When the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, conservatives and libertarians argued that courts would stretch the act in ways that its sponsors would regret. Such fears were dismissed as unrealistic, but a stark example of how right they were was given by U.S. District Judge Franklin S. Van Antwerpen who ruled that being belligerent, uncooperative and irritable at work might be covered under the ADA.
The case involved Tina Bennett who is suing Unisys Corporation, claiming that her firing by the company firing violated the ADA.
The facts of the case don’t seem to be in dispute — Bennett couldn’t get along with her coworkers or supervisors. She sent caustic e-mails to her boss, and her coworkers felt they couldn’t approach her with their ideas or hold conversations with her because she was so irritable.
Bennett, however, claims that her irritable behavior is the result of severe depression, and therefore covered by the ADA. In his decision, Judge Van Antwerpen didn’t decide the merits of Bennett’s claim, but merely ruled that she can proceed with her suit on those grounds. In the process Van Antwerpen provided a road map for everyone who hates their boss — if you’ve going to yell and scream at your boss, make sure you go all the way and hold nothing back.
In his review of legal precedents, Van Antwerpen noted that courts to date had reached different conclusions as to what constitutes a “major life function” that can be impaired by a disability. One of those areas of contention is whether interactions with other people constitutes a major life activity.
Van Antwerpen resolves this by saying the issue should be whether Bennett is “substantially limited” in her interactions with other due to her depression. In other words, if say she had been a good employee who occasionally clashed with her supervisor and coworkers, that wouldn’t be a substantial limitation, but because Bennett regularly came into conflict with her coworkers, that may indeed count as a protected disability under the ADA. As a result, Van Antwerpen wrote in his decision, “it may be that with accommodations, Bennett could have performed the functions of job.”
The sort of accommodations Bennett wants are an interesting look at the just how absurd the ADA has become. One of the things lawyers ask, for example, is that any criticism of Bennett by supervisor always be made face-to-face and that it is followed by positive feedback. In addition Bennett’s lawyers want the court to forbid Unisys from “overburdening” her.
It is lawsuits such as these combined with activists judges that explain why the ADA has been a boon for lawyers but has apparently hurt employment opportunities for the genuinely disabled — unemployment rates among disabled Americans are lower now than before the passage of the ADA, despite the much better economic climate over the past several years.
The ADA is self-defeating and open to too much mischief from an activist judiciary. It should be repealed.
Source:
‘Belligerent’ Worker Is Covered by the ADA, Says Federal Court. Shannon P. Duffy, The Legal Intelligencer, December 13, 2000.