[nfbwatlk] FW: FYI-McClarty in Spokesman Review

Tue Aug 8 16:58:06 CDT 2006

FYI 
  _____  

From: Davis, Marlene 
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:24 PM
To: Olson, Toby
Subject: FW: FYI-McClarty in Spokesman Review

  _____  

From: Melinda Johnson [mailto:melindasjohnson at comcast.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Davis, Marlene; Toby Olson
Subject: FW: FYI-McClarty in Spokesman Review

Could you send this article out to the GCDE list serve?  Thanks.  MJ

  _____  

From: Mark Stroh [mailto:mstroh at wpas-rights.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 9:58 AM
To: Melinda Johnson
Cc: Betty Schwieterman; David Carlson; David Lord; Andrea Abrahamson; Phil
Jordan
Subject: FW: FYI-McClarty in Spokesman Review

Melinda -

Here is something else I am sure GCDE members would want to know about.  I
know Toby is aware of our involvement but I am not sure the rest of the GCDE
members are.

Mark (Stroh)

 <http://www.spokesmanreview.com/> 

Tuesday, August 8, 2006

Petition asks for review of disability definition ruling 

Opponents of narrow classification say some will lose protection

What the laws say 

Washington Law Against Discrimination defines "disability" as "a sensory,
mental or physical condition that is medically cognizable or diagnosable,
exists as a record or history or is perceived to exist whether or not it
exists in fact." Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, a
plaintiff must show "a physical or mental impair- ment that substantially
limits one or more of his major activities, a record of such an impairment
or is regarded as having such an impairment."

Kevin
<http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news/bylines.asp?bylinename=Kevin%20Graman%2
0> Graman 
Staff writer
August 8, 2006

Civil rights advocates are asking the state Supreme Court to reconsider a
decision made last month that narrowly defines who is disabled, limiting the
ability of some Washington citizens to seek protection against
discrimination.

The scope of the court's July 6 decision in the case of Tacoma electrician's
apprentice Kenneth McClarty, who said he was fired because of a carpal
tunnel injury caused by his work, caught many of the state's prominent
disability rights advocates off-guard. 

Among them was Marc Brenman, executive director of the state Human Rights
Commission, who called the 5-4 ruling in McClarty v. Totem Electric "a black
eye for the state."

"Washington state has traditionally been a pioneer in protection of people's
civil rights," Brenman said. "This would be a step backward."

The commission, charged with enforcing the Washington Law Against
Discrimination, is among several public and private agencies that either
have filed or are preparing friend-of-the-court - or amicus curiae - briefs
in the case. They support a petition for reconsideration of the Supreme
Court ruling that limits who is considered disabled under the state law to
the more narrow definition of disability under Title I of the federal
Americans with Disabilities Act. 

The Supreme Court is under no obligation to take up the matter again. For
now, the federal definition stands as Washington law.

Among those no longer protected against discrimination in such things as
employment and housing, according to Brenman and other advocates, are people
with psychiatric or emotional disabilities, people with diabetes, multiple
sclerosis, arthritis or epilepsy and people with temporary disabilities.

"It's dismaying when you look at it," he said. "You say to yourself, 'If
these people aren't disabled, who is?' Do you have to be in an iron lung to
be disabled?"

Brenman said the Human Rights Commission annually investigates about 1,000
complaints, about 40 percent of them involving disability.

"If we have to change our definition," Brenman said, "20 (percent) to 50
percent of the types of complaints we investigate now would not be
investigated."

Business groups greeted the decision with "unanimous surprise and support
for the court's reasoning," said Kris Tefft,general counsel for the
Association of Washington Business, who added that it should mean fewer
claims and less litigation.

"It shows a greater willingness to look to federal law in employment issues,
something business has been looking for all along," Tefft said.

In particular, he said, the ruling should be a relief to small businesses
that have had to navigate the differences between state and federal laws.

"Sometimes they are more protective, sometimes less," Tefft said. "It can be
a real costly trap for the unwary." 

