Chief, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2003–04. I would like to thank my father, Edwin G. Rajotte, for his inspiration, assistance, and encouragement in writing this Note.
1 See Safer Pest Control Project, Pesticides in Schools: What Are the Health Risks? 1, at http://www.spcpweb.org/schheal.pdf (last visited Oct. 7, 2003).
2 See id.
3 See Bd. of Educ., Eastchester Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Nationwise Exterminating & Deodorizing, Inc., 627 N.Y.S.2d 768, 769 (App. Div. 1995).
4 See Dunn v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., 459 S.E.2d 151, 154 (W. Va. 1995).
5 Valerie Watnick, Who’s Minding the Schools: Toward Least Toxic Methods of Pest Control in Our Nation’s Schools, 8 Fordham Envtl. L.J. 73, 74 (1996).
6 Safer Pest Control Project, supra note 1, at 1.
7 See Watnick, supra note 5, at 77–78.
8 See id. at 77.
9 See id. at 77–78; see also Phillip J. Landrigan et al., Environmental Pollutants and Disease in American Children: Estimates of Morbidity, Mortality, and Costs for Lead Poisoning, Asthma, Cancer, and Developmental Disabilities, 110 Envtl. Health Persp. 721, 721 (2002) (stating that children are more vulnerable to many chemicals than adults because of disproportionately heavy exposures coupled with the biologic sensitivity of early development).
10 Amy Cantor & Lynn R. Goldman, International Impacts of Pesticides on Children, Int’l J. Occup. Envtl. Health, Jan.–Mar. 2002, at 61; Watnick, supra note 5, at 77.
11 Watnick, supra note 5, at 77.
12 Cantor & Goldman, supra note 10, at 61; Watnick, supra note 5, at 77.
13 Jonathan Kaplan et al., Cal. Pub. Interest Research Group Charitable Trust, Failing Health: Pesticide Use in California Schools, at v (1998).
14 Jonathan Kaplan et al., supra note 13, at v; Landrigan et al., supra note 9, at 721.
15 Jonathan Kaplan et al., supra note 13, at v.
16 Safer Pest Control Project, supra note 1, at 1.
17 Watnick, supra note 5, at 80.
18 See Denise Koch et al., Temporal Association of Children’s Pesticide Exposure and Agricultural Spraying: Report of a Longitudinal Biological Monitoring Study, 110 Envtl. Health Persp. 829, 832 (2002).
19 See C.G. Wright et al., Insecticides in the Ambient Air of Rooms Following Their Application for the Control of Pests, 26 Bull. Envtl. Contaminative Toxicology 548, 548 (1981).
20 See Ellen F. Crain et al., Home and Allergic Characteristics of Children with Asthma in Seven U.S. Urban Communities and Design of an Environmental Intervention: The Inner-City Asthma Study, 110 Envtl. Health Persp. 939, 941–42 (2002); see also Bann C. Kang et al., Experimental Asthma Developed by Room Air Contamination with Cockroach Allergen, 111 Int’l Archives Allergy & Immunology 299, 299 (1995) (stating that cockroach allergen is known to induce asthmatic reactions).
21 Jonathan Kaplan et al., supra note 13, app. at 26; Texan PIN/Consumers Union, The Integrated Pest Management Program for Texas Public Schools 14 (1999) [hereinafter Texas Public Schools].
22 Texas Public Schools, supra note 21, at 14.
23 Id. at 10, 14.
24 Id. at 14.
25 Jonathan Kaplan et al., supra note 13, app. at 26.
26 Id.
27 Landrigan et al., supra note 9, at 723.
28 Id.
29 Id. “Environmentally-related” is defined as being caused by outdoor, nonbiologic pollutants from sources potentially subject to abatement. Id.
30 U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, Pesticides: Use, Effects, and Alternatives to Pesticides in Schools 3 (1999), available at http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/rc00017. pdf (last visited Oct. 7, 2003) [hereinafter GAO].
