Major Decisions Expected this Summer from Supreme Court
 
May 1, 1999
 

In the next two months, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to address several controversial employment discrimination issues concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

One of the issues at stake concerning the ADA is whether measures that mitigate the effects of an impairment should be considered in determining whether an employee has a disability entitling the person to protection against discrimination. Under the ADA, a "disability" is an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Because the effect of many impairments can be mitigated through drugs or other means, the context in which courts assess the impact of an impairment is critical.

For example, in one case before the Court, two pilots filed suit under the ADA after United Air Lines (United) rejected their employment applications because their vision did not meet United's Standards for commercial pilots. A trial court dismissed the case, concluding that the pilots had no disability because their vision was 20/20 when they used corrective lenses. The pilots contend, however, that they have a disability because their vision should be evaluated without regard to mitigating measures, i.e., corrective lenses. If the Supreme Court adopts the pilots' position, a broad range of treatable impairments, such as common vision problems, could qualify as disabilities under the ADA.

Another ADA case before the Court concerns whether a person who has applied for Social Security disability benefits can also pursue a claim for disability discrimination. To obtain full disability benefits, an employee must state that she is unable to work. To maintain an ADA claim, however, an employee must prove that she is capable of performing the essential functions of her job with a reasonable accommodation. Employers have argued that these positions are inconsistent: an employee who says she is unable to work cannot also claim she is able to perform the essential functions of her job. Nevertheless, some courts have allowed employees receiving disability benefits to pursue ADA claims. The Supreme Court is expected to clarify the circumstances, if any, under which employees who are collecting disability benefits may also pursue ADA claims.

The Title VII case concerns the type of conduct that justifies an award of punitive damages in employment discrimination cases. When Congress amended Title VII in 1991, it authorized awards of punitive damages under the statute for the first time, but only in cases where the defendant engaged in discrimination with "malice or reckless indifference" to the rights of the plaintiff. The question before the Supreme Court is whether Title VII requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant engaged in some form of egregious conduct to obtain punitive damages, or whether simple reckless indifference to the laws against employment discrimination is sufficient. If the latter standard prevails, punitive damages may be available in most cases where an employee succeeds in proving intentional discrimination.

Decisions on all of these issues are expected by the end of June.

For more information please call Douglas W. Phillips at 1-888-688-8500.