Though the Association of Washington Business supports the McClarty
decision, it is unlikely to weigh in on the motion for reconsideration,
Tefft said.

The reason advocates on both sides of the issue were surprised by the ruling
is that the Supreme Court "issued a much more global ruling regarding the
definition of disability" than either party in the McClarty v. Totem
Electric case had sought, according to lawyers for the Washington Protection
and Advocacy System, a private nonprofit organization that advocates for the
rights of people with disabilities.

The court was asked to decide whether the definition of a disability in a
"disparate treatment" claim - in this case, an employee who was discharged
for discriminatory reasons - was the same as the definition in a case where
the employer fails to make "reasonable accommodation" for a disabled
employee.

Instead, the court rejected the state's definition for any disability
discrimination claim as interpreted by the Human Rights Commission in favor
of the federal law's narrower definition.

Writing for the majority, Justice James M. Johnson said, "The most obvious
problem with (the state law) is that its definition of 'disability' is at
odds with the plain meaning of the term."

Johnson said that under the state's definition, a "receding hairline could
constitute a disability," trivializing discrimination against people with
disabilities.

"To provide a single definition of 'disability' that can be applied
consistently throughout the (state law), we adopt the definition of
disability set forth in the federal ADA," Johnson wrote. 

Justices Charles W. Johnson, Barbara A. Madsen, Richard B. Sanders and Bobbe
J. Bridge concurred.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Susan Owens wrote that the majority's
"judicial rewrite" of the state anti-discrimination law contravenes the
intent of lawmakers. She was joined by Justices Tom Chambers and Mary E.
Fairhurst. Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander wrote a separate dissenting
opinion, contending that the majority had "usurped the authority of the
Legislature and enacted a new law."

Owens said the Legislature has had many opportunities to narrowly define the
term "disability" since the disability provision was added to
anti-discrimination law in 1973.

The definition didn't change in 1993, for instance, when business interests
asked the Legislature to adopt a narrower definition.

"The Legislature clearly intended that the law be interpreted liberally,"
said Jesse Wing, of the Washington Employment Lawyers Association. David
Carlson, an attorney for the Washington Protection and Advocacy System, said
the state's definition of disability has been around for decades, "and we
have not run into the receding hairline problem." Far from generating
specious lawsuits, the state law has protected people suffering
discrimination who are not protected by the ADA, he said.

Now, "people with disabilities will have less protection from people with
irrational biases," Carlson said. "If we have to fight about these
definition issues, we won't have the resources to protect as many people."

Carlson's nonprofit organization was joined by the National Alliance on
Mental Illness Greater Seattle, the Tacoma Area Coalition of Individuals
with Disabilities, the Epilepsy Foundation and the Alliance of People with
Disabilities in urging the court to reconsider.

The Washington Employment Lawyers Association and the Washington state Labor
Council have filed a separate amicus curiae brief .

What worries these groups is that the ADA, which has been eroded in recent
years by federal court decisions, narrowly defines disability as "a physical
or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life
activities." 

In contrast, the state law's broader definition of disability is "a sensory,
mental or physical condition that is medically cognizable or diagnosable."

The big difference, Brenman said, is that the federal definition requires
courts to consider whether an individual is trying to "ameliorate" a
disability such as epilepsy or a mental condition that can be mitigated by
drugs. 

Carlson said this difference creates the potential for a legal Catch-22 in
which a person with a psychological disorder can, through medication, get
well enough to go back to work.

"Once they are able to go back to work, they are no longer protected and an
employer can fire them for whatever reason, including mental disability,"
Carlson said.

Brenman said the Supreme Court's decision, if it stands, has the potential
to deny thousands of disabled citizens constitutional protection.

"We all know people who have had injuries and illnesses who can't work
because of a disability," the human rights director said. "They become much
more of a burden to the economy if they are not working and paying taxes.
This will throw more people out of work. It seems to run counter to other
driving forces in society to get people more gainfully employed." 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 19358 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbwatlk/attachments/20060808/d280306f/attachment-0001.bin 