31 See generally Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. � 136 (2000) (FIFRA).
32 See Wis. Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 601 (1991); Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 991 (1984).
33 See Ruckelshaus, 467 U.S. at 991.
34 See id. at 991–92.
35 See Mortier, 501 U.S. at 601; Ruckelshaus, 467 U.S. at 991–92; see also Stephen D. Otero, The Case Against FIFRA Preemption: Reconciling Cipollone’s Preemption Approach with Both the Supremacy Clause and Basic Notions of Federalism, 36 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 783, 785–87 (1995) (explaining the history and regulatory area of FIFRA).
36 7 U.S.C. � 136a(a).
37 See id. � 136a(d)(1)(A).
38 Id. � 136a(d)(1)(B).
39 Id. � 136(d)(1)(C).
40 Id. � 136(bb).
41 GAO, supra note 30, at 4.
42 Id.
43 See Watnick, supra note 5, at 86.
44 GAO, supra note 30, at 1.
45 Id. at 4.
46 See Watnick, supra note 5, at 83–87.
47 See FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. � 136(bb) (2000); Watnick, supra note 5, at 84.
48 See Watnick, supra note 5, at 85.
49 See id.; discussion supra Part II.A.
50 See 7 U.S.C. � 136(a).
51 An inert ingredient is defined as: “an ingredient which is not active.” 7 U.S.C. � 136(m).
52 See id. � 136(n).
53 See Watnick, supra note 5, at 85.
54 See 7 U.S.C. � 136i(a)(1); Watnick, supra note 5, at 86.
55 See 7 U.S.C. � 136i(a)(1); Watnick, supra note 5, at 86. A state may submit a plan to EPA if it wishes to certify applicators. 7 U.S.C. � 136i(a)(1). If a state does not have an approved plan, EPA may conduct a program for certification, and this program “shall not require private applicators to take any examination to establish competency in the use of pesticides.” Id.
56 7 U.S.C. �� 136k, 136l.
57 Id. � 136u.
58 Wis. Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 602 (1991).
59 See id. at 616.
60 See id. at 608.
61 See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 991 (1984).
62 See Mortier, 501 U.S. at 613.
63 See id. at 613–14.
64 See FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. � 136r-1 (2000). “Integrated Pest Management is a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks.” Id.
65 U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, About Pesticides 1 (2003), at http://www.epa.gov/ pesticides/about/faqs.htm (last visited Oct. 7, 2003); Beyond Pesticides, Schools Save Money with Integrated Pest Management 18 (2002), available at http://www.beyond pesticides.org/SCHOOLS/publications/IPM_cost20%_FS.pdf (last visited Oct. 7, 2003) [hereinafter Beyond Pesticides].
66 GAO, supra note 30, at 10.
67 See Edwin G. Rajotte, From Profitability to Food Safety and the Environment: Shifting the Objectives of IPM, 77 Plant Disease 296, 296 (1993).
68 See id.
69 Minn. Dep’t of Agric., School Integrated Pest Management—What Is It? 1 (2002), available at http://www.mda.state.mn. us/ipm/FSoverview.pdf (last visited Oct. 7, 2003).
70 Id.
71 Id.
72 Id.
73 Id.
74 GAO, supra note 30, at 10.
75 Id.
76 Jonathan Kaplan et al., supra note 13, at vi.
77 Id. at 8.
78 Id.
79 Beyond Pesticides, supra note 65, at 19.
80 Id.
81 Id.
82 FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. � 136r-1 (2000).
The Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Administrator, shall implement research, demonstration, and education programs to support adoption of Integrated Pest Management. . . . The Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator shall make information on Integrated Pest Management widely available to pesticide users, including Federal agencies. Federal agencies shall use Integrated Pest Management techniques in carrying out pest management activities and shall promote Integrated Pest Management through procurement and regulatory policies, and other activities.
Id.
83 Id. � 136i(c).
84 Id.
85 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. � 12101(b) (2000).
