Americans with Disabilities Act

▪ 1994

      By all odds it was not the biggest liability case in legal history, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) suit against Chicago-based AIC Security Investigations, Ltd., and its owner, Ruth Vrdolyak, was watched with consuming interest by the U.S. business community; it was the first case brought to trial under the relatively new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The jury found that the company's discharge of AIC executive Charles H. Wessel because of his diagnosis of brain cancer was intentionally discriminatory. The verdict could have resounding implications for corporate America.

      U.S. Pres. George Bush signed the ADA into law on July 26, 1990. The act provided civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities and guaranteed them equal opportunity in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications. Some 43 million disabled people were affected by the law. The employment provisions applied to employers with 25 or more employees beginning July 26, 1992; those with 15-24 employees would have to be in compliance from July 26, 1994. The public accommodations provisions were generally effective beginning Jan. 26, 1992. They required that necessary changes be made to afford access by persons with disabilities to all public facilities, including restaurants, theatres, day-care centres, parks, institutional buildings, and hotels.

      The greatest number of ADA violation charges made thus far were employment-related. By Aug. 31, 1993, the number of claims amounted to more than 14,000. Back impairments were the most frequent disability cited, accounting for about 18.5% of the total; mental illness, with 10%, was next. The violation most frequently charged by claimants was dismissal from their jobs—49% of the cases; second was failure to provide reasonable accommodations (22%).

      In assessing their difficulties with compliance, many business leaders pointed to the confusion caused by vague language and definitions used in the act. For instance, employers were required to make "reasonable accommodation" for disabled job applicants or employees at the workplace, yet an accommodation need not be made if it would bring "undue hardship" to the employer's business. Discrimination was prohibited against "qualified" individuals with disabilities. A disabled person need only be able to handle the "essential functions" of a job with or without "reasonable accommodation."

      Employers also quarreled with the broad definition of disability, which would include, for instance, alcoholics as long as they could perform the essential functions of the job. Such prospects sent employers scrambling to rewrite job descriptions in a way that clearly defined what was essential and what was not.

      (MARVIN MARTIN)

* * *