Viewpoint:
Case
imperils protection of disability rights
By G. WAYNE BARR
What if you were denied the right to
appear in public due to a facial or bodily deformity? What if after acquiring a
Ph.D. in chemistry you were sent by a vocational counselor to Goodwill to sort
socks? Suppose your first-grader was spanked every day because deafness
prevented her from following instructions, or a state imposed restrictions on
your right to marry?
If you are disabled it is not hard to imagine. Many have their own
unique stories of discrimination. Nor are these situations part of an
unenlightened past. For many disabled persons the past is not distant enough,
as demonstrated by a recent California courts refusal to allow a deaf
couples adoption of an infant despite the glowing testimony of 13
witnesses; or, in 1999, an Indiana trial judges order that a successful
CEO, who was visually disabled, be accompanied at all times by a
responsible adult while caring for his daughter.
As the U.S. Supreme Court begins a new session in October, one of
the first cases to present oral arguments is Garrett v. University of
Alabama at Birmingham. At issue is the constitutionality of the Americans
with Disabilities Act -- whether or not states are immune to lawsuits under the
act. It is a case that could have a chilling effect on Americas disabled
persons and their legal recourse against discrimination.
Garrett is actually two consolidated employment
discrimination cases filed against the state of Alabama. One involves the
demotion of a woman with breast cancer by the University of Alabama and the
other a claim that the Alabama Department of Youth Services failed to provide a
reasonable accommodation to an individual with chronic asthma.
In 1977, Patricia Garrett was hired by the University of Alabama
health center as a nurse. By the early 1990s, she advanced to director of the
centers neonatal unit. Diagnosed with breast cancer in 1994 she underwent
surgery and chemotherapy. After a leave of absence to recuperate, the health
centers administration demoted her to a lesser position that included a
pay cut.
In the other case, Milton Ash, who suffers from asthma, sued
Alabama because the facility where he worked did not honor a no-smoking policy.
Nor did they service their vehicles to keep toxic emissions from aggravating
his condition.
A brief filed by Alabamas attorney general claims that
in passing the ADA, Congress did not identify any pattern or practice of
unconstitutional state action, or for that matter even cite a single instance
of such conduct. Thus, it says, Congress exceeded the limits of its
powers when it passed Title I, which bars discrimination by public and private
employers, and Title II, which bans discrimination in access to public
services. Seven states (Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio and
Tennessee) support Alabamas claim.
As precedent they cite City of Boerne v. Flores, in
which the U. S. Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment gives Congress the
power to enact civil rights statutes only if the statute is designed to remedy
a history of unconstitutional conduct. The remedy contained in the statute must
also be proportionate to the history of constitutional
violations.
According to opponents of the Americans with Disablities Act,
there may have been discrimination, but the discrimination did not violate the
constitution. Nor was it widespread. Moreover, even if there were a record of
unconstitutional discrimination, the act is not a proportionate
response: Congress imposed obligations on states that are
excessive.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs contend that the act is a
constitutionally appropriate measure to remedy past discrimination against
people with disabilities. They cite the lengthy investigative House and Senate
committee hearings back in 1990 that found states history of
discrimination toward the disabled so egregious that they legislated the power
to override state sovereignty in this matter. Not only did the committee hold
13 hearings devoted specifically to the constitutionality of the proposed act
but a task force held 63 public forums across the country and gathered
testimony from nearly 5,000 disabled people on discrimination issues they
faced. From the in-depth testimony, the hearings concurred that disabled
persons experience the most extreme isolation, unemployment, poverty,
psychological abuse and physical deprivation experienced by any segment of our
society.
If Title II is overturned, it will be harder to enforce the act
against states. In other words, people unnecessarily institutionalized in state
hospitals, nursing homes and other state institutions could no longer have
recourse under the act. State employers could refuse to hire people with
physical or mental disabilities and would no longer have to provide reasonable
accommodations in the workplace.
Could it have a domino effect by imposing similar rulings on other
disability rights statutes? If history is to repeat itself, there will be a lot
of disproportionate suffering.
As pointed out in the 1985 Supreme Court decision, City of
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, discrimination toward the
physically disabled grew in the 1920s and 30s, fueled by social
Darwinism, the science of eugenics and xenophobia. Leading medical
authorities and others began to portray the feeble-minded as a
menace to society and civilization
responsible in large degree for
many if not all, of our social problems, the decision stated.
More than 30 states enacted sterilization laws against
epileptics, mental defectives, socially
inadequate, the diseased, alcoholics,
manic-depressives, schizophrenics, and mentally
enfeebled paralytics. These laws were used to sterilize at least 60,000
persons. States adopted statutes that segregated disabled persons. Forced
institutionalization went unchallenged until the 1960s.
Ugly laws, local ordinances that forbid people with
unsightly or disgusting physical conditions from
appearing in public, remained active throughout most of the 20th century. Some
states restricted the rights of disabled persons to marry or procreate.
Equally demoralizing for disabled persons was the denial or
interference with the right to vote. In testimony given to Congress before
passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, people with disabilities were
often turned away from the polling places because they did not appear
competent. Polling places were often physically inaccessible.
To date 14 states have signed on to a brief supporting the
American with Disabilities Act. This is twice the number of states who support
the brief against the act.
However, our applause should be subdued for the moment. Though a
majority of the 43 related Circuit Court decisions have found the act
constitutional, the frequency of states arguing that they are not subject to
suit under the act is on the rise. Each time the Supreme Court accepts a case
the possibility exists that Title I or II will be ruled unconstitutional.
With the Americans with Disabilities Act feeling the tug of
Supreme Court rulings that could unravel all the good the act has accomplished
it is time to cast an eye on this years presidential race. Clintons
successor is expected to appoint several new Supreme Court justices. A recent
report issued by the People for the American Way Foundation said that a
Scalia-Thomas majority would make it far more difficult for people with
disabilities to prove discrimination. The report goes on to cite the
dissenting opinions of Justices Scalia and Thomas in several cases whereby the
majority rulings upheld Titles I and II of the act.
Meanwhile, the continued resistance to hiring disabled people has
not abated with the passage of the act. In many states, the percentage of state
employees with disabilities remains well below the percentage of working age
Americans with disabilities. And during the greatest economic boom of all time
many of the physically disabled are still underemployed or live beneath a
dignified level of subsistence. According to a recent Harris survey one out of
three adults with a disability live in households with total income of $15,000
dollars.
Are we to return to an era when official reports referred to
people with disabilities as defect[s]
[that] wound our citizenry a
thousand times more than any plague, as by-products of unfinished
humanity, and as a blight on mankind whose mingling with
society was a most baneful evil?
We may be too socially sophisticated these days to say such words
but our silence and indifference on the issue speaks volumes.
G. Wayne Barr, an oblate of Mount Saviour Monastery, works
part-time as a mentor assistant for SUNY Empire State College in Corning, N.Y.
His e-mail is WaySi53@aol.com
National Catholic Reporter, October 6,
2000
|