Supreme Court limitations on ADA protections for disabled employees

Unintended Limitations on Ada Protections

ADA Protections

The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was designed to prevent discrimination in terms of employment (Title I), telecommunications (Title IV), and public services (Title II), transportation (Title II), and accommodations (Title III), for persons with physical and/or mental disabilities (EEOC, n.d.; Disabled World, 2009). Employers and public establishments are required under the ADA to make accommodations for persons with disabilities, unless it imposes an undue hardship. To ensure compliance, a large number of different federal agencies act as enforcers of the ADA provisions.

The ADA defines a disabled person as anyone who is prevented from engaging in a major life activity, either currently or historically, or is perceived by others as being limited in this way. The latter criteria was intended to be one of three primary routes for bringing a discrimination suit to court, resulting in the 'regarded as' disabled test to prove discrimination by an employer (Larson, 2008-2009, p. 455). However, the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines discarded the 'regarded-as' test in favor of requiring plaintiffs to show the employer 'intended' to discriminate. The narrowing of qualifying criteria by the Supreme Court resulted in Congress amending the ADA in 2008 to counteract the effects of the Court's decsion.

Since a large number of disabilities could result in limiting participation in a major life activity, not all are listed in the ADA text (Disabled World, 2009). This essay will examine several potentially disabling conditions that are or are not covered by the ADA, then discuss how the Sutton decision applies.

Covered Disabilities

Major Depression -- If an employee suffers from major depression they may be protected by the ADA (EEOC, 1997). Major depression consists of one or more of the following: down mood or despondency, a lack of energy, cognitive impairment, apathy, personality changes, difficulty sleeping, excessive weight loss or gain, and thoughts of suicide (Brown University, n.d.). Although everyone goes through a down period, especially after a traumatic event like the death of a loved one or a divorce, major depression can be distinguished from a 'reactive' depression by the length and severity of the depressed mood. Most people who develop major depressoin experience an episode during adolescence or early adulthood, and then have recurrent episodes throughout their life. Depressive episodes can last anywhere from months to years, but recover their health during the intervening periods. Treatment can involve anti-depressant medications or talk therapy, or both (Brown University, n.d.), but treatment, regardless of its effectiveness, is typically not considered when determining coverage (EEOC, 1997, para. 1-5).

Although a formal psychiatric diagnosis is admissible in court as proof of disability, the testimony of friends, family, and coworkers may also be sufficient (EEOC, 1997, para. 1-5). To qualify for protection under the ADA, the sufferer must have had a major depressive episode in the past or currently. In addition, the episode must last for several months and be sufficiently severe to interfere with a major life activity.

Diabetes -- Close to 17 million Americans currently suffer from diabetes and this number increases by about a million each year due to the obesity epidemic (EEOC, 2011). There are several forms of diabetes, each the result of a different cause. Type 1 or juvenile diabetes is an autoimmune condition that results in the destruction of pancreatic insulin-producing cells. Type II or adult-onset diabetes is caused by the inability of tissues to utilize insulin efficiently. However, both types result in dangerously high levels of blood sugar, because efficient metabolism of insulin is required to clear the blood of excess sugar following a meal. Some of the symptoms of diabetes include frequent urination, thirst, hunger, weight loss, fatigue, irritability, infections, blurred vision, slow healing, and poor circulation in the extremities (American Diabetes Association, 2012).

Determination of whether a diabetic qualifies for protection under the ADA depends on how well they are able to control the disease through diet, medications, and lifestyle (EEOC, 2011). Unless the disease has significantly impaired a major life activity in the past or currently, it is unlikely they would be considered disabled.

Discussion

As discussed above, legal scholars have expounded at length on the narrow interpretations of the ADA in the nation's courtrooms and how it conflicts with Congress' intentions for a broad protective scope (Larson, 2008-2009, p. 454, 462-463). In Sutton v. United Air Lines, the two plaintiffs sued because they were denied jobs as pilots due to severe, but correctable myopia. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs did suffer from a significant impairment, but since it could be mitigated through corrective lenses, they were not disabled and therefore did not qualify for protection under ADA. Larson (2008-2009) argues that this decision places plaintiffs in a difficult position, because they were denied employment as pilots due to their impaired vision but could not find relief under ADA because it was correctable.

If the Sutton decision is applied to major depression, then effective treatment would obviate the need for ADA protection. The Sutton decision therefore not only eliminated the 'regarded-as' qualifying criteria, but also the 'history of disability' criteria. The only qualifying criteria seemingly left intact by the 1999 Supreme Court is being permanently impaired and unable to mitigate the impairment.

Prior to the 1999 Sutton decision, the courts interpreted the ADA qualifying criteria liberally. For example, a person who was denied a job because they were HIV positive, but not suffering from AIDS, received protection under ADA (Larson, 2008-2009, p. 459). In these types of cases, the job applicants were 'regarded-as' disabled by prospective employers and therefore qualified for protection. After the Sutton decision, these same individuals would not be protected against discrimination. Since 1999 the ADA has therefore been too narrowly interpreted by the courts.