The Washington Blade - June 4, 1999
Lisa Keen

The case did not involve HIV or AIDS, but activists hailed the result this week, saying it would benefit many people with AIDS and HIV and noting that the conflict in the law originally came to the Supreme Court in a case involving a Gay man with AIDS.

The decision came in Cleveland v. PMS, a case involving an employee who had suffered a stroke that temporarily disabled her from working. She received Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits while recovering from her stroke but then eventually went back to work. After she went back to work, however, the employer, Policy Management Systems, fired the employee, Carolyn Cleveland, saying that the effects of her stroke left her unable to meet the responsibilities of her job. Cleveland filed a lawsuit, saying the company was discriminating against her based on her disability, a violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She also reapplied for SSDI benefits, noting that she had been fired due to her condition.

The Social Security Administration approved her for benefits again, but a district court ruled against her lawsuit, saying that, because Cleveland was receiving the disability, there was an automatic "rebuttable presumption" that she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job. The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed.

But in its May 24 opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court decisions and sent the case back to the district court, saying that, "despite the appearance of conflict that arises from the language of the two statutes," simultaneous claims "do not inherently conflict." Justice Stephen Breyer (a Clinton appointee), writing for the court, explained that the Social Security Administration's criteria for determining whether someone is disabled is significantly different than the criteria stipulated in the ADA, primarily because the SSA's criteria was developed to enable the agency to process "more than 2.5 million claims" each year. While it is important to an ADA discrimination complaint whether an employer could have made some accommodation of an employee's disability, noted Breyer, it is not a consideration for the SSA. The matter of "reasonable accommodation," he said, may turn on highly disputed workplace-specific matters; and an SSA misjudgment about that detailed, and often fact-specific matter would deprive a seriously disabled person of the critical financial support the statute seeks to provide."

"... Hence, an individual might qualify for SSDI under the SSA's administrative rules and yet, due to special individual circumstances, remain capable of 'performing the essential functions' of her job," wrote Breyer.

"Even though [this case] didn't involve people with HIV and AIDS, it is critically important to them, many of whom will rely on disability benefits at some point in their working life," said Catherine Hanssens, head of the AIDS Project for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Hanssens drafted a brief from Lambda in support of Cleveland, joined by 48 organizations for Gay people and people with AIDS and disabilities. Among those signing onto the brief were the national Latino/a Gay group LLEGO; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; the National Association of People With AIDS; and others.

"This is a great opinion," agreed Chai Feldblum, who has been involved in litigation involving people with disabilities for some years and helped author the ADA. "It's an incredibly important opinion for people with AIDS and HIV because so many people with HIV are fired from their jobs. And even if they know there was clear discrimination, they also know that prevailing on an ADA claim will take two to five years. To stay alive, they have to get access to health insurance, and one way to do that is to get SSI and Medicaid."

990604
WB990601

The Washigton Blade, Inc., 1408 U St., N.W., 2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20009-3916

Copyright © 1999 - The Washinton Blade. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of The Washington Blade content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of the Blade. The Washington Blade shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.  The Washington Blade