Printer Friendly

Invitation to sue.

In Connecticut, three mothers of asthmatic children are suing McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's for providing designated smoking areas. Their attorney, Robert Farr, told The New York Times that asthma is a disability and, because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the restaurants must accommodate these kids by kicking out smokers.

When Congress approved the ADA in 1990, it was sold as a well-intentioned effort to provide "reasonable accommodation" for disabled people. Instead, the bill has become a bonanza for litigators and a menace to employers.

Since the ADA's first employment provisions took effect on July 26, 1992, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has received more than 7,000 complaints against businesses and government agencies--1,600 of them in March 1993 alone.

While the EEOC does not have the power to enforce the employment provisions of the ADA, the agency can recommend a settlement or even sue a company. Consider the first ADA suit, filed in Chicago last November. In 1987, Charles Wessel, the executive director of AIC Security Investigations Ltd., was diagnosed with lung cancer. By 1992, the cancer had spread to his brain. His doctors said he had six months to live.

The company claimed Wessel could no longer perform his job because of his illness and the side effects of his medication. When Wessel refused the company's offer to retire, he was fired. The EEOC sued on Wessel's behalf, and a federal court ruled that the layoff violated the ADA. He received $572,000 in back pay and damages. (Interestingly, EEOC statistics show that 48 percent of its complaints are for employees who were fired; only 21 percent are against firms that allegedly fail "to provide reasonable accommodation.")

Taxpayers are also directly at risk. In February, a federal district judge ruled that, whenever Philadelphia repaves a city street, the curbs must have wheelchair ramps. Judge Harvey Bartle ruled that the language in the public services section of the ADA equates repaving streets with "new construction and alteration." The additional cost to Philadelphia taxpayers: $8.5 million in fiscal year 1994.

No one has yet estimated the compliance costs businesses and taxpayers have paid or will pay to enforce the law. As an attorney who helped write the law's regulations says, "Nothing in the ADA prevents the costs [of compliance] from exceeding the benefits. Somebody is going to have to pick up the tab."
COPYRIGHT 1993 Reason Foundation
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1993, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Author:Chatelin, Claire
Date:Aug 1, 1993
Previous Article:Let them in.
Next Article:Competitive instinct.

Related Articles
Civil rights extended to disabled.
Trying to comply with the ADA.
Federal ADA protections for people with HIV.
Insurers may be liable for disability discrimination, appeals court holds.
Failing to accommodate depressed workers can be costly.
Mental health ruling could affect the way insurance does business.
U.S. Appeals Court: ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act: DISCRIMINATION.
Tenth Circuit blocks attempt to narrow Rehabilitation Act in disability cases.
Court-access decision's narrow scope worries advocates for disabled.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters