Rate this article:
Average rating:
Total votes: 0
Thanks to a unanimous Supreme Court decision, it just got harder for workers to force their employers to accommodate their work-related disabilities. On the flip side, the ruling makes it easier for corporations to avoid making accommodations that could require changes to their business practices.
On January 8, 2002, the court ruled that Ella Williams, a Toyota Motor Corp. factory worker with repetitive strain injuries, had not proven her entitlement to protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, because she had not shown that her impairment substantially limited "major life activities" such as brushing teeth and household chores.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that employers make "reasonable accommodations" that will enable people with disabilities to work. Toyota vs. Williams is the latest in a series of high court decisions that have progressively narrowed the protections offered by the ADA, which took effect in 1992.
Unanimous Ruling
"The fact that this decision is 9-0 sends a clear message that disability advocates were fooling themselves in saying that [the requirement of impairment to everyday activities] isn't the proper interpretation," says Stephen Bokat, senior vice president and general counsel of the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington, DC.
Disability advocates, inside and outside government, disagree. "The court has narrowed this law far beyond what was intended by Congress," says Kathleen Blank, an attorney advisor with the National Council on Disability, a government agency that drafted the ADA. Most advocates for workers with disabilities aren't panicking over the ruling, however.
"It narrows the scope of the protected class, but it doesn't gut the ADA," says Andrew Imparato, president and CEO of the nonprofit advocacy group American Association of People with Disabilities.
On the Job
How will this latest ruling affect individual workers with disabilities, work-specific or not? "People who become disabled while working will have to demonstrate that they're substantially limited in a major life activity, not just on the job," says Blank.
Still, for job seekers, "if they have a condition that has a substantial effect on a major life activity, then they're protected, and they can apply for a reasonable accommodation for jobs that they can do," says Quentin Riegel, deputy general counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based trade group.
For those who are disabled and currently employed, "if you've already asked for and gotten an accommodation, there's not going to be any serious implication," says Blank. Most employers aren't inclined to dismantle a disability accommodation that's already in place.
Professionals with Disabilities
For many employees, especially knowledge workers, the physical dimension of their labors is largely limited to keystrokes and mouse clicks. For them, the ruling could be bad news.
"The court said that carpal tunnel syndrome has to be serious and long-lasting enough to affect major life activities" if you want to seek a workplace accommodation under the ADA, says Riegel. In other words, if you can dress yourself and take out the garbage, but your wrists ache throughout your 40-hour week at the keyboard, the disabilities act may not protect you.
Of course, carpal tunnel is just one of many disabilities, ranging from migraines to mental illness, that may not be immediately apparent to anyone but the worker with disability. The court's ruling has raised the qualifying hurdle for professionals who request alternative work arrangements -- say, part-time telecommuting or a nonstandard schedule -- to accommodate these hidden disabilities. Beyond the legal status of these maladies, "there's still an ignorance among the public that hidden disabilities are genuine disabilities," says Blank.
Is Work a Major Life Activity?
The Supreme Court left the issue of whether work itself constitutes a major life activity as contemplated by the ADA for another day. It isn't obvious that employment qualifies as such an activity, "because you can live, function, eat, sleep, talk and walk -- without working," says Riegel.
Disability advocates are dissatisfied with this analysis. "It's disturbing to me that our highest court could question whether work is a major life activity for the disabled," says Imparato.
If the courts do eventually take up this issue, the employment prospects of millions of workers with disabilities will hang in the balance.
