Significance of O'Connor Resignation for Disability Rights
July, 2005

Thanks to Jennifer Mathis from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law for drafting this report on the significance of O'Connor resignation for disability rights

It is important that President Bush seek meaningful advice and consent from Senators on both sides of the aisle when choosing a nominee for the Supreme Court.

I. Justice O'Connor was nominated by President Reagan with an eye toward reaching consensus among all political parties, and was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 99-0. We hope that President Bush will similarly choose a consensus nominee to replace Justice O'Connor.

II. Justice O'Connor was frequently sided with business interests 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 by 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.

Nonetheless, Justice O'Connor sided with people with disabilities in a number of important disability rights cases. 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.

III. It is critical to disability rights that landmark decisions such as Olmstead v. L.C. and Tennessee v. Lane not be overturned when Justice O'Connor leaves the Court.

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

Member Benefits | About AAPD | Join | Disability Resources | News | Contact Us | Calendar | Home