Disability case at Supreme Court

[Guest guest]

SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW DISABILITY CASE

Wednesday, October 07, 1998

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case of Carolyn

Cleveland, a Texas woman who was fired from her job after she suffered a

stroke. The issue in this case is how difficult it should be for

disabled workers to sue their employers for alleged discrimination after

they apply for or receive Social Security Disability benefits.

When Ms. Cleveland suffered a stroke in early 1994, she took a leave of

absence from her job and applied for Social Security disability

benefits. Naturally, she said on the Social Security application that

she was unable to work. Then, several months later, her doctor told her

she was well enough to work again. So she went back to work and notified

Social Security that she was better and was working again.

But Ms. Cleveland's health problems caused her to have trouble

performing her job. She asked her employers, Policy Management Systems

Corporation in Dallas, Texas, for several accommodations to help her do

her job. They turned down all her requests for accommodations, and in

July 1994 they fired her.

So Ms. Cleveland again applied for Social Security disability benefits.

Her application was approved. She then sued Policy Management Systems on

the grounds that, by firing her, they had violated the Americans with

Disabilities Act.

The ADA, which was passed in 1990, says that employers cannot

discriminate against a " qualified individual with a disability. " The law

defines a qualified individual as one who can perform the essential

functions of his or her job when given reasonable accommodations.

The case has been making its way through the court system ever since. A

federal judge dismissed it, and Ms. Cleveland appealed. The 5th U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal judge's decision because,

since Ms. Cleveland applied for Social Security benefits on the grounds

that she was unable to work, she was clearly not " a qualified person. "

The Clinton administration is supporting Ms. Cleveland's Supreme Court

case. The Justice Department argues that the appeals court ruling

conflicts with the positions of two federal agencies, the Social

Security Administration and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The lower court's rationale is not shared by any other appeals court,

they say. Most other appeals courts have made it easier to pursue

disabilities act lawsuits after having applied for or received

disability benefits.

The case is Cleveland vs. Policy Management Systems Corp., 97-1008.

It's easy to imagine the position Ms. Cleveland could have found herself

in. She couldn't stay at her job because they wouldn't accommodate her

disability; it certainly could have been very difficult to find a new

job while stating at the outset that special accommodations would have

to be made for her disability; but if she applied for disability

benefits in order to survive financially, it could appear that the

company was right to fire her because she was disabled. What a Catch-22!

It should be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this

issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Lyn

~~~~~Peace and tranquility~~~~~~

Homepage:http://home.talkcity.com/spiritcir/lynmari/index.html

Join the arthritis

warriors:http.www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/rheumathritis

Join-DachsieHeaven:http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/DachsieHeaven

Dachsie B'day Page: http://members.tripod.com/~Lynmari/DACHSHUND