U.S. Supreme Court

Employment Rights Under the ADA in Wake of High Court's Decisions

By Barry C. Taylor, Legal Advocacy Director

Since 1995, the United States Supreme Court has decided numerous cases interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was enacted into law in 1990. Most of the victories for people with disabilities have been outside of the employment arena.

Instances of favorable decisions involving the ADA have included Court rulings that affirmed coverage under the Act for a prisoner who was denied a reasonable accommodation and for a woman with "asymptomatic" HIV disease when she was denied dental services, as well as a ruling that unjustified institutionalization of people with disabilities was discriminatory under the ADA.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's progressive bent has not carried over to the employment rights of people with disabilities, where its decisions have primarily been conservative with restrictive interpretations of the ADA's employment provisions. For example, it ruled that people whose medication or assistive devices mitigate the symptoms of their disabilities might not be covered by the ADA, and that state employees cannot sue their employers under the ADA in federal court for money damages.

In its past term, the Supreme Court heard three more ADA disability employment discrimination cases. Naturally, many people in the disability community were concerned that the Court would use these cases to further erode their employment protections under the ADA.

The Court addressed three major components of the ADA's employment provisions: the definition of disability, reasonable accommodation and direct threat. In each of the cases, it ruled in favor of the employer with interpretations contrary to what is widely held to have been the intent of Congress when it passed the law.

Enforceable Rights Under the ADA

While it is distressing that the Supreme Court has further limited the employment rights of people with disabilities, it is important to note that each of the cases focused on narrow and complex issues. Many articles in the press have also overstated the impact of the decisions. Despite these losses, employees with disabilities still have enforceable rights under the ADA, as well as under state and local disability anti-discrimination laws. However, it is critical to understand the parameters of the Supreme Court's decisions in order to know how to properly exercise those rights.

The following are important questions to consider when bringing a claim for disability employment discrimination. Each incorporates major points raised in the cases the Supreme Court decided during the past term, as well as in previous years. The name of the case to reference is listed in parenthesis following each question.

1. Does your employer have 15 or more employees on the payroll?
(Walters v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc. 1996)

The ADA only covers employers with at least 15 employees on the payroll. If your employer has fewer than 15 employees, you should consider filing under the Illinois Human Rights Act or local anti-discrimination statutes that do not require a minimum number of employees.

2. Do you take medication or use an assistive device?
(Sutton v United Airlines 1999)

The Supreme Court has ruled that if you use a mitigating measure (like taking medication or using an assistive device), and you are no longer substantially limited in a major life activity due to the mitigating measure, you might not be eligible as a person with a disability under the ADA. Therefore, it is important to either demonstrate to the court the limitations you have despite the mitigating measure - or that the side effects from the mitigating measure are themselves substantially limiting in a major life activity.

Another possibility for claiming coverage under the ADA is to assert that your employer regards you as being substantially limited in a major life activity. For example, if you no longer have seizures after taking med-ication but your employer continues to treat you as if you have limitations simply because you are diagnosed with epilepsy, you could still be covered by the ADA. Also, you should consider filing under state or local laws that do not consider mitigating measures.

3. If you are terminated, can you apply for Social Security benefits and still seek recovery under the ADA?
(Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems 1999)

In order to be successful in an ADA employment case, you must prove that you were qualified to do the job. According to the Supreme Court, stating on a Social Security application that you are unable to work does not automatically mean that you are unqualified for ADA purposes. However, you still must explain how you can be qualified to do the job under the ADA but at the same time be unable to work for Social Security purposes.

One possibility is to show how your disability may have changed over time. For instance, you could show that at the time of termination you were able to do the job, but afterwards your disability became more severe, making it impossible for you to work. Also, some people are able to do their job with a reasonable accommodation, and therefore qualified under the ADA, but if the employer refused to provide the needed accommodation, they are unable to work, and would be covered by Social Security. In other words, you can, under certain circumstances, be covered under both laws.

4. Are you a state employee?
(University of Alabama v. Garrett 2001)

The Supreme Court has ruled that state employees who sue their employer in federal court cannot receive money damages under the ADA. However, state employees can still recover nonmonetary damages, also known as injunctive relief. For example, if you can prove that your employer failed to promote you because of your disability, a federal court could award you the promotion under the ADA, but you would not recover any money damages for the employer's discriminatory actions.

5. Does your disability substantially limit major life activities other than those involved with your job?
(Toyota Manufacturing v. Williams 2002)

The Supreme Court has said that to be covered under the ADA, you must show that your disability substantially limits you in activities that are central to most people's lives. For the major life activity of performing manual tasks, the Court cited performing household chores, bathing, brushing one's teeth and dressing as activities that are central to most people's lives. You must show that your limitations include activities beyond your specific job. If you think it will be difficult to prove that you are substantially limited in a major life activity, you have the alternative of filing a claim under the Illinois Human Rights Act, which does not require you to prove that you have a substantial limitation.

6. Does your employer have a seniority policy?
(U.S. Airways v. Barnett 2002)

The Supreme Court has said that while an accommodation request for reassignment may normally be reasonable, the fact that it would violate the rules of seniority system would ordinarily make it unreasonable. The Court did say, however, that if the employee can show that special circumstances demonstrate that the requested accommodation is reasonable in a particular case, the accommodation request could trump the seniority policy. For instance, if the employer has discretion on when to use the seniority policy or does not implement it consistently, you may be able to argue that the employer should have made an exception to the seniority policy and granted your request for reassignment. Since state law does not recognize the reasonable accommodation of reassignment, filing under the Illinois Human Rights Act on this issue would not be advisable.

7. Does your employer perceive that your health or safety - or that of others - will be at risk in the workplace because of your disability?
(Chevron v. Echazabal 2002)

The Supreme Court has said that if your disability poses a significant risk of substantial harm to yourself or others in the workplace, you can be terminated under the ADA's direct threat defense. However, the burden of proof is on your employer, who would have to show that the decision is based on current objective medical evidence and not on fears, stereotypes or patronizing attitudes about your disability.

For example, if you have diabetes, an employer could not terminate you because of a stereotypical belief that all people with diabetes are susceptible to going into a coma and are therefore in danger of falling and injuring themselves. Instead, the employer would have to conduct an individualized assessment to evaluate whether your diabetes poses a significant risk of substantial harm to yourself or others in the workplace, and prove that this danger could not be eliminated by a reasonable accommodation.

Equip for Equality has developed summaries of the three recent Supreme Court ADA decisions, as well as the major ADA cases decided by the Court in previous years. These summaries are available on our Web site at http://www.equipforequality.org/ or by calling our office at 800-537-2632 (voice) or 800-610-2779 (TTY). =

Subscribe to the Equalizer | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use