Hi Folks,

Below is a current article on the Supreme Court decision of yesterday, which
you can skip if not interested. This one seems to have some better quotes
from disability sources, that spell out the implications of this decision.
I'm wondering if anyone has heard about what impact this narrow definition
of "disability" would have on reasonable accommodations in education for
people with hidden disabilities, like learning disabilities, that don't
impair "teeth brushing" ability (to quote the court). It seems like the
narrow criteria they used to define disability would exclude an awful lot of
people, and thus exempt them from laws protecting equal access for people
with disabilities (in work, school or elsewhere). What do folks think about
this?

Tracy Scharn



Court narrows disability guideline
By DAVID SAVAGE
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it harder Tuesday for millions of
workers with painful wrist injuries, bad backs or similar impairments to
qualify for protection as disabled persons under the federal
anti-discrimination law.

As long as they can brush their teeth and wash their faces in the morning,
these employees are probably not disabled, the high court said unanimously,
even if they suffer pain when typing on a computer or lifting a box at work.

A disabled person is someone who struggles to do basic tasks that are
``central to daily life,'' not the special tasks that go with a particular
job, said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Moreover, she said, a disabled employee must have an impairment that is
``permanent or long term,'' not an injury that is likely to heal. Injured
workers should seek benefits under state worker's compensation laws, the
court said, rather than claiming to be disabled under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

Business lawyers hailed the outcome and predicted that it will shield
employers from being sued or forced to make special arrangements for the
growing number of employees with carpal tunnel syndrome or other repetitive
stress injuries.

``Today's ruling makes it clear that the ADA is still the Americans with
Disabilities Act, not the Americans with Injuries Act,'' said Patrick
Cleary, senior vice president for the National Association of Manufacturers.

Tuesday's 9-0 ruling is only the latest court decision to limit the reach of
the landmark federal law.

Three years ago, the justices ruled that people with correctible conditions
such as bad eyesight, or treatable diseases such as high blood pressure,
diabetes or epilepsy, are not protected from job bias. The court reasoned
that these people are not truly disabled because they were able to work.

The case decided Tuesday concerned an assembly line worker who could no
longer do her job because its repetitive motions caused intense pain in her
wrists and shoulders. Her condition, carpal tunnel syndrome, is one of the
fastest-growing workplace injuries.

The case also drew wide interest because it asked a basic question: Who is a
disabled person?

Ella Williams had worked with power tools at the Toyota Motors plant in
Georgetown, Ky. When her pain became crippling, she sought medical treatment
and obtained some benefits from Kentucky's worker's compensation system.
Typically, a worker's comp law covers medical expenses and some payment for
lost work due to a work-related injury.

Williams chose to return to full-time work but asked to be assigned to
lighter duties, such as inspecting cars. Her doctor said she should lift no
more than 20 pounds. When her supervisors refused to accommodate her
request, she quit and sued the company under the ADA.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sided with Williams and said her
injury was akin to having ``damaged or deformed limbs.'' Because she was
unable to perform ``a class of manual tasks at work,'' Williams had a
disability and her employer should have made a ``reasonable accommodation''
for her, the appeals court said.

Disagreeing, O'Connor faulted the lower court for focusing its attention on
the workplace.

To be disabled, a person ``must have an impairment that prevents or severely
restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central
importance to most people's daily lives,'' she said. This includes ``such
basic abilities as walking, seeing and hearing.''

Beyond that, ``household chores, bathing and brushing one's teeth are among
the types of manual tasks of central importance to people's daily life,''
she said. Despite the fact that Williams could not handle power tools, ``she
could still brush her teeth, wash her face, bathe, tend her flower garden,
fix breakfast, do laundry and pick up around the house,'' she wrote.

O'Connor's opinion does not close to door to all employees who suffer carpal
tunnel syndrome. If an employee's wrist pain is crippling and permanent and
prevents them from performing basic life tasks, he or she could qualify as
disabled.

However, a person who is so crippled by pain may not meet the test of being
a qualified worker.

``That's the Catch-22 they have created,'' said Arlene Mayerson, an attorney
for the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

``This court seems determined to set a very strict test for deciding who is
disabled. You are either not disabled enough to qualify, or you are too
disabled to do the job. That is not what Congress intended.''

From the beginning, no one has disputed that people who are blind, deaf or
in a wheelchair have a disability.

But the Supreme Court has been skeptical about extending its protections
much farther.

Last year, the court took a liberal view of the same law when confronted
with the case of disabled golf pro Casey Martin of Eugene. That was not an
employment dispute because golf pros are independent contractors, not
employees. Instead, the case came under the section of the law that concerns
access to public facilities, and the justices ruled the pro tour was
required to allow Martin to ride in a golf cart.