Assistive Technology barker.online Byte of the Apple Eye on Japan Hers.online Inside Wall Street Not-So-Neutral Corner Online Asia Power Lunch Privacy Matters Sector Scope Sound Money Street Wise Washington Watch News Flash Archive

To hear most disability groups tell it, the four decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 22 concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act (P.L. 101-336) amount to a colossal setback. In three of the cases, the court refused to expand the legal definition of a disability -- a refusal that some in the field quickly and angrily condemned as killing the ADA altogether. Their only solace: The high court's ruling in the last case expanded Title II of the ADA and further restricted a state's control over the lives of mentally retarded individuals.

I strongly disagree with my friends in the impaired community. The ruling, in total, amounts to a grand slam for the disabled. Not only did the court provide more power to individuals to minister to themselves, the justices gave employers a clear definition of what constitutes a disability in the workplace. That's a great victory for disabled workers, for as most people in corporate world will tell you, the worst enemy of sound business practices is uncertainty.

In Sutton v. United Airlines, twin sisters applied for jobs with United. They were pilots and wanted to be pilots for United. When the company discovered that they had poor enough vision to require thick glasses, it wouldn't hire them. In Murphy v. UPS, a truck driver had high blood pressure that exceeded company safety standards. UPS fired him, although the full circumstances are unclear in the court documents. Similarly unclear in detail, in Alberston v. Kirkingham, a mechanic who wanted to drive a truck was fired when the company learned he has poor vision.

In all three cases the plaintiffs sued, claiming that they were being discriminated against under the ADA. They argued that they could use corrective measures to mitigate their disabilities and that the companies had discriminated against them, either by refusing to hire them or by terminating them.

A STRONGER LAW. The original language of the ADA, which passed in 1990, defines a disability as a "physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities or as being regarded as having such an impairment." In each employment case, the high court sided with the employer. The court held that since remedies such as better glasses and better medication were available to the claimants, they were not disabled under the ADA. The jurists thus refused to expand the definition of disability as it appears in the law.

Even so, their decision strengthens the law, not weakens it. At long last, it provides employers and employees with a clear definition of disability. Now companies can get on with the real business of the ADA -- putting the truly disabled on an equal footing with other workers when it comes to competing in the workplace.

These decisions don't give employers right of refusal on hiring, training, or promoting disabled people. They don't give employers carte blanche to discriminate against disabled people. They don't limit the number of people with disabilities who are covered under the law. Nor do they release employers from the responsibility of making reasonable accommodations for disabled employees who truly need assistance.

Some critics claim that the decisions will undercut the spread of assistive technology in the workplace, on the theory that the greater the extent to which technology eliminates a disability as a factor in hiring, the less likely an employer is to offer a person with a disability a job. That's just nonsense. Employers will still seek products to assist disabled workers. Under the ADA, it's in their best interest to do so.

THE PLAINTIFFS' CASE. I know what it is to be discriminated against in job-hunting. Too many times in my life, I was told: "You are qualified for the job, but we will not hire you because you stutter." The ADA was written to stop this type of stupid decision-making.

In Olmstead v. L.C., two mentally retarded respondents -- L.C (diagnosed with schizophrenia) and E.W. (also diagnosed with a personality disorder) -- were voluntarily admitted to Georgia Regional Hospital's psychiatric unit. The doctors treating them concluded that both women could be cared for appropriately in a community-based program. Yet the women remained institutionalized. Seeking to be placed in community care, L.C. sued state officials, alleging that Georgia violated Title II of the ADA by failing to place her in a community-based program once it was determined such placement was appropriate. E.W. filed an identical claim.

In a 6-3 decision, Justice Ruth Ginsburg delivered the opinion for the court. She concluded that under Title II of the ADA, states are required to place persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions when the state's professionals say community placement is appropriate, when the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and when the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the state and the needs of others with disabilities.

The court also held that unjustified segregation in institutions is discrimination -- not only because it perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that people with disabilities are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life but also because confinement in an institution curtails everyday life activities such as family relations, social contacts, work, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment.

This is a good decision because it expands the rights of individuals with disabilities, it expands the protections of the impaired, and it gives disabled people, particularly mentally retarded individuals, a stronger voice in determining how they are to be treated and where they can live.

Perhaps most important, the ruling upholds a key civil rights provision in the law known as the "integration mandate." This provision maintains that individuals with disabilities must be offered services in the most integrated setting.

So chalk up four big ones for the ADA. The law isn't just intact, it is stronger than ever. And I believe it can be made even stronger.

Share your opinion of Bowe's new book on BW Online's Assistive Tech Forum. Or, if you have a question about assistive technology, write to John at JMMAW@aol.com

EDITED BY DOUGLAS HARBRECHT