The Supreme Court Interprets The ADA

The Supreme Court Interprets The ADA

Judy Olian

(Judy Olian is Dean of Penn State's Smeal College of Business and a leading expert in strategic human resources management.)

There are 30 million American adults with serious disabilities. According to a recent Harris survey, 32 percent of disabled Americans are employed, compared to 81 percent of Americans without disabilities who are working. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was crafted to encourage employment of disabled Americans by offering protections against discrimination, and by requiring employers to offer accommodations that make it feasible for qualified disabled individuals to work, despite their disability.

Earlier this year, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gave a speech before a conference of business lawyers, arguing that the ADA needs more careful definition and precision. In their haste to pass protective legislation according to O'Connor, Congress left certain details in the ADA a little vague. The Supreme Court has worked to correct that during this 2001/2 term, rendering four decisions and further qualifying coverage under the ADA. In all instances, the scope of ADA protections is narrowed.

The first decision, Toyota v. Williams , was a suit brought by an assembly line worker who had carpal tunnel syndrome, and sued when Toyota wasn't willing to limit her job duties because of her condition. In a unanimous decision, the court asserted that "Merely having an impairment does not make one disabled for purposes of the ADA. Claimants also need to demonstrate that the impairment limits a major life activity." Ms. Williams, the Toyota worker, was still able to perform housework and other life duties despite her carpal tunnel syndrome, and was not prevented or severely restricted from "doing activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives," the court declared.

In U.S. Airways v. Barnett , the court dealt with the role of seniority relative to disability in affording rights on the job. Robert Barnett, a U.S. Airways employee with back problems, sought to keep a less physically demanding job in the mailroom despite the fact that another worker was entitled to that job under company seniority rules. The question was what would prevail - - seniority or ADA protection. The Supreme Court's 5 to 4 split decision held that violation of the seniority rule would be too disruptive to other employees who had based their career expectations on the seniority system. Violation of the seniority system would exceed reasonable accommodations called for under the ADA. The court did leave open the possibility that there might be special cases in which disabled workers' needs dominate a seniority plan, for example, if there are precedents for other exceptions to the seniority system.

Chevron v. Echazabal focused on the extent to which safety concerns could be subordinated to disability accommodations. Chevron had refused to hire Mario Echazabal because airborne toxins in the Chevron plant could jeopardize his disability condition (Hepatitis C, a chronic liver disease) or even lead to his death. Echazabal insisted that he should have the right to assume risk for himself, and that under the ADA an employer could exclude him only if he posed a risk unto others, not to himself. The court disagreed, and unanimously affirmed the reasonableness of Chevron's actions. "Moral concerns aside, it [Chevron] wishes to avoid time lost to sickness, excessive turnover for medical retirement or death, litigation under state tort law, and the risk of violating federal occupational safety rules."

Following Barnes v. Gorman , state and local governments are absolved from having to pay punitive damage awards under the ADA. Jeffrey Gorman was arrested after an altercation with a club bouncer. Gorman, a paraplegic in a wheelchair, was strapped to a bench inside a police van but injured himself from a fall suffered during the ride. A jury awarded more than $1 million in compensatory damages to Gorman, and an additional $1.2 million in punitive damages. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that recipients of federal funds such as states and cities cannot be sued for punitive damages.

The scope of the ADA's protections and reasonable accommodation requirements have been trimmed in the recent Supreme Court term. The decisions most relevant to the business community narrowed the definition of disability, affirmed the precedence of seniority systems over disability protections, and allowed employers the right to refuse employment to disabled workers even if workers are willing to assume the employment risk and aggravate their disability.

Business groups have hailed these decisions as victories. It is perhaps true that clarification of the intent and coverage of the ADA was necessary. But the fundamental purpose of the ADA remains intact - - to provide disabled Americans every opportunity and reasonable accommodations to afford them their right to gainful employment, and the satisfaction of exercising their talents and making a contribution to their communities. The Supreme Court did nothing to curb those rights.