Wroncy

MEMORANDUM **

Jan Wroncy brought this action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 , alleging that she is extremely sensitive to chemicals and that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) violated the ADA by refusing to stop spraying herbicides on roads near her home. The district court dismissed the action, ruling that although the ADA applies to state governments, “it is not reasonable to extend its provisions to the circumstances alleged in this case.” The court acknowledged that Wroncy’s disability prevents her from traveling on “certain roads at certain times,” but reasoned that “[s]uch inconveniences do not constitute discriminatory exclusion from a program or service.” We reverse and remand.

DISCUSSION

ODOT contends it is immune from ADA claims because Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity. We have twice rejected that argument. See Dare v. California, 191 F.3d 1167, 1173-74 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, —- U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 1187 , 149 L.Ed.2d 103 *606 (2001); Clark v. California, 123 F.3d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir.1997). The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Board of Trustees…