DISABLED PEOPLE LOSE ANOTHER ONE

Edward G. Galian, Adjutant

The "Americans with Disabilities Act", (The Act) the most important civil rights law of the last 25 years, has taken a major hit.

The United States Supreme Court ruled on February 21st, 2001, that the states are immune from discrimination suits brought by their employees under "The Act". Of course, the media keeps trumpeting, this was a 5-4 split decision. So what! It effectively precludes all aggrieved disabled state employees including disabled veterans, from obtaining relief under "The Act" from their state employers.

Under "The Act" privately employed disabled persons can still sue the pants off their employers if they are victimized under "The Act's" provisions written for their protection. Such blatant disregard of government employees' civil rights is inexplicable.

The Supreme Court made its decision as though the issue was only a state's rights battle, what the "inside the beltway afficiandos" refer to as the "separation-of-powers revolution". This decision reminds us of the 1857 Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, wherein the court decreed that Dred Scott, a slave, had no civil rights, was only property, and his master could do with him as he pleased. We can infer now that the 2001 Supreme Court, cloaking itself in academic rhetoric has again taken a wrong turn, demoted state- employed disabled people to second class status, removed an entire category of citizens from the civil rights protection provided by "The Act".

The Supreme Court proved once again that it is the final arbiter on what is and what is not the law, at the expense of Congress and the citizens it represents.

Although "The Act" passed in 1990, was the culmination of years spent by a bi-partisan Congress to learn the extent of discrimination against disabled people by government policies that caused segregation, exclusion and lack of access to public places and services, the Supreme Court decided to throw all that into the garbage barrel and subordinated the victims to the doctrine of states rights. The majority of the court then butressed its decision by dismissing the disabled plaintiff's discrimination claim, stating that the evidence submitted was "minimal", "anecdotal","unproven" and "insufficiently tailored" to answer the question of whether state governments had unconstitutionally discriminated against its employees.

Chief Justice Relinquest stated further that the Constitution bars only "irrational" discrimination. Therefore he says that it would be "rational" and constitutional for a state employer to conserve scarce financial resources by hiring employees who are able to use existing facilities. Oh boy! Is this Supreme Court decision motivated by the court's desire to enhance the states'financial well being?

Clearly Congress can do nothing at this time. This Supreme Court, not Congress or citizens, rules the roost at this time. Who knows what the future holds in store. Maybe clearer heads will cure this travesty someday, maybe not.

DAVNY Home Page / Hot Topics / Action Line / Join the DAV / Administration / Newsletter
Newsletter Archive / Chapters / Events / DAV License Plates / Links of Interest / Send Us E-Mail /

Page Last Reviewed/Modified: