The rationale of the majority decision, written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, was that the states are protected by the 11th Amendment from damage suits, unless there has been a valid abrogation, or repeal, of that constitutional protection. Rehnquist stated that the incidents of discrimination against people with disabilities documented in the case "taken together fall far short of even suggesting the pattern of unconstitutional discrimination" on which such legislation must be based.

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, noted the "vast legislative record documenting 'massive society-wide discrimination' against persons with disabilities." Breyer also cited evidence that two-thirds of all disabled people of working age in the U.S. do not work, "even though a large majority wanted to, and were able to, work productively."

The case concerned two suits brought against the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama. The first was by a nurse who was put in a lower-paying job when she returned to work from breast cancer treatment. The second was by a security guard for a state agency who said his asthma was aggravated by his employer's failure to implement a no-smoking policy.

Andrew Imparato, the president of the American Association of People with Disabilities, responded that the high court "has weakened a law that protects more than 56 million Americans from egregious discrimination at the hands of State employers." Imparato explained that the Americans with Disabilities Act "was passed in part because of the history of egregious discrimination and exclusion of people with disabilities by the States." Imparato said the Supreme Court "is systematically turning the clock back on civil rights. The disabled community is outraged that our highest court has chosen to weaken a law that is our ticket to full citizenship."

Only days later, the Supreme Court declined to take on a broader challenge of the ADA, and turned aside a case that could have made states immune from lawsuits alleging discrimination against the disabled in access to public services, programs, and buildings. The case challenged ADA regulations stipulating the government provide wheelchair ramps, Braille elevator buttons, and other facilities to make them accessible to people with disabilities. In another ruling, the high court refrained from reviewing legal efforts by disabled people seeking to overturn fees charged by states for "handicapped" parking tags.

Many unions support the ADA and the AFL-CIO held a Disability Rights Conference last December.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home