Summer 2002
THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The U.S. Supreme Court justices decided four major ADA cases during the past term. The rulings pleased employers and corporate counsel and distressed disabled workers and their advocates. In 2001, employers prevailed in 95.7 percent of the federal court cases that reached the merits of claims by workers or job applicants under Title I. Employers also prevailed in 73.3 percent of Title I cases that were fully resolved in EEOC administrative decisions.
In Toyota v. Williams, the Supreme Court continued cutting back on ADA‑covered disabilities relevant to millions of workers at factory assembly lines and office computer keyboards who are at risk for repetitive stress disorders. Ms. Williams filed an ADA complaint after the Toyota plant she worked for allegedly refused to reassign her to a less physically demanding position after she developed carpal tunnel syndrome while working at this plant. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati, ruling that Williams satisfied the ADA definition of disability due to limitations on the "major life activity" of manual labor. They found that Williams was substantially limited in her ability to grip tools and perform repetitive work with hands and arms extended at shoulder level. The Supreme Court felt the lower court focused on Williams' "inability to perform manual tasks associated only with her job" rather than determining whether she was unable to perform the variety of tasks central to most people's daily lives.
In US Airways v. Barnett, Mr. Barnett injured his back while working and could not continue working as a baggage handler. He was temporarily reassigned to a less physically demanding mailroom position. Within a few months, he lost this job to a coworker with more seniority. He sued US Airways for refusing to make an exception to its seniority system to accommodate his disability. The Supreme Court upheld the airline's action, noting that an established seniority system "provides important employee benefits by creating, and fulfilling, employee expectations of fair, uniform treatment." In a 5‑4 majority, the Court concluded that accommodating a disabled worker at the expense of co‑
In Chevon v. Echazabal, the Supreme Court provided further guidance on how far employers must go to accommodate disabled employees. Echazabal sued Chevron after the company refused to hire him when a physical exam revealed he suffered the effects of Hepatitis C, which could be aggravated by exposure to toxins at the refinery where he was seeking a job. The justices ruled unanimously that employers do not violate the ADA when they refuse to hire people who they reasonably believe would be harmed at the workplace.
In Barnes v. Gorman, the Supreme Court also ruled that municipalities are not subject to punitive damages in private ADA suits.
Excerptedfrom August ABA Journal
By William C Smith
The ADA prohibits blanket inquiries into medical and psychiatric histories prior to a job offer such as during a job interview or on an application form. An employer may not ask about worker's compensation history or about lawful drug use. Also, an employer may not use a job application form that lists a number of potentially disabling conditions and then ask the applicant to check any condition he or she may have.
Under the ADA, privately owned businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, hotels, retail stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed.
The ADA defines a service animal as any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability.
In addition to "seeing eye dogs," service animals can provide a variety of other functions. Some examples include:
• Alerting persons with hearing impairments to sounds.
• Pulling wheelchairs or carrying and picidng up things for persons with mobility impairments.
• Assisting persons with mobility impairments with balance.
U.S. Department of Justice
OSU CONFERENCE
The ADA Coordinator’s office at the Ohio State University will be presenting another two-day conference entitled, “Multiple Perspectives on Access, Inclusion & Disability.” The conference will be held April 15, 16 at The Ohio State University’s Pfhal Executive Education and Conference Center.
For more information contact Scott Lissner at ADA.OSU@osu.edu or (614) 292-6207 or
(614)-688-3665(TTY).
The mission of ADA-OHIO is to provide information, technical assistance, and training in an effort to voluntary compliance and positive implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA).