The third rule of construction in the EEOC regulations to determine whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is the big one that the first two were building up to:
The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether covered entities have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether an individual’s impairment substantially limits a major life activity. Accordingly, the threshold issue of whether an impairment ‘‘substantially limits’’ a major life activity should not
demand extensive analysis.
Virtually all the cases brought to the Supreme Court in the past 20 years dealt almost exclusively on whether or not the person with the disability “qualified” for protection under the Act. This rule is meant to stop that. It clearly states that the issue should be decided on whether discrimination has occurred. If there were no other changes in these amendments, they would have accomplished much.
The most important thing to remember about the Americans with Disabilities Act is that it is civil rights legislation. As in all other civil rights legislation, the coverage is intended to be broad. No other minority needs to qualify to be covered under civil rights legislation. Neither should persons with disabilities. Focusing on whether an impairment is sufficiently disabling seriously diminishes the intended protections.
I will grant that there are individuals who do not have a disability who will seek protection under the ADA because they have no other protection. However, that should not limit the rights of those who should be covered. Nor should it be the standard by which others are judged. Fraud needs to be dealt with separately.
In order for this Act to provide protection, the acts of discrimination should be the focus for all decisions.
Annette Bourbonniere
401-846-1960
Fax: 401-846-1944
Twitter: @AccessInclude
No comments:
Post a Comment