86 Id. � 12131(1).
87 Id. � 12131(2).
88 Id. � 12132; Weinrich v. L.A. County Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 1997); Michael S. Heyl, Note, Circumventing Environmental Policy: Does the Americans with Disabilities Act Provide Protection Where Environmental Statutes Don’t?, 18 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol’y 323, 329–30 (2001).
89 42 U.S.C. � 12102(2).
90 7 C.F.R. � 15b.3(j) (2002).
91 See Hunt v. St. Peter Sch., 963 F. Supp. 843, 850 (W.D. Mo. 1997).
92 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).
93 Id. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).
94 28 C.F.R. � 42.511(c) (2002).
95 Id.
96 See Heyl, supra note 88, at 329.
97 See id. at 330.
98 See discussion infra Parts III.B, III.D.
99 Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360 (2001).
100 ADA, 42 U.S.C. � 12112(a) (2002).
101 Garrett, 531 U.S. at 374.
102 Id. at 363–64; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55 (1996).
103 Garrett, 531 U.S. at 364–65. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, � 1.
104 See Garrett, 531 U.S. at 372.
105 See id. at 365, 372.
106 See id. at 374 n.9.
107 Id.
Our holding that Congress did not validly abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity from suit by private individuals for money damages under Title I does not mean that persons with disabilities have no federal recourse against discrimination. Title I of the ADA still prescribes standards applicable to the States. Those standards can be enforced by the United States in actions for money damages, as well as by private individuals in actions for injunctive relief . . . .
Id. (emphasis added).
108 Id. at 360 n.1.
109 ADA, 42 U.S.C. � 12202 (2000). “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 this chapter.” Id.; see Garrett, 531 U.S. at 364; Patricia N. v. Lemahieu, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1248–49 (D. Haw. 2001).
110 Clark v. California, 123 F.3d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).
111 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. � 794 (2000). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was the predecessor of Title II of the ADA, and case law for section 504 is generally applicable to Title II of the ADA. See Biggs v. Bd. of Educ., 229 F. Supp. 2d 437, 440 n.1 (D. Md. 2002); Patricia N., 141 F. Supp. 2d at 1249 n.2.
112 Clark, 123 F.3d at 1271.
113 See Biggs, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 440–41.
114 Id.
115 Id. at 442 (citing Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 365 (2001)).
116 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 442–47 (1985).
117 Biggs, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 442.
118 Id. (quoting Garrett, 531 U.S. at 368).
119 Id. at 443 (citing Garrett, 531 U.S. at 365).
120 Id.
121 Id.
122 See id. at n.6.
123 See Alvarez v. Fountainhead, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1051 (N.D. Cal. 1999); Hunt v. St. Peter Sch., 963 F. Supp. 843, 850 (W.D. Mo. 1997).
124 See ADA, 42 U.S.C. � 12102(2) (2000); Hunt, 963 F. Supp. at 850; 7 C.F.R. � 15b.3(j) (2002).
125 34 C.F.R. � 104.3(j)(1) (2002).
126 See Hunt, 963 F. Supp. at 850; 7 C.F.R. � 15b.3(k).
127 The plaintiff was a student at a private Montessori school, which falls under Title III of the ADA, while public schools fall under Title II. See 42 U.S.C. � 12181(7)(k); Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1051.
128 Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1051.
129 42 U.S.C. � 12181(7)(k).
130 28 C.F.R. � 36.104 (2002).
131 Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1051.
132 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(1)(A)(i); Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1051.
133 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1051.
134 Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1051.
135 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1051.
136 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1051; see also Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 858 (8th Cir. 1999) (stating that a defendant may demonstrate that a requested accommodation would constitute an undue burden as an affirmative defense to an ADA claim); Hahn ex rel. Barta v. Linn County, Iowa, 130 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1056 (N.D. Iowa 2001) (holding that it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that a reasonable modification exists; however, if such a modification exists, and the defendant shows the modification would fundamentally alter the requirement at issue, then the ADA does not require a modification).
137 See 28 C.F.R. � 36.104 (2002).
138 See id.
139 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(3).
