"The sad saga of ADA [Americans With Disabilities Act] reflects how well-intentioned laws can be eviscerated by crabbed judicial interpretations," stated Marshall Tannick in a newspaper article. This opinion followed a Supreme Court ruling that favored U.S. Airways and not an airline baggage handler who had to give up his "reasonable accommodation" job in the mailroom because senior workers had a right to the job under company policy.

"The decision represents the latest in a chain of judicial rulings that have emasculated the federal measure during the past dozen years," Tannick wrote, citing three 1999 decisions. He added that even before these rulings ADA was on "life support" because of a "Catch-22" for employees.

The problem, he wrote, is that court rulings require employees to have substantial impairment of a major life activity, but, to be covered by the law they must also be able to perform the "essential functions" of the job. This interpretation has resulted in more than 90% of ADA claims to be dismissed, Tanick maintained. #1021

Tanick, M. H. (2002, April 20). A disabled law: After a decade of Supreme Court setbacks, the once-heralded Americans With Disabilities Act has been effectively crippled. Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Keyword: Americans With Disabilities Act