It sometimes seems that this forum is more a "justice watch" than just my personal musings, but the way that America is going right now, the courts are very important to watch. Today, the justices handed down another verdict that, to me, makes an important clarification about the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA).
The ADA was passed with the promise of equal rights for all Americans. By elevating disabled citizens onto a level playing field, we would all benefit. Instead of being a burden, the disabled were more likely to contribute and thus the whole would be strengthened. All businesses were required to make accommodations for the handicapped, even if not many (or any) might come in. That way, when someone DID want access, it would be there. Imagine a business meeting and the guest is in a wheelchair. If the ADA hadn't forced you to install handicapped-accessible restrooms, what would you do when the client asked to use the bathroom? Would you send them out on the street? Would you hand them a coffee cup?
Sadly, like every government handout, the ADA comes with a price and groups of people who are eager to abuse it to their own advantage. The price was first born by businesses but they had no other choice but to pass it along to us all. The bathroom-upgrades, ramps, lifts, etc. weren't cheap. But they also weren't optional. Every business, agency and school had to comply. The cost was high, but who would deny cripples the "right" to go everywhere?
There's more to the ADA than ramps. It also requires companies to make reasonable accommodations to disabled workers. That's where today's decision comes in. The case is titled "US Airways v. Barnett, 00-1250" and it has to do with a worker named "Robert Barnett" and U.S. Airways. Mr. Barnett was injured on the job and had to be transferred to a job he could perform with his new, diminished, capacity. US Airways transferred him to the Mail Room. But other, able bodied, workers also wanted to work there and the company had "seniority" rules that allowed more senior people to "bump" less senior people. Mr. Barnett asserted that his disability made him more important or as I like to call it "more equal" than his able-bodied coworkers. He was, at least in his mind and the minds of his lawyers, a super class of worker. Immune to normal policies. More important and deserving than other workers.
This is where I have a problem with the ADA. At the point where it stops requiring equal access and opportunity and starts creating special privileges and "rights" that only exist for those in the group, then I have to speak up and say, "This is unfair". And this time, the majority of the Supreme Court spoke up for me. Mr. Barrett is NOT better than his co-workers just because he is disabled. His employer should give him every opportunity to be treated the same as everybody else. No worse, and no better.
I once heard a comedian who said "I caught a handicapped person parking in one of 'our' spots and I kicked his ass." And I thought that was pretty funny. Not because it would ever happen. But because I think it shows the division that laws like the ADA create when applied to raise one group of people OVER another. You can get away with it for a while, but there will come a backlash and the severity of that will be determined by the abuses perpetrated in the name of "equal access."
Don't believe me? Take a look at the backlash against "quotas" and "racial preferences". In state after state, you'll find people who have been "discriminated" against (legally) by the color of their skin, the place they worship, where their parents came from, or the type of tackle that is between their legs. When Dr. King had a dream that his children would be judged on the content of their character, not the color of his skin he didn't follow it up by saying "except if it means that they get an unfair advantage." See the difference? Removing barriers to access is different than saying belonging to a "special group" automatically makes you better. It's just as disgusting for a white person to be denied admission to college as it is for a person of any other skin color. You can't create equality by mandating IN-equality. And disabilities are no different.
So, while ABC news calls this a "setback for disabled workers", I have to applaud and say that this is a VICTORY for all Americans, including the disabled. We should ALL expect to be treated fairly and without regard to our skin color, gender or any other irrelevant trait. "Equality for all" is the lofty goal we should all aspire to, not the creation of special quotas or categories that seek to make group members "more equal" than others.
Links: ABC News story from 4/29/02