Recent Changes in Disability Law
The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law in 1990, with enforcement provisions gradually taking effect over the next couple of years. Since that time, there have been thousands of charges filed throughout the country. As with any 'new' law (although parts of the ADA were patterned after other, more established rehabilitation law), our understanding of the law has evolved overtime with the multitude of charges that have been brought by employees alleging disability discrimination. According to a press release issue by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, from July 1992 through March 31, 1999 (second quarter of fiscal year 1999), the EEOC resolved more than 117,000 ADA charges and obtained over $241 million in benefits for individuals alleging discrimination under the ADA without resort to court-filed actions.
One of the issues that has troubled employees, employers and the courts is which individuals (i.e. what kinds of disabilities) qualified for protection under the ADA because they were 'disabled.' Over the years, employees have made claims for every conceivable kind of disability, from hypertension to carpal tunnel syndrome. The broad definition of disability in the act, that in order to qualify as disabled an individual must be substantially limited in one of life's major activities, has not been particularly helpful in clearly defining whom the law is intended to protect. One law school professor has estimated that 85% of the litigation involving the ADA has centered on the issue of the definition of 'disability.'
On June 22, 1999, the U. S. Supreme Court held that employers may take mitigating measures (such as glasses or medications) into consideration when evaluating whether an individual has a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In other words, any disabling condition which is not disabling when it is corrected or medically treated does not entitle the plaintiff to the protection of the ADA. The case thus permits employers to make classifications such as 20/20 vision a requirement for a job, assuming there is a business reason for the requirement, since someone without 20/20 is not necessarily disabled under the act if corrective lenses make it so that his nearsightedness does not substantially impair him in any of life's major activities.
Although employers may feel somewhat relieved by the recent decisions, it should be noted that the recent cases involved the transportation industry, where safety is a paramount concern. The cases also emphasized that each case of alleged disability must be evaluated on an individual basis. Finally, there are two additional kinds of claims under the ADA which do not necessarily involve proof that the claimant is disabled under the Act. Individuals who claim that, although not presently disabled, they are either "regarded as" disabled or have a record of disability may make a claim under the ADA even though they do not fit the definition of disability under the ADA. This part of the statute is designed to prevent employers from utilizing discriminatory stereotypes to "weed out" otherwise qualified employees.
In a recent decision out of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decisions apply to cases arising in Colorado, the Court of Appeals held that an applicant was not precluded from stating a claim under the ADA section prohibiting preemployment inquiries regarding disabilities by the fact that applicant was not disabled. Griffin v. Steeltek Inc., 160 F.3d 591 (1998) If the question asked the applicant is intended to weed out disabled individuals by utilizing a stereotype, in this case the fact of a previously filed worker's compensation claim, the applicant who does not receive a job because of his answer to this question may sue even though he may not have been qualified as disabled under the ADA. Similarly, if an employer discriminates against an individual because of the individual's history of disability, the ADA makes such discrimination illegal even though the individual is not actually disabled at the time the discrimination occurs.
There will no doubt be further refinements of the ADA as time goes on. However, the recent United States Supreme Court decisions have clarified some important issues that have been hotly disputed since the ADA became law.
