08 June 2006
Protections Under U.S. Disabilities Act Defined by Courts
Rules implement, judicial decisions interpret Americans with Disabilities Act
Washington -- The U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, landmark legislation intended to protect the rights of those with physical or cognitive limitations, defines "disability" as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual.”
Congress, in 1990, estimated that 43 million Americans have from some sort of physical or mental impairment. (See “Americans With Disabilities Act Transforms Lives.”)
The law mandates that employers make "reasonable accommodations" for disabled individuals unless those accommodations impose an "undue hardship" on the employer. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issues regulations that clarify these definitions and implement the law’s mandates.
Ultimately, the judicial branch -- sometimes the Supreme Court of the United States -- has the authority to determine whether an individual is legally "disabled," and whether an employer has obeyed the law.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a disability claim properly is measured after reasonable mitigating measures have been taken. Thus, a person whose vision can be corrected with eyeglasses, or whose high blood pressure can be controlled by medication, is not disabled for purposes of the act. HIV-positive individuals, however, are considered by the court as substantially limited in major life activities, and hence disabled.
The justices also have held that disability is not a matter of being unable to perform a particular job, but rather “whether the claimant is unable to perform the variety of tasks central to most people's daily lives.” An individual unable for long periods to extend his or her arms above shoulder level is not disabled; one who cannot bathe, brush his or her teeth or perform household chores legally is disabled.
In addition, the act specifically excludes a number of conditions -- illegal drug abuse, compulsive gambling and kleptomania (the impulse, in the absence of economic motive, to steal) among others -- from the definition of disability.
Often the legal issue is not whether a person is disabled, but rather the steps that an employer or owner of a public accommodation must take to accommodate the disability. A determination of whether such steps impose "undue hardship" on the employer turns on the cost of the remedial measure as compared to the size and financial resources of the employer or public facility.
Sometimes the issue is instead whether a proposed "reasonable modification” to a public accommodation "would fundamentally alter the nature of such … accommodations." Professional golfer Casey Martin sought special permission to ride in a golf cart between swings. Casey had a degenerative circulatory disorder that rendered him unable to walk long distances. The Professional Golfers Association refused, arguing that the fatigue induced by walking was part of the game.
The Supreme Court ruled for Casey. The "essence" of golf, it held, was not walking, but making shots. "The waiver of a peripheral tournament rule that does not impair its purpose cannot be said to fundamentally alter the nature of the athletic event," the court wrote.
As this small sampling suggests, enactment of the law only begins the process of securing the rights and interests of citizens with special needs. The real costs imposed on other members of society also must be weighed, and difficult decisions made.
Nonetheless, the Americans with Disabilities Act represents the American people’s collective determination to empower the disabled -- and to harness their talents for the common good.
The full text of the Americans with Disabilities Act is available on the Department of Justice Web site.
See the eJournal Disability and Ability.
Building on the Progress of the ADA