In Okwu v. McKim, the key litigated issue was whether a state employee could assert a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a public employer's alleged violation of Title I of the ADA.

The plaintiff, Okwu, was an Accounting Officer for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). She suffers from psychiatric disorders, including bipolar disorder and psychosis, that created conflict between her and her supervisor. Pursuant to a negotiated settlement, Okwu was placed on disability retirement status under the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). She was also given the right to seek reinstatement to her accounting position, and she exercised this right. However, a California administrative law judge determined that she was unfit for reinstatement, and the CalPERS Board of Administration adopted this decision.

Okwu unsuccessfully challenged the administrative decision in state court. Okwu believed that the Eleventh Amendment precluded her from suing Caltrans and CalPERS under the ADA in federal court. Therefore, she asserted a cause of action in federal court alleging that the defendants, who are employees of CalPERS, violated Section 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that Okwu failed to state a claim on which relief might be granted and dismissed her claim.

Okwu appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit held in its June 12, 2012 decision that state employees cannot maintain a Section 1983 claim based on a public employer's alleged violation of Title I of the ADA.

An aggrieved party alleging a violation of federal law may not use Section 1983 to vindicate his rights when that law already has a comprehensive remedial scheme. For example, in Vinson v. Thomas, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff could not assert a Section 1983 claim for an alleged violation of Title II of the ADA because Title II has a remedial scheme that includes enforcement mechanisms and civil remedies. (Title II prohibits disability-based discrimination by public entities.) Similarly, in Ahlmeyer v. Nevada System of Higher Education, the Ninth Circuit held that Section 1983 actions cannot vindicate alleged violations of the ADEA because the ADEA has a comprehensive remedial scheme.

Title I of the ADA prohibits disability-based discrimination by employers. By providing Title I with its own remedial scheme, Congress manifested its intent to preclude Section 1983 claims to vindicate Title I violations.

Because Title II abrogates a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Title I does not, state employees cannot use the ADA remedial scheme to vindicate their ADA rights. Therefore, Okwu argued that she should be allowed to assert her claim under Section 1983. However, a state's immunity from suit does not mean a plaintiff may use Section 1983 as a substitute for an otherwise comprehensive remedial scheme. Even though the Supreme Court has held that Title I's remedial scheme did not validly abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Ninth Circuit could not interpret Section 1983 to provide a substitute remedy that Congress never provided for in the statute.

Finally, Okwu's equal protection claim failed because the "class of one" theory, which she invoked, is not available to public employees.

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Okwu's claim.

As a result of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Okwu, state employees will not be able to assert Section 1983 claims based on a public employer's alleged violations of Title I of the ADA. Employees of state governments within the Ninth Circuit who allege disability discrimination against their employer may consider remedies under state law.