  |
|
|
|
While You Were Sleeping© John McManamy
"We can be fired on account of account of our illness, but by reason of being 'normal' we cannot sue."
The following is based on articles that first appeared in my weekly newsletter: In late June of this year, the Supreme Court issued a blockbuster decision that has severely limited our rights to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case involved a pair of myopic twins whose vision was correctable with glasses and an airline that would not hire them, but the Court's ruling applies across the whole spectrum of disabilities, including mental. Thus, if you are bipolar or have had a history of depressive illness, you may now have no legal recourse against the discriminatory actions of your employer or prospective employer. In Sutton v United Airlines (97-1943), the Court rendered a key provision of the ADA all but void by applying its own restrictive interpretation to the term, "disability". Under the ADA, disability is defined as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more ... major life activities." The Court decided, however, that because the appellants had an impairment that could be "corrected" by glasses, they did not have a disability within the meaning of the ADA, and so could not sue by reason of being disabled. Delivering the opinion of the 7-2 majority, Justice O'Connor ruled: "A person whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by medications or other measures does not have an impairment that 'substantially limits' a major life activity. To be sure, a person whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by mitigating measures still has an impairment, but if the impairment is corrected it does not 'substantially limit' a major life activity." So here's where we stand: The appellants, because of their disabling myopia, were (fairly or unfairly) denied employment by United Airlines. Thanks to corrective eyeglasses, however, they no longer qualified as being disabled under the ADA, and thus could not sue. What makes Sutton v United Airlines so dangerous is that the Court's convoluted reasoning does not merely apply to people with glasses (however unjust that may be). Rather, Sutton now becomes the legal standard by which all future ADA claims of this type are decided. Indeed, the Court disposed of two similar ADA cases the same day, citing Sutton as their justification. The surprising 7-2 decision virtually ensures there will be no future judicial backpedaling. The case is binding on all lower courts and tribunals, and, until Congress takes corrective measures (if ever), it is the law of the
The copyright of the article While You Were Sleeping in Depression is owned by John McManamy. Permission to republish While You Were Sleeping in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
|
|
|
|
