Discrimination lawsuits double as definition of ‘disability’ expands

[Geee]

Washington Times:

The number of employment discrimination lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has nearly doubled in the past five years and seen a sharp increase in recent months, federal court records show, as the definition of “disability” has expanded and what many believe are baseless lawsuits are filed.

The increase follows changes to the law in 2008, when Congress said that courts had interpreted the definition of “disability” more narrowly than it desired.

In the last fiscal year, disability-related complaints lodged with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also rose to their highest level, at 26,000, and payouts to complainants through that process nearly doubled to $103 million compared with the figure from 2007. That does not include money paid out to those who took their complaints to court.

The flood includes more frivolous claims than ever: Despite the broadened law, the EEOC saw the highest percentage yet deemed “no reasonable cause” last year.

The rise also comes as federal agencies have added more stringent requirements for disability accommodation and offered expanded interpretations of what it means to be disabled.

In December, the EEOC drafted a letter warning that some employers could be violating the ADA by requiring a high school diploma, explaining that in some cases the requirement ” ‘screens out’ a person who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability.”

Earlier this year, the Justice Department ruled that all swimming pools open to the public had to have elevators, lifts or ramps to accommodate wheelchair users. With a March 15 deadline to comply, the Justice Department issued a 60-day stay for hundreds of thousands of public pools that had been required to install the ramps and lifts or face lawsuits, then retreated further, promising that it would be “flexible” in enforcing the rules, in most cases going after only new pools.

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 undid a court precedent requiring judges to take into account “mitigating measures” that treat disabilities, effectively saying that hearing-impaired people are not disabled if they wear hearing aids that restore hearing. Attorneys for employees say those measures don’t entirely undo a person’s disability.