Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Bosses should not be forced to give disabled workers light-duty jobs sought by more senior employees, an airline lawyer told the Supreme Court Tuesday.
Justices are again reviewing the Americans with Disabilities Act, the landmark 1990 law that forbids job discrimination against the disabled and requires employers to offer reasonable accommodations to disabled people who are otherwise qualified to perform jobs.
The law that entitled disabled golfer Casey Martin to a cart on the PGA Tour should also ensure William Barnett a job he can physically handle, said Claudia Center, Barnett’s lawyer.
The case turns on whether Congress intended employers to accommodate the disabled even at the expense of experienced workers in companies with seniority systems.
If the court decides that the ADA trumps seniority arrangements, it would hurt single mothers hoping to get off the graveyard shift and other deserving, longtime employees, lawyer Walter E. Dellinger III told the court.
"You simply can’t know what the domino effect will be for substituting a seniority system," said Dellinger, representing US Airways.
The case comes up at a time of airline industry layoffs. Justices dwelled on the impact on non-disabled workers and concerns about who could lose their jobs.
"Isn’t it like musical chairs in a way? Somebody is going to lose out to a disabled person," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said.
"It’s a question of which people suffer," said Justice Stephen Breyer.
Barnett had asked for a transfer after hurting his back loading baggage at San Francisco International Airport in 1990. He was given a job in the mailroom, but employees with more seniority later requested the same position. Under seniority rules, they could bump him to a less desirable job.
Barnett sued in 1994 under the ADA, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said employers cannot use a seniority system to avoid seeking solutions for disabled employees. US Airways appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered Tuesday whether cities may ban one-stop shopping for nudie magazines, X-rated movies and the like — a red-light district under one roof.
The court has already said that cities may fight the crime, filth and economic decline associated with traditional red light districts through zoning regulations, such as forcing sex-related businesses to locate far away from one another.
Los Angeles did just that in 1978, but quickly discovered what city lawyers call a loophole. One X-rated movie theater could add products and services to become a "sex superstore," the city said.
So the city took what it calls the logical next step and in 1983 banned multiple adult businesses from operating on the same site. The ban was ignored in some cases, including by two adult bookstores that added video viewing booths in the early 1990s.
After city inspectors discovered the violations, the stores sued, claiming the ban is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of free speech and unjustifiably treats sexual content more harshly than more mainstream fare.
The court heard oral arguments Tuesday, and is expected to rule by summer.
Copyright ©2001 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.