140 See Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1050.
141 Id. at 1050.
142 Id. at 1052–53.
143 Id. at 1053–54.
144 See id. at 1054.
145 Id. at 1055 (quoting Amicus Brief for the Department of Justice at 12).
146 See Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1055 (citing Amicus Brief for the Department of Justice at 20).
147 See id. at 1055.
148 See Heather K. v. City of Mallard, 887 F. Supp. 1249, 1268 (N.D. Iowa 1995).
149 See id. at 1251–52.
150 See id. at 1252–53.
151 Id. at 1251.
152 See id. at 1260. The elements considered for a TRO are: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) threat of irreparable harm; (3) balance of harms; and (4) the public interest. See id. at 1256–60.
153 See id. at 1260.
154 Heather K., 887 F. Supp. at 1260.
155 Id. at 1261.
156 See id.
157 Id. at 1261–62. In determining eligibility for use of public facilities, the only requirement is that the individual be present in the city and seeking to use the public facilities. See id. at 1262.
158 See ADA, 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(3) (2000); Heather K., 887 F. Supp. at 1262.
159 See Heather K., 887 F. Supp. at 1262.
160 See id. at 1263.
161 See Save Our Summers v. Wash. State Dep’t of Ecology, 132 F. Supp. 2d 896, 911–12 (E.D. Wash. 1999) order denying reconsideration Sept. 14, 2000; see also Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1, 21 (1981); Heyl, supra note 88, at 338–40.
162 See Save Our Summers, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 912; see also Sea Clammers, 453 U.S. at 21; Heyl, supra note 88, at 338–40.
163 See Save Our Summers, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 899, 907, 908.
164 Id. at 899.
165 See Sea Clammers, 453 U.S. at 10–11.
166 42 U.S.C. � 1983 (2000).
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable . . . .
Id.
167 Save Our Summers, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 903.
168 Sea Clammers, 453 U.S. at 13.
169 Id. at 20.
170 Id. at 20–21.
171 See Save Our Summers, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 901.
172 Id. at 902.
173 See id. at 903.
174 See id. at 908–09.
175 See id. at 905–06.
176 Id. at 906–07.
177 See Save Our Summers, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 908.
178 See id. at 910.
179 See id. at 910–11.
180 See id. at 910.
181 See id. at 911.
182 See id. at 911–12.
183 See discussion supra Parts I.A., I.B.
184 See Crain et al., supra note 20, at 941–42; Kang et al., supra note 20, at 299.
185 See GAO, supra note 30, at 4, 11.
186 See discussion supra Parts III.A, III.B.
187 See FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. � 136 (2000); discussion supra Part II.A.
188 See discussion supra Parts III.B, III.D.
189 See discussion supra Part III.D.
190 See, e.g., Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. � 7604 (2000). The citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA) reads:
Any person may commence a civil action on his own behalf—(1) against any person . . . who is alleged to have violated . . . or to be in violation of (A) an emission standard or limitation . . . or (B) an order issued by the Administrator or State with respect to such a standard or limitation, (2) against the Administrator where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary with the Administrator, or (3) against any person who proposes to construct or constructs any new or modified major emitting facility without a permit required.
Id. Other environmental statutes that contain citizen suit provisions include: the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. � 1540(g) (2000); the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. � 1365 (2000); the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. � 6972 (2000); and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. � 9659 (2000). See Eileen Guana, Federal Environmental Citizen Provisions: Obstacles and Incentives on the Road to Environmental Justice, 22 Ecology L.Q. 1, 11 n.137 (1995). FIFRA notably lacks a citizen suit provision. Id.
191 See Save Our Summers v. Wash. State Dep’t of Ecology, 132 F. Supp. 2d 896, 902–03 (E.D. Wash. 1990) order denying reconsideration Sept. 14, 2000; see also Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1, 20–21 (1981).
