Court Puts Its Biases into Ruling

Court puts its biases into ruling

By MICHAEL VOLKMAN, Special to the Times Union
January 27, 2002

One of Henny Youngman's most famous gags goes like this: A guy goes to his doctor and complains, "Doc, it hurts when I do this.''

"So,'' the doctor replies, "don't do 'this.' ''

Ella Williams worked on Toyota's assembly line in Kentucky, and her task became her version of "do this'' because she developed carpal-tunnel syndrome. Toyota did a smart and reasonable thing when it switched her to an inspecting job that did not require her to "do this.''

Three years later, the company did a dumb thing by adding tasks that forced her to "do this.'' Instead of moving her to a different job, as it had wisely done before, or assigning the tasks to someone else, it insisted on this arrangement. When Williams was in too much pain to work, she was fired.

She sued under several statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act. Her case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which got it wrong -- again.

The purpose of the ADA is to prohibit discrimination, and to protect people from discrimination. All people. People with disabilities, people with a "history'' of having a disability, people "regarded as having'' a disability and people with connections or associations with people with disabilities.

The court ruled that Ms. Williams could not sue under the ADA. In the Williams case, just as in the Sutton et al. cases two years ago, the court focused on the ADA's definition of a person with a disability. It focused very narrowly on some words and ignored others. A person with a disability, under this definition, is unable to perform one or more major life activities, "including, but not limited to ...'' several it lists.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the unanimous opinion, in a nutshell said that Williams' inability to "do this'' was not the type of disability that ADA was intended for when Congress passed it. Whatever barriers imposed on Williams by her inability to "do this'' don't quite match the list in the ADA to satisfy the justices that she fit the definition.

In the Sutton cases, two airline pilots who wore glasses, a truck driver on heart medication and another with one eye all lost job opportunities. They sued under the ADA, but lost in the Supreme Court on the grounds they were not covered because their disabilities were "mitigated'' by eyeglasses, medications and other methods.

In an emerging pattern, the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to distinguish between "real'' disabled people and everybody else. The court's definition appears to be forming along what people typically think of as "disabled'' -- seeing us by our medical diagnoses rather than as people encountering ignorance and fear.

Instead of dealing with the issue at question in the lawsuit and imposing a little common sense, the justices get hung up on their own prejudices about who is or is not disabled.

Separating people into categories, by definition, is discrimination. If the Supreme Court can't figure that out, it turns the whole idea of civil rights into one big joke.

Follow-up

The health care bill passed by the state Legislature on Jan. 15 includes a provision for Medicaid buy-in, effective April 1. Instead of losing eligibility when income and assets reach a cut-off number, people will be able to pay a premium to stay covered. This will allow thousands of New Yorkers with disabilities to accept jobs, raises and promotions, and keep critical services they need to stay independent.

Michael Volkman is a Capital Region resident and an advocate for people with disabilities.

Source: http://www.timesunion.com/aspstories/storyprint.asp?storyKey=75602

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.

Opinions expressed in this web site do not necessarily reflect the views of NAMI Santa Cruz County, NAMI California or any affiliated organizations. We attempt to present a balanced perspective on issues by presenting multiple viewpoints.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.