 |
 |
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