Supreme Court Interpretation of the ADA
The following comes from the American Association of People with
Disabilities' Jonathan Young:
"OP-ED: Supreme Court & the ADA"
Below please find an excellent op-ed from Sunday's Los Angeles
Times, which describes the "Catch-22" nature of the ADA as interpreted by the
Supreme Court. "The only disabled people protected under the ADA are people who
do not need protection," writes Charles Lindner. "For the high court, then, some
people are not disabled enough; some people are too disabled; but, so far,
nobody has been disabled "just right.""
This situation has its roots in the way federal
nondiscrimination on the basis of disability was crafted decades ago under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Nondiscrimination on the basis of sex and
race covers ALL PEOPLE where race and sex are inappropriately used to determine
qualification for participation in or enjoyment of a program or benefit. In
other words, whites as well as blacks, men as well as women, can seek redress
under the law. The focus is on whether actions are discriminatory.
Section 504 (and the ADA that modeled 504), by contrast,
prohibited discrimination only against INDIVIDUALS who meet criteria for
protection under the law. In other words, only the "truly" disabled (people who
have physical or mental impairments that "substantially limit" daily life
activities) are protected by the ADA. The focus is as much on whether one
qualifies to bring a complaint as whether actions are discriminatory.
The "Catch-22" comes into play because, as interpreted
narrowly by the Supreme Court (in some cases in direct contradiction with the
legislative reports that accompanied the ADA), one has to be both disabled
enough to qualify for protection AND, in the context of employment, not disabled
enough to do a job. For many people with disabilities, meeting both sets of
criteria is difficult if not impossible. A condition determined by an employer
to be ample cause for disqualification can be viewed by the courts as
insufficient in qualifying for protection under the ADA.
While the ADA has been hailed as a triumph for the disability
rights movement, our nation's legal system wields considerable influence over
the long-term success of the ADA. We've all heard the phrase about the most
important factors in considering real estate: "Location, Location, Location."
The disability community needs to do a lot more to focus on "Judges, Judges,
Judges" if the ADA is to live up to its promise of equality of opportunity.
Jonathan Young JFA Editor, American Association of People with
Disabilities (www.aapd.com)
Supreme Court Upsetting a Rights Movement
The Supreme Court's ADA employment rulings read as if they were drawn from
the pages of "Catch-22."
By CHARLES LINDNER Los Angeles Times June 2, 2002
Charles Lindner is past president of the Los Angeles Criminal Bar
Assn.
During the last 50 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has played a significant role
in three major civil rights movements. In outlawing school segregation in 1954
(Brown vs. the Board of Education), it helped ignite the campaign to give
African Americans full equality. In giving women the right to an abortion in
1973 (Roe vs. Wade), it greatly bolstered the women's movement. And in a series
of rulings on the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the court seems
determined to reverse the disabled-rights movement.
Because of a fear of "cripples," ignorance or outright bigotry, the task of
gaining mainstream acceptance for the disabled has proved even more daunting
than for blacks and women. For example, a state refused to hire cancer victims
for at least five years after the patients' last treatments because a government
official mistakenly believed cancer was contagious. A public school refused to
hire a deaf instructor to teach at a state's school for the deaf because she
lacked "listening skills." A zoo turned away children suffering from Down
syndrome because the zookeeper "feared they would upset the chimpanzees." These
were among the more than 100 cases presented to Congress before it passed the
ADA in 1990. For the disabled, the ADA was the equivalent of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964: It promised to change forever their status in the nation and open
up numerous employment opportunities. The act outlaws state and private
discrimination against the disabled in employment and mandates that employers
treat disabled applicants and employees with basic human dignity. But unlike the
Warren court, which forced a resistant country onto the path of racial
integration, or the reluctant Berger court that recognized a woman's place in
the working world, the Rehnquist court has stepped off the civil rights path
completely, siding with employers in the first five ADA cases to reach it.
