What makes this so important an article is that it illustrates
the way the Congress can correct a Supreme Court decision
involving a statute that Congress believes was mis-interpreted.
If a decision is based on a Constitutional issue, only by amending
the constitution can it be changed.
September 18, 2008
Congress Passes Bill With Protections for Disabled By Robert Pear
WASHINGTON — Congress gave final approval on Wednesday to a major civil rights bill, expanding protections
for people with disabilities and overturning several recent Supreme Court decisions.
The voice vote in the House, following Senate passage by unanimous consent last week, clears the bill for President Bush.
The White House said Mr. Bush would sign the bill, just as his father signed the original Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990.
The bill expands the definition of disability and makes it easier for workers to prove discrimination. It explicitly rejects the strict standards used by the Supreme Court to determine who is disabled.
The bill declares that the court went wrong by “eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect” under the 1990 law.
“The Supreme Court misconstrued our intent,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democratic leader. “Our intent was to be inclusive.”
In an effort to clarify the intent of Congress, the bill says, “The definition of disability in this act shall be construed in favor of broad coverage.”
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, the principal Republican sponsor in the House, said, “Courts have focused too heavily on whether individuals are covered by the law, rather than on whether discrimination occurred.”
Bills passed with overwhelming support are often insignificant or noncontroversial, but that was not true for this bill. “This is one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation of our time,” said Representative Jim Langevin, Democrat of Rhode Island, who uses a wheelchair.
Disagreements over the bill were worked out in two years of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations that included members of both parties and people with disabilities, as well as the National Association of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce.
LeAnne Wilson, chief operating officer of the association, said the bill would help “meet the work force needs” of employers.
Lawrence Z. Lorber, a labor law specialist who represents employers, said the bill would change the outcome of “a slew of cases that were thrown out of court in the past.” Now, he said, “employees who have cancer or diabetes or learning disabilities will get their day in court and are more likely to get accommodations from employers.”
Lawmakers said that people with epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis and other ailments had been improperly denied protection because their conditions could be controlled by medications or other measures. In a Texas case, for example, a federal judge said a worker with epilepsy was not disabled because he was taking medications that reduced his seizures.
In deciding whether a person is disabled, the bill says, courts should not consider the effects of “mitigating measures” like prescription drugs, hearing aids and artificial limbs. Moreover, it says, “an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.”
Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, the chief sponsor of the bill, said: “The Supreme Court decisions have led to a supreme absurdity, a Catch-22 situation. The more successful a person is at coping with a disability, the more likely it is the court will find that they are no longer disabled and therefore no longer covered under the A.D.A.”
Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said the bill, by establishing more generous coverage and protection, “will make a real difference in the lives of real people.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment