Ruling Broadens Coverage of Disability Act, Advocates Say


------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Picture>Related Article
=95 Court Says Law Bars Discrimination Against H.I.V.-Infected (June 26)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


By PETER T. KILBORN





<Picture: W>ASHINGTON -- Millions of Americans with conditions like diabe=
tes,=0Aepilepsy and even infertility and alcohol addiction appear to have=
 won=0Aimportant new protection against discrimination as a result of a W=
ednesday=0ASupreme Court ruling, advocates say.

The ruling came in the case of a woman who had HIV but no symptoms of the=
=0Acondition.

Advocates for both employers and people with chronic health conditions=0A=
interpreted the decision, which came in the court's first broad look at t=
he=0A1990 Americans With Disabilities Act, as saying that the act protect=
s people=0Awithout obvious symptoms, just as it covers those who are blin=
d or use=0Awheelchairs.

"They sent a very strong signal to the lower courts saying that the ADA i=
s=0Ameant to be interpreted broadly as to who is affected by the act," sa=
id Arlene=0AMayerson, directing attorney for the Disability Rights Educat=
ion and Defense=0AFund in Berkeley, Calif.

Steven Bokat, chief counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the ru=
ling=0A"just throws the statute wide open." Roger Pilon, director of the =
libertarian=0ACato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies, added: =
"It's not a result=0AI'm happy with. We like doors to be opened by consen=
t, not by the force of=0Alaw."

On its face, the case looks quite narrow. Sidney Abbott of Bangor, Me.,=
=0Acomplained that her dentist, Randon Bragdon, had discriminated against=
 her by=0Arefusing to treat her because she has the virus that causes AID=
S. While she=0Ahas no symptoms, she argued that she was covered under the=
 act because she is=0Aeffectively infertile. She does not want to have ch=
ildren because of the risk=0Aof passing the virus on to them.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices agreed with a federal appeals court's rulin=
g=0Athat her condition met the act's definition of disability because it =
limited a=0A"major life activity." The court did not take the next step a=
nd rule that the=0Avirus is actually covered by the act, but analysts sai=
d the ruling implies=0Athat it is.

"This isn't just about dentists' chairs," said Matthew Coles, director of=
 the=0AAmerican Civil Liberties Union's AIDS Project. "Its about everythi=
ng the=0AAmericans With Disabilities Act covers," he said, including empl=
oyment, public=0Aaccommodations and the services of state and local gover=
nments.

Michael Greene, chairman of the American Diabetes Association's legal adv=
ocacy=0Acommittee, explained the importance of the ruling to people like =
himself.

"I've had insulin-dependent diabetes for 18 years," he said. "You couldn'=
t=0Atell from looking at me that I have a noncurable, major disease. In t=
hat sense=0AI'm similar to an HIV person who's nonsymptomatic.

"This case emphasizes what the ADA is about -- that people need to be tre=
ated=0Afairly unless the disease really presents or creates an inability =
to do a=0Ajob."

Thus, Greene said, a worker with diabetes can't be denied a job or a prom=
otion=0Abecause of an employer's fear, based on ignorance, that the worke=
r might have=0Aa coma -- or his discomfort with the worker's need to eat =
regularly, to test=0Ahis blood sugar and to give himself insulin shots. T=
he ruling means that the=0Aemployer must accommodate those needs, he said=
.

The same applies to the nation's estimated 6 million couples who are=0Ain=
fertile, said Deborah Wachenheim, director of government affairs for the=
=0ANational Infertility Association in Somerville, Mass.

"The court defined reproduction as a major life activity," she said, so a=
n=0Aemployer who restricts a worker's need for treatment is guilty of=0Ad=
iscrimination. She said the decision requires employers to accommodate=0A=
infertile workers with adjustments in their work schedules when they are=
=0Aundergoing fertility treatments.

Coles of the ACLU said the ruling was especially important in shifting th=
e=0Acourse of earlier rulings by lower courts. "Most of the courts have b=
een=0Agiving extremely technical readings of the act and restricting the =
reach of=0Athe act," he said.

"Most of the litigation," Coles said, "has not focused on whether people =
could=0Ado jobs, but on their disabilities. Yesterday's decision was stri=
king because=0Ait does not take that approach at all."

Because the Americans With Disabilities Act applies to public accommodati=
ons=0Aand to state and local services, Mary Ann Gleason, executive direct=
or of the=0ANational Coalition for the Homeless, said the ruling also pro=
vides protection=0Afor homeless people, who often have disabilities arisi=
ng from mental disorders=0Aor substance abuse.

She said she believes the ruling prohibits landlords from turning away=0A=
applicants for government-subsidized housing because of drug or alcohol=
=0Aaddiction=0A