Chalk one up for the gimp militia
Good news: the House passed a bill that makes it easier for plaintiffs in disability discrimination suits to prevail. It fixes some of the damage the Supremes have done with their wily and parsimonious interpretations of the ADA.
One of the problems with employment discrimination suits under the ADA has been that if the court decided you weren't disabled, you didn't have a remedy, even if the employer clearly perceived you to have a disability. For example, an employer could decide not to hire you because you have epilepsy, and the court could then say, well, you aren't really disabled because your condition is controlled by medication, so you don't get to sue. Meanwhile the medication is the reason you are able to do the job, and refusing to hire someone who can do the job because the person is perceived to have a disability is pretty classic discrimination if you ask me. Back when I was in law school this was something we talked about in HIV discrimination cases: what if someone discriminates against you because s/he thinks you have HIV, when you really don't? We wanted state laws to include the phrase "actual or perceived" to close that loophole.
I haven't read the text of this bill, but it sounds like a significant improvement. It's seriously going to change the way these cases go, because it specifically says the court cannot consider mitigating measures like medication in determining whether someone has a disability. There's a case from the '90s -- I can't remember the name -- about pilots. These two women were not hired as pilots because they wore glasses. The court said myopia is not a disability because when you're wearing your glasses you can see fine. I guess that one will go the other way now, if the Senate passes this thing and if W doesn't veto it, which is the bigger if.
One of the problems with employment discrimination suits under the ADA has been that if the court decided you weren't disabled, you didn't have a remedy, even if the employer clearly perceived you to have a disability. For example, an employer could decide not to hire you because you have epilepsy, and the court could then say, well, you aren't really disabled because your condition is controlled by medication, so you don't get to sue. Meanwhile the medication is the reason you are able to do the job, and refusing to hire someone who can do the job because the person is perceived to have a disability is pretty classic discrimination if you ask me. Back when I was in law school this was something we talked about in HIV discrimination cases: what if someone discriminates against you because s/he thinks you have HIV, when you really don't? We wanted state laws to include the phrase "actual or perceived" to close that loophole.
I haven't read the text of this bill, but it sounds like a significant improvement. It's seriously going to change the way these cases go, because it specifically says the court cannot consider mitigating measures like medication in determining whether someone has a disability. There's a case from the '90s -- I can't remember the name -- about pilots. These two women were not hired as pilots because they wore glasses. The court said myopia is not a disability because when you're wearing your glasses you can see fine. I guess that one will go the other way now, if the Senate passes this thing and if W doesn't veto it, which is the bigger if.