Supreme Court Delivers Another Blow to ADA
Feature Story by Katie Drake - 5/6/2002
The Supreme Court’s most recent interpretation of the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), US Airways v. Barnett, has disappointed both the conservative and liberal judges of the court, and has troubled the disability community.The 5-4 ruling represents is the latest in a line of recent Supreme Court decisions narrowing employee protections under the Act.
US Airways v. Barnett involved a baggage handler for US Airways, Robert Barnett, who had injured his back. The company had placed him temporarily in the mailroom, a job that was less physically stressful. But, the company would not make the job permanent because those with more seniority were first entitled to the position under company policy. Barnett challenged the company on the grounds of the "reasonable accommodation" requirement in the ADA.
The Supreme Court ruled that seniority almost always takes priority over the requests of disabled workers. The majority noted, however, that an exception to the seniority rule might be warranted where the disabled employee could prove "special circumstances."
The dissents took issue with the majority from two different directions. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas argued that the decision did not go far enough. They felt that the acknowledgment that there could be "special cases" muddied the waters, leaving open the possibility of increased litigation.
By contrast, Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the decision gave too much weight to seniority. The ADA states that seniority should be a factor in deciding what is reasonable accommodation but should not prevail in all cases.
US Airways is one of several recent Supreme Court decisions narrowing the ADA’s reach:
- January 8, 2002: Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Ella Williams:
In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of disability to reach only those “impairments” that restricted a person from performing essential daily tasks and is permanent or long term. The Court went on to hold that carpal tunnel syndrome does not constitute a disability under this definition. - February 21, 2001: Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett:
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court both denied the right of disabled persons to sue for monetary damages from the state and narrowed the definition of what constitutes a Fourteenth Amendment violation against persons with disabilities.
