Stay up to date on the latest news and legislative alerts in mental health law: Email   ZIP For RSS readers

What Justice O’Connor’s Resignation Means for Disability Rights

O'Connor Was Important Swing Vote; Civil Rights Now Hang in the Balance

(July 7, 2005)— Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Reagan with an eye toward consensus among the political parties. She was confirmed by the Senate in a 99-0 vote. We hope President Bush will similarly choose a consensus nominee to replace her.

Justice O’Connor has a mixed record on disability rights in decisions based on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She frequently sided with business against the interests of individuals with disabilities. For example:

• In Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999), Justice O’Connor authored a decision greatly narrowing the class of people protected by the ADA, holding that mitigating measures such as eyeglasses, medications, and prosthetic devices must be considered in determining whether a person has a disability.

• In Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), O’Connor authored an opinion expressing doubt that an employee with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis had a disability in performing manual tasks and holding that the ADA contains a “demanding” standard for determining who is protected.

• In Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, she joined the majority in a 5-4 states’ rights decision holding that Congress had exceeded its authority in allowing damage suits against state employers under Title I of the ADA.

Civil Rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Protections for People with Mental Disabilities

Nonetheless, in some cases Justice O’Connor sided with people who have disabilities.

• In Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), she concurred with the majority’s conclusion that unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities is a form of discrimination prohibited by the ADA.

• In Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), Justice O’Connor joined the majority in a 5-4 decision rejecting a states’ rights argument and concluding that Congress had the power to authorize damage suits against states for claims under Title II of the ADA relating to access to courts.

• In U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002), Justice O’Connor concurred with the majority ruling that the ADA requires reasonable accommodations to disability-neutral rules that have the effect of excluding people with disabilities, and that seniority systems may, under certain circumstances, have to give way to allow reassignment of an individual with a disability as an accommodation required by the ADA.

It is critical for people with disabilities that landmark decisions such as Olmstead and Lane not be overturned after Justice O’Connor leaves the Supreme Court. Further, the court, likely with O’Connor’s successor seated, will hear another ADA Title II case this term, Goodman v.Georgia, involving the rights of prisoners with disabilities.

President Bush should seek meaningful advice and consent from Senators on both sides of the aisle when choosing a Supreme Court nominee, and the Senators have an obligation to examine the nominee’s positions on disability rights.

We call on President Bush to honor the promises made in his New Freedom Initiative and ensure that whoever he names to replace Justice O’Connor is committed to protecting the important rights that people with disabilities have fought so hard to secure.

Fair Use Policy

Please feel free to forward our alerts as long as you credit the Bazelon Center with a link to our website: http://www.bazelon.org