He will never get it. In three of the most significant decisions of this term, which ended last week, the Supreme Court ruled that employees like Murphy, who can function normally when their impairments are treated, do not qualify for protection under the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Advocates for the disabled say the rulings strip millions of protection from bias. Ecstatic corporate managers say it stems a growing tide of unnecessary lawsuits.
The court’s decisions hinged on what Congress intended when it wrote the landmark law. The act forces employers to hire or make reasonable accommodations for disabled workers, but defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” It doesn’t specifically say whether workers with correctable disabilities are covered by the law.
The Supreme Court decided they are not. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who delivered the seven-member majority’s opinion in two of the cases, declared “that a person be presently–not potentially or hypothetically–substantially limited” in his ability to work. The decision surprised legal experts. Few had expected the court to limit the scope of the law so severely. “The ruling cuts the heart out of the ADA,” says Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum, who helped draft the act. “It creates a situation where people can be considered too disabled to be hired, but not disabled enough to challenge an employer.” Supporters of the ADA hope to persuade Congress to amend the statute to include more workers, perhaps following a British law that covers virtually all people with minor or major handicaps.
In the meantime, employers can expect a new wave of litigation over what is and is not a correctable disability. Vaughn Murphy, who has found another position as a mechanic, is coping with something he didn’t expect–guilt. “From now on they’ll look at Murphy v. UPS and just throw cases out,” he says. “I feel like I’ve cost a lot of people their jobs.” At least until the next ruling.
