[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 29, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1441-E1442]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    SUPREME COURT DISABILITY RULING

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 29, 1999

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his 
colleagues the following editorial, ``Court Ruling on Disability

[[Page E1442]]

Makes Sense,'' which appeared in the Friday, June 25, 1999, edition of 
the Lincoln Journal Star.

                 Court Ruling on Disability Makes Sense

       The U.S. Supreme Court decided this week that there is no 
     requirement under the Americans With Disabilities Act that 
     more than half the nation's population be classified as 
     disabled.
       That's a victory for common sense.
       Ruling in four cases at once, the court concluded that 
     Congress did not intend to have individuals who wear glasses, 
     or people who have high blood pressure, given the same 
     protections under the ADA as people who have disabilities 
     such as blindness or paraplegia.
       If Congress had intended to include those individuals, the 
     court said, it would have estimated the number of people 
     covered by the law at more than 160 million, instead of 43 
     million.
       In one case considered by the court, United Airlines 
     refused to hire two nearsighted sisters. Without glasses, 
     their eyesight was worse than the 20/100 required by the 
     airline. In another case a truck driver who could see out of 
     only one eye was dismissed from that job. In the third case, 
     a truck driver was dismissed because of high blood pressure.
       Creating physical criteria for a job, the court noted, does 
     not violate the ADA. ``An employer is free to decide that 
     physical characteristics or medical conditions that do not 
     rise to the level of an impairment--such as one's height, 
     build or singing voice--are preferable to others,'' wrote 
     Justice Sandra O'Connor in the majority opinion. And who 
     wouldn't prefer to have pilots who can see even if they lose 
     their contacts or break their glasses?
       The ADA has had a tremendous and largely positive effect on 
     society. It made life more fair for citizens with 
     disabilities by making public buildings accessible by 
     wheelchair and protecting them from unnecessary 
     discrimination in employment.
       Advocates for the disabled profess to be outraged by the 
     ruling. Georgetown University law professor Chai Feldblum, 
     who helped draft the language of the ADA, even contends that 
     Congress did intend to cover correctable impairments like 
     those remedied by spectacles and medication.
       Those advocates, however, would stretch the ADA beyond the 
     limit of common sense and open employers to a broad new field 
     of litigation. They would trivialize the original purposes of 
     the law, and give nearly every employee the right to demand 
     changes in the way an employer assigns and structures jobs.
       The Supreme Court ruling is a welcome clarification of an 
     ambiguous law. It closes the door on a potential new flood of 
     lawsuits, and preserves the ADA for those who need its 
     protection the most.

     

                          ____________________