How the Supreme Court disabled the ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), a civil rights law, was intended to provide a legal remedy for people facing discrimination because of impairments. However, in recent cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has restricted the “privilege” of being protected against discrimination under the ADA, and has also curtailed its enforcement by lawsuit for monetary damages, to cases where individual rights don’t conflict with the “sovereign immunity” of states.

The ADA defines disability as: “... a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits ... major life activities ...; [or a person who] ... has a history or record of such an impairment; [or] ... is regarded ... as having such impairment.” (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). Note: EEOC regulations identify “major life activities” as walking, breathing, seeing, hearing, speaking, learning and working.

Below are two examples of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions:

• In 2001, the court disallowed a lawsuit by Patricia Garrett, who claimed that the University of Alabama/Birmingham Hospital demoted her and cut her annual salary by $13,000 once she returned to work after treatment for breast cancer. Broadly interpreting the 11th Amendment, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that: “State employees may not sue in federal court to recover money damages for the State’s failure to comply with the ADA [Title I] ...” (Summary, Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v Garrett, 99-1240)
• A 2002 decision in a case brought by Ella Williams, a worker at a Kentucky Toyota auto plant, was one of several in which the court narrowed the definition of disability. Williams, who developed carpal tunnel syndrome while working an assembly line, sued Toyota for refusing to reassign her under the “reasonable accommodations” provision of the ADA. The court ruled that Williams’s condition was not a “disability” because she could still perform tasks, such as cooking or brushing her teeth. It stated: “... whether ... unable to perform ... tasks central to most people’s daily lives, not whether ... unable to perform the tasks associated with her specific job. ...” (Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Inc. v Williams, 2002)

(Sally Knapp, a SUNY Albany librarian and UUP delegate, is chair of the union’s Human and Civil Rights Committee and co-chair of the Disability Rights and Concerns Committee.)