Interpreting the ADA and Civil Rights Law

Abstract

Five cases decided by the Supreme Court in 1999 carry mixed messages, but on balance they argue for extreme care in hiring decisions relating to individuals with disabilities. Three cases involved hiring practices under the Americans with Disabilities Act, while another involved civil-rights law, and the fifth examined Social Security-related disability. In the three ADA cases, the court held that conditions such as poor vision and high blood pressure are not disabilities under the ADA if they are treatable. In two cases, individuals with disabilities could not be employed in their desired position due to federal regulations. Still, those individuals were not considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act because when their conditions were corrected they still could qualify for some jobs in their chosen field, just not the job in question. Even an employer-imposed regulation withstood a court challenge under the same logic. That does not mean, however, that future employers can make all such hiring decisions with impunity. Instead, there is a gap in the cases that could make the holding moot for most private employers. An unrelated case opened the door to punitive damages in cases where employers are found to be in violation of discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act. The situations in which punitive damages are not to be considered are so few that most employers will have to redouble their efforts to comply with the law. Finally, a fifth case, also connected to the ADA, determined that a finding of total disability by the Social Security Administration, for the purposes of granting disability insurance, does not necessarily equate to a finding that a person is not qualified to work under the provisions of the ADA. The two determinations are to be made separately according to the regulations governing each.