The Supreme Court's Balancing Act–Prioritizing ADA rights against seniority and worker safety
✍ Scribed by Scott J. Witlin; Niloofar Nejat-Bina
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2002
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 72 KB
- Volume
- 29
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0745-7790
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Key Court Cases
During its recent term, the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions that confirmed employers' defenses in cases involving alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). 1 The Court's decisions in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett 2 and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal 3 tackle circumstances that the legislature did not directly address when drafting the ADA: (1) What happens when the rights of disabled individuals collide with seniority rights of other employees, and ( 2) what happens when a disabled individual is prepared to jeopardize his own health in order to take or keep a job. In a decade where court decisions and state legislatures seem to have expanded the scope of disability rights to include common and minor impairments of minor life activities, 4 Barnett and Echazabal signal that, at least at the federal level, the pendulum may be starting to come back in the other direction. The Court's decisions acknowledge that, if the ADA were permitted to continue on its expansive path, the ADA might derail other significant rights or lead to undesirable results (e.g., an employee risking his life in order to keep his job). Thus, Barnett and Echazabal significantly slowed the runaway train known as the ADA.
SENIORITY SYSTEM INTACT
Robert Barnett worked in a cargo-handling position at U.S. Airways, Inc., until