192 See discussion supra Part II.A.
193 See discussion supra Part II.A.
194 See FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. �� 136k, 136l (2000); Sea Clammers, 453 U.S. at 20–21; Save Our Summers, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 902–03.
195 See 7 U.S.C. �� 136k, 136l, 136u; Otero, supra note 35, at 786.
196 See 7 U.S.C. �� 136–136y. FIFRA does not have a specific citizen suit provision; both the CAA and the Clean Water Act (CWA) provide for such suits. Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. � 1365 (2000); Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. � 7604 (2000).
197 See Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. � 1251 (2000); Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. � 7401 (2000); Wis. Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 613–14 (1991).
198 See discussion supra Part III.D.
199 Save Our Summers, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 910.
200 See id.
201 See id. at 911. “Although the comprehensiveness of the CAA may not entirely preclude Plaintiffs’ suit, it does preclude Plaintiffs from obtaining relief under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act that would infringe upon subject matter governed by the CAA.” Id.
202 See Mortier, 501 U.S. at 613–14.
203 See 28 C.F.R. � 35.130 (2002).
204 See discussion supra Part II.A.; Heyl, supra note 88, at 331–32.
205 See Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. � 7407 (2000); Heyl, supra note 88, at 332.
206 See 42 U.S.C. �� 7408–7409; Heyl, supra note 88, at 332.
207 See FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. � 136 (2000).
208 Id. � 136a(a), (bb).
209 See Save Our Summers v. Wash. State Dep’t of Ecology, 132 F. Supp. 2d 896, 911 (E.D. Wash. 1999) order denying reconsideration Sept. 14, 2000.
210 See 7 U.S.C. � 136; Wis. Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 613–14 (1991).
211 See 7 U.S.C. � 136; Mortier, 501 U.S. at 613; cf. Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. � 7401 (2000) (stating that a purpose of the CAA is to promote regional air pollution and control programs).
212 See 7 U.S.C. � 136r-1; 28 C.F.R. � 42.511(c) (2002). FIFRA includes a provision to promote IPM; modification of a school’s pest control program to IPM is not at all contrary to the principles of FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. � 136r-1. Determinations of “reasonable accommodation” are made on a case-by-case basis. 28 C.F.R. � 42.511(c).
213 ADA, 42 U.S.C. � 12131 (2000).
214 Id. � 12132.
215 See id. � 12102(2); 7 C.F.R. � 15b.3(k); discussion supra Part III.C.
216 See Heather K. v. City of Mallard, 887 F. Supp. 1249, 1262 (N.D. Iowa 1995).
217 See 42 U.S.C. � 12132.
218 See id. �� 12102(2), 12132; Heather K., 887 F. Supp. at 1261–62; 28 C.F.R. � 35.104 (2002); discussion supra Part III.
219 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); Alvarez v. Fountainhead, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1051 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
220 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii), (b)(3); Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1051.
221 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(3).
222 See 28 C.F.R. � 36.104 (2002).
223 Discussion supra Parts III.A, III.C; see 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii), (b)(3); Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1051.
224 See discussion supra Part II.B.
225 Jonathan Kaplan et al., supra note 13, at 8.
226 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii), (b)(3); Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1051.
227 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1052–53.
228 See Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1052–53. Teachers were already required to recognize health problems in students and recognizing asthma symptoms in a particular student would not fundamentally alter the program. Id.
229 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); GAO, supra note 30, at 10; Jonathan Kaplan et al., supra note 13, at 8.
230 GAO, supra note 30, at 10.
231 See id.; Jonathan Kaplan et al., supra note 13, at 8.
232 See Alvarez, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1054 (stating that requiring teachers to have a one hour training on the use of an asthma inhaler would not pose an undue burden).
233 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(3); discussion supra Part II.B.
234 See discussion supra Part II.B.
235 See FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. � 136r-1 (2000).
236 See id.
237 See Watnick, supra note 5, at 77–79.
238 See Landrigan et al., supra note 9, at 723.
239 See discussion supra Part III.A.
240 See GAO, supra note 30, at 8; discussion supra Part III.A.