The Courts and American’s with Disabilities Act
For the case study included below:
1. Do you
agree with the Court’s decision? Why or why not? Would your answer change if
the contagious disease was AIDS or HIV? Explain.
2. If it is
shown that Arline could perform some other function in the school system
besides teaching, and contact with others was not as prevalent as in the
classroom, would you allow her to stay on? Discuss.
3. Do you
think there is adequate protection of both the employee and the public in this
case? What should the courts do to diminish discrimination against the disabled
built upon myth and misconceptions?
CASE STUDY
School Board of Nassau County v. Arline
480 U.S. 273 (1987)
Facts: Employee Arline, a teacher with tuberculosis, was
terminated from her job. The employer argued that the termination was not
because of Arline’s disease, but instead because of the threat that her
relapses posed to the health of others since tuberculosis is contagious. The
Court held for Arline.
Issue: Whether an employer violates The ADA by terminating a
teacher from her job because she has a contagious disease.
Decision: Yes
Reasoning: Brennan, J.: We must consider whether Arline can
be considered a handicapped individual. This impairment was serious enough to
require hospitalization, a fact more than sufficient to establish that one or
more of her major life activities were substantially limited by her impairment.
Thus, Arline’s hospitalization for tuberculosis in 1957 suffices to establish
that she has a “record of impairment” within the meaning of the
regulations and is therefore a handicapped individual.
The Board maintains that Arline’s record of impairment is
irrelevant in this case, since the School Board dismissed her not because of
her diminished capabilities, but because of the threat that her relapses of
tuberculosis posed to the health of others.
We do not agree that, in defining a handicapped individual,
the contagious effects of a disease can be meaningfully distinguished from the
disease’s physical effects on a claimant in a case such as this. Arline’s
contagiousness and her physical impairment each resulted from the same
underlying condition, tuberculosis. It would be unfair to allow an employer to
seize upon the distinction between the effects of a disease on others and the
effects of a disease on a patient and use that distinction to justify
discriminatory treatment.
The fact that some persons who have contagious diseases may
pose a serious health threat to others under certain circumstances does not
justify excluding from the coverage of the Act all persons with actual or
perceived contagious diseases. It would mean those accused of being contagious
would never have the opportunity to have their condition evaluated in light of
medical evidence and a determination made as to whether they were
“otherwise qualified.” The fact that a person with a record of a
physical impairment is also contagious does not suffice to remove that person
from coverage under the law.
The remaining question is whether Arline is otherwise
qualified for the job of elementary schoolteacher. The basic factors to be
considered should include: findings of facts, based on reasonable medical
judgment given the state of medical knowledge, about (a) the nature of the risk
(how the disease is transmitted), (b) the duration of the risk (how long is the
carrier infectious), (c) the severity of the risk (what is the potential to
harm third parties), and (d) the probabilities the disease will be transmitted
and will cause varying degrees of harm. The next step in the “otherwise
qualified” inquiry is for the court to evaluate whether the employer could
reasonably accommodate the employee under the established standards for that
inquiry.
Because there were few factual findings by the district
court, we are unable at this stage to resolve whether Arline is otherwise
qualified for her job. We remand the case to the district court to determine
whether Arline is otherwise qualified for her position. REMANDED.
