by Ellen Alcorn
Monster Contributing Writer

Several court cases have clarified the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) since it became law in 1990.

Key Supreme Court rulings are in part a reflection of the maturation of the statute, says lawyer Michael Lotito. The fact that the populace on the whole is getting older also contributes to some cases being brought before courts, he added.

"Baby boomers are growing older, yet many don't want to retire even though they are experiencing individual aches and pains," Lotito says. "This has given rise to many more ADA-related litigation cases."

Three prominent cases that reached the Supreme Court have refined different aspects of the law.

On January 8, 2002, the Court ruled that Ella Williams, a Toyota Motor Corp. factory worker with severe carpal tunnel syndrome, had not proven her entitlement to protection under the ADA, because she had not shown that her impairment substantially limited her ability to "perform the variety of tasks central to most people's daily lives." As a result of the decision, people who become disabled while working will have to demonstrate that they are substantially limited in a major life activity, not just on the job.

This has significantly narrowed the basis on which employees may claim protection under the ADA. Lotito says states may adopt their own, broader, rules and regulations concerning disability issues in response to the Court's decision.

Mario Echazabel, a longtime Chevron employee, applied for a position at the company's oil refinery in El Segundo, California, and was turned down because he has hepatitis C. Chevron officials claimed the job would expose him to chemicals that might worsen his condition or even kill him. Echazabel then sued Chevron, claiming he had been discriminated against because of his disability.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Echazabel. In its ruling, the Court noted that a ruling for him would cause "trouble" for employers trying to comply with various health and safety statues. According to Lotito, this was an enormously important case.

The question resolved in this case is what constitutes "reasonable accommodation" on the part of an employer. Robert Barnett was a US Airways baggage handler who injured his back while he was working. He was so severely injured that his doctor told him he had to avoid many physical activities, including heavy lifting, bending, or prolonged standing or sitting. Barnett decided to transfer to the mailroom, but he soon learned that he would have to give up that position to make room for a colleague with more seniority. He wrote a letter to his manager, requesting that he be allowed to stay in the mailroom, and cited the reasonable-accommodation clause in the ADA. When the company failed to meet his requests, Barnett sued for discrimination.

The Court ruled 5-4 against Barnett. The Court did state that workers can show "special circumstances" that would make exceptions reasonable, but it added that this has to be done on an individual basis.

Because court rulings can change significant aspect of ADA interpretations and protections, Lotito says there are some important things to keep in mind, both for employers and employees:

• Employers should regularly consult with counsel to review current disability rules and regulations.

• A disabled job seeker should not seek to hide a condition from potential employers. "Try to work with the employer," says Lotito. "Chances are, the accommodation is a no-brainer and will create a win-win situation for everybody."

Talk about this article and get expert advice on the Workers with Disabilities message board.

The purpose of this article is to both provide information and facilitate general dialogue about various employment-related topics. No legal advice is being given and no attorney-client relationship created. Please see the disclaimer for further limitations and conditions.