 |
|
Why Courts Cannot Deny ADA Protection to Plaintiffs Who Do Not Use Available Mitigating Measures for Their Impairments |
|
Sarah Shaw |
|
| Congress intended the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
to provide strong standards for addressing and eliminating discrimination
against individuals with disabilities. Many commentators have
concluded, however, that the federal courts are undermining the
goals of the ADA by too narrowly construing membership in the
statute's protected class. One example of this trend is courts'
hostile treatment of ADA plaintiffs who do not use medications
or devices that might alleviate their impairments ("nonmitigating
plaintiffs"). Numerous district and appellate decisions have
held or suggested that nonmitigating plaintiffs are not protected
by the ADA. In addition, some commentators have proposed that
courts should evaluate the reasonableness of a plaintiff's decision
not to use mitigating measures; they argue that it is unfair to
burden an employer with the cost of accommodating a disability
that continues to exist only because an employee unreasonably
refuses to mitigate it. Contrary to the views of these courts
and commentators, however, this Comment will show that nonmitigating
plaintiffs are entitled to ADA protection from employment discrimination.
It argues that the statute's language, history, and structure,
as well as Supreme Court precedent, demonstrate that courts cannot
deny ADA protection based on a plaintiff's nonuse of available
mitigating measures. It also presents several considerations that
weigh against any future congressional enactment that would tie
ADA protection to the rea-sonableness of a plaintiff's decision
not to mitigate an impairment. |
|
| |
|
Copyright
© 2002 by California Law Review, Inc. |
|