by Melanie Brunson
The U.S. Supreme Court began its 2001-2002 term on October 1. There will be four cases on the court’s calendar this year that are of particular interest to people with disabilities. In three of these cases the court will examine issues arising under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act relating to the rights of employees with disabilities. The fourth case concerns who is eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance.
In the first case, Toyota Motor Company of Kentucky v. Williams, Ella Williams alleges that she developed carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis while working on an assembly line at Toyota’s plant in Kentucky. Her original suit was filed in 1993, and that case was settled. Williams returned to work and was transferred to another position inspecting newly painted automobiles. Then, in 1996, her duties were expanded to include wiping down passing cars with a sponge attached to a thick block of wood. Williams claimed that the new task, which required her to hold her arms up, exacerbated her condition, and asked to be transferred back to inspecting cars. Toyota refused and eventually fired Williams. Williams filed a second suit against Toyota for failing to accommodate her disability and for wrongful termination. The federal district court ruled in favor of Toyota, finding that Williams’ conditions did not qualify as disabilities under the ADA. The court also threw out her wrongful termination claim.
A three-judge panel on the 6th Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision with regard to the wrongful termination claim, because her own physician had determined that she could not work at any job at the time of her termination. However, the panel reversed, by a two-to-one decision, the lower court’s decision on the ADA claim. The judges stated that Williams did have a disability covered by the ADA, and was therefore eligible for reasonable accommodation. Toyota has now sought intervention by the Supreme Court, contending that the conditions suffered by Williams are not a significant enough impairment to major life activities to constitute a disability under the ADA.
At issue in the U.S. Airways v. Barnett case is the extent to which an employer is obligated to reassign an employee in order to accommodate the employee’s disability. This case involves an individual by the name of Robert Barnett, who injured his back while working in the cargo department for U.S. Airways at San Francisco International Airport. When his condition worsened, he asked for reassignment to the swing shift in the mail room as an accommodation of his disability. Barnett was told that other employees with greater seniority had requested the same position and that, as a result, his request could not be granted. Barnett was then removed from the mail room and placed on sick leave. Barnett alleges in court documents that he then offered U.S. Airways several other solutions for accommodating his disability, including working in the cargo department with the use of special lifting equipment. These requests were denied by U.S. Airways, which told him he could apply for other vacant positions that were within his capabilities. Since no such vacancies existed, Barnett filed suit, claiming that his need for accommodation should have taken precedence over the company’s seniority system. He also claimed that the company was retaliating against him for filing an EEOC complaint.
The district court ruled in favor of U.S. Airways, but the 9th Circuit Court sided with Barnett on the issue of accommodation. The court held that since Barnett already worked in the mail room he should not be required to compete with more senior applicants just to accommodate his disability. Further, the court held that granting Barnett’s request to remain in the mail room would not have caused the company undue hardship. U.S. Airways has appealed to the Supreme Court for relief.
The final ADA case, Chevron v. Echazabal, concerns a man who was denied a job in an oil refinery because of his disability. The refinery alleges that the denial was proper because the ADA provides that a person with a disability can be denied employment based on disability if the employer can show the presence of a “direct threat” to the safety of the prospective employee. Echazabal has hepatitis C, and Chevron produced medical evidence supporting their contention that exposure to the chemicals used by workers in the refinery would speed the deterioration of Echazabal’s liver, and that a significant exposure could be fatal.
The 9th Circuit ruled last year that Chevron was wrong to claim that the threat posed to Echazabal’s health was sufficient reason to disqualify him for employment at Chevron’s refinery. One judge dissented, arguing that to take the position of the majority, someone with an allergy to bee stings could be employed as a beekeeper, or a steelworker who has vertigo could be employed on top of high-rise buildings, with the employer bearing the consequences of increased liability. Echazabal’s lawyers argued, on the other hand, that employers have no right to make decisions for qualified potential employees regarding the amount of risk the employee is willing to assume. They contended that a decision for Chevron in this case could be harmful to persons with a variety of disabilities.
The last case I want to alert you to involves the definition of disability used by the Social Security Administration in determining who is eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Massanari v. Walton. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court by the Social Security Administration after the U.S. Court of Appeals handed down a decision in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in this case was an individual who was diagnosed with schizophrenia. Shortly after his diagnosis, he was terminated from his employment as a schoolteacher and applied for SSDI. While awaiting the decision of the Social Security Administration regarding his claim, he took a job as a stock clerk in a grocery store, which paid him an amount that exceeded the Substantial Gainful Activity limit allowed SSDI beneficiaries. Social Security therefore denied his claim for SSDI, based on his having demonstrated an ability to engage in substantial gainful activity.
The lower court found that the plaintiff had a disability, schizophrenia, which significantly impaired major life activities, and that it is this disability which qualifies an individual for SSDI benefits, not their inability to engage in substantial gainful activity. The Social Security Administration has sought the intervention of the Supreme Court, arguing that, in fact, both tests must be met before one is considered “disabled” as defined by the Social Security Act.
Each of these cases presents complex issues for the court to grapple with, and the likelihood is that whatever the court decides in each case, we, as Americans with disabilities, will have new legal challenges ourselves. ACB is working with others in the advocacy community to ensure that the briefs submitted in these cases address the issues in a thorough and comprehensive manner. We will keep you informed with regard to developments in each matter as the court considers and disposes of these cases.