The current majority apparently isn't shy about distorting the record to achieve
its desired result. In University of Alabama vs. Garrett last year, Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that Congress had failed to adequately
investigate whether state governments have a history of discriminating against
the disabled. To anyone familiar with the ADA, this was brazen nonsense.
Congressional committees have investigated disability discrimination for years.
The Garrett dissenters, in fact, published a 39-page list of state-by-state
examples of official acts of discrimination compiled by a congressional task
force.
Nevertheless, Rehnquist wrote that it would be "entirely rational and therefore
constitutional for a state employer to conserve scarce financial resources by
hiring employees who are able to use existing facilities" without the
accommodations the ADA requires for those who need them.
In Sutton vs. United Airlines, the plaintiffs, twin sisters, had applied for
jobs as UAL pilots. They already held jobs as commercial jet pilots. They had
uncorrected vision of 20/200 and corrected vision of 20/20. United required
uncorrected vision of 20/100, although it did not discharge pilots whose
uncorrected vision later deteriorated, as long as it corrected to 20/20.
The court held that the sisters were not "substantially limited" in a "major
life activity" because there were many other jobs they could do (just not fly
for United). The same reasoning was applied in Murphy vs. United Parcel Service.
In that case, the plaintiff was a UPS mechanic who was required to drive heavy
vehicles as part of his job. He was terminated because of hypertension, although
he controlled his condition with medication.
Thus, even though the Sutton sisters were not hired because of a correctable
vision deficiency, and Murphy was fired because of his medicinally corrected
blood pressure, the court found that none of them were disabled for the purpose
of employment under the ADA.
Confused? The Supreme Court's ADA employment rulings read as if they were drawn
from the pages of "Catch-22." If you are able to do the job with glasses or
medication, you are not disabled under the ADA. On the other hand, if you cannot
do the job because of your bad vision or high blood pressure, you are not
protected under the ADA. The only disabled people protected under the ADA are
people who do not need protection.
For the high court, then, some people are not disabled enough; some people are
too disabled; but, so far, nobody has been disabled "just right."
Ella Williams, an automobile assembly line worker at a Toyota plant in Kentucky,
developed crippling carpal tunnel syndrome on the job. She was transferred to a
job of inspecting paint on cars, but that job was later expanded to include
wiping the cars as they passed on the assembly line. Toyota fired her when her
disability prevented her from performing the new duties. Williams contended that
her inability to raise her arms above shoulder level was an impairment of a
"major life activity" covered by the ADA.
Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the ADA was not meant
to cover Williams because she could not do the job. Once again, the legal
precedent appears to have been "Catch-22."
You might think that the obvious remedy for a large corporation is to find a
less physically demanding job for a worker who becomes disabled.
Robert Barnett, a US Airways employee, injured his back while working as a cargo
handler at the airline. He was reassigned to the mail room at his doctor's
suggestion, but the company later told him he would have to give up the job to
make room for another employee with more seniority, as required by company
policy. Barnett sued.
In late April, the court ruled, 5 to 4, that an employer's seniority system
cannot ordinarily be trumped by a disabled worker seeking an accommodation under
the ADA.
If the court did to the 1964 Civil Rights Act what it has done to the 1990
Americans With Disabilities Act, blacks would be living again in pre-1954
America: separate and unequal, undereducated and underemployed.
As it is, the disabled cannot use "white" restrooms, eat in "white" restaurants
or hold down "white" jobs because the restroom is unusable, the restaurant
inaccessible and the job unobtainable. They are the last hired and first fired,
if they are hired at all. Worst of all, the U.S. Supreme Court shows no
inclination, so far, to right the scales of "equal justice under the law" for
the disabled.
Source:
http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la%2D000038685jun02
This "Mental Health E-News" posting is a service of the New York Ass'n of
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, a statewide coalition of people who use
and/or provide community mental health services dedicated to improving services
and social conditions for people with psychiatric disabilities by promoting
their recovery, rehabilitation and rights.
To join our list, e-mail us your request and, where appropriate, the name of
your organization to NYAPRS@aol.com.
