February 10, 2002
Inside Disabilities in Turkey — p. 5 Feminism and Disability — p. 7 Canine Graduation — p. 9
Underfunded Civil Rights Laws — Page 3
1
“Self-confidence is the result of a successfully survived risk.”
—Jack Gibb
Non-profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Mpls. MN Permit No. 4766
Volume 13, Number 2
SOURCES
RESOURCES
February 10, 2002
ADA COURT DECISION MADE U.S. SUPREME COURT ISSUES DECISION IN ADA CASE by Kathleen R. Hagen
I
n the January issue of Access Press, we discussed three cases which either had already received oral argument, or were going to be argued, before the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 10, 2002, the day Access Press hit the streets, the Court issued its decision in one of those cases.
Budget Shortfall To Dominate Legislative Debate by John Tschida
T
he gavel has fallen, opening the 2002 legislative session—and the current fiscal environment has many disability advocates concerned. “With a $2 billion budget shortfall, budget cuts are going to happen,” said Joel Ulland, public policy director for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society-Minnesota Chapter. “Our goal is to make sure the budget isn’t balanced at the expense of people with disabilities.” Many advances were made last session in the area of state disability policy, but the state’s ledger reflected record surplus levels at that time. Legislative debate centered on how much money to return to taxpayers, not on where to make program cuts. “This year will be a defensive
struggle to keep what we fought so hard for last year,” said Lolly Lijewski, advocacy director at the Metropolitan Center for Independent Living. “The governor has laid out his plan. Now it’s up to the legislators.” Governor Ventura has presented a plan calling for a mix of tax hikes and budget cuts that has been soundly criticized by both the House and Senate. While it does preserve important advances—such as pay increases for home health aides and PCAs, increased Metro Mobility funding, and renewed state efforts to get people with disabilities out of nursing homes and into the community—it does present some challenges for the disability community. Items on the chopping block include the addition of people
with disabilities to the state’s prescription drug program, education grants for home care workers, and cuts that could affect special education services. State mental health grants would also be trimmed, as would chemical dependency services for those not qualifying for Medical Assistance. A tightening of eligibility requirements could also affect some individuals on the Medical Assistance for Employed Persons with Disabilities (MA-EPD) program who are working only a minimum number of hours each month. “Everything we do at the Capitol is to make sure people with disabilities have access to the services they need to live successfully in the community,” said Jeff Bangsberg, public policy director for the Minnesota Budget - cont. on p. 6
Williams vs. Toyota Motor Manufacturing The issue in this case, as discussed in January, was: Does the physical impairment of carpal tunnel syndrome, which poses a substantial limitation to the major life activity of performing manual tasks, constitute a disability as defined by the ADA? The Court’s answer is that carpal tunnel is, or can be, a physical impairment posing substantial limitations to a major life activity, including performing a class of manual tasks, and can thus be defined as a disability—if those tasks are such that they would be central to the lives of most people. However, the Plaintiff, Ella Williams, did not provide sufficient evidence to show that her impairment was severe enough to substantially limit a major life activity, and she did not fit the definition of an individual with a disability because the manual tasks she could not perform were, in the Court’s view, not central to the lives of most people. Readers will remember that Williams was an assembler with Toyota who developed carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis. She was transferred to the paint inspection department where she worked for several years. Then the employer added an extra duty which exacerbated her condi-
tion, and refused to let her continue only performing her original duties as a reasonable accommodation. She was terminated and sued Toyota. The District Court found in favor of Toyota. The Court of Appeals partially reversed that finding by holding that Williams had proved herself to be an individual with a disability. Since the Supreme Court was not called upon to make a decision as to whether Williams was substantially limited in the major life activity of working, it has left further discussion of the viability of “working” as a major life activity for another day. The Supreme Court explained that the Court of Appeals had used the wrong analysis in reaching its decision that Williams fell within the definition of an individual with a disability, and the Court reversed that finding. The Supreme Court said that the Court of Appeals had mixed two different descriptions of major life activities in coming up with its analysis. The class of manual tasks which Williams was limited in performing, the Court said, all related to her job of working with pneumatic tools. The Court said that if Williams had argued that she was substantially limited by her impairment in the major life activity of “working” her claim would have failed because she could perform two of the four jobs and therefore was not limited in performing a broad range of jobs. The Court further said that in order for her to successfully argue that she was substantially limited in the major life activity of performing manual
tasks, she would have to be limited in performing tasks central to the lives of most people. This is because other major life activities listed in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations include walking, seeing, hearing, and other activities central to everyone’s lives. The Court of Appeals should have been looking, said the Supreme Court, at whether Williams was substantially limited in performing tasks central to the lives of most people, not whether Williams could or could not perform manual tasks associated with her job. Those tasks, said the Court, were specialized and most people would not have to perform them. Here, the Plaintiff can brush her teeth, wash her face, bathe, fix breakfast, do laundry, tend her flower garden, and pick up around the house. Those are activities central to the lives of most people, the Court said, and more clearly demonstrated whether Williams was substantially limited in the major life activity of performing manual tasks. The court conceded that Williams had indicated that she needed help with dressing on occasion, could not garden as much as she used to, and could not play with her children as often. The Court did not consider that these limitations as expressed by Williams constituted a substantial limitation to a major life activity. The decision ultimately does not change much in our understanding of existing disability discrimination law. However, this was a unanimous decision of the Court. The Court continues to show its ambivalence of accepting Court Decision - cont. on p 6