Interacting with Others as a Major Life Activity under the ADA - Essay Example

ARGUMENTS A. The EEOC recognizes interacting with others as a major life activity B. Judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and applicable jurisprudence support the view that "interacting with others" is a major life activity C. Interacting with others is a major life activity under the ADA 1. Interacting with others is of central importance to daily life 2. The history and purpose of or public policy behind the ADA compel recognizing interacting with others as a major life activity INTRODUCTION Title I of the ADA protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination in the employment context.1 To be entitled to such protection a person must: (i) be employed by an entity covered by the ADA, (ii) be disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (iii) be otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation, and (iv) have an adverse employment action taken against her on the basis of her disability. Once an employee has met her prima facie burden, the burden shifts to her employer to show a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.2 If the employer meets this burden, the employee must show that the employee's proffered reason was merely pretextual and that discriminatory animus was at least partially the cause of the adverse employment action.3 The ADA defines a qualified individual with a disability as one who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of her job.4 In turn, a disability is (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; or (B) a record of such impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.5 The EEOC defines "a mental impairment" as "any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, Bi-Polar Disorder II, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities,"6 for purposes of the ADA.7 Thus, the question becomes whether this impairment substantially limits a major life activity.8 A. The EEOC recognizes interacting with others as a major life activity. Interacting with others is listed as a major life activity in the EEOC's Compliance Manual: "Mental and emotional processes such as thinking, concentrating, and interacting with others are other examples of major life activities."9 This listing is significant insofar as the Appellate Court accords "great deference to the EEOC's interpretation of the ADA, since it is charged with administering the statute."10 Although, the EEOC provides a list of examples of major life activities that does not include interacting with others,11 this list is not exhaustive, and courts have routinely recognized major life activities not included in the EEOC regulations.12 Interacting with others is analogous to the major life activities enumerated by the EEOC because it is an essential, daily activity.13 It is not possible to exist in our society without interacting with other people. "Interacting with others, by any definition, is a required precursor to an individual's ability to work, to love, to reproduce, and to function on a day-to-day basis in modem society."14 Furthermore, interacting with others is no more difficult to define than caring for oneself, a widely recognized major life activity.15 B. Judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and applicable jurisprudence supports the view that "interacting with others" is a major life activity As social human beings we come into contact with each other on a daily basis and that contact involves the use of abilities such as seeing, listening, talking, communicating and walking.16 These abilities have been described by ADA as "major life activities". As previously stated, the EEOC has prepared a list of abilities that constitute major life activities and they are: "...functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working."17 These lists of abilities have been broadened and the US Supreme Court added procreation to the list.18 The EEOC in its Compliance Manual stretched the definition in its regulations relative to the ADA as follows: "Major life activities' are those basic activities that the average person in the average person in the general population can perform with little or no difficulty." The EEOC goes on to insist that the list of major life activities is not limited those confined to the list and can include "sitting, standing, lifting, reaching." The US Supreme Court in Bragdon v Abbott in deciding that procreation was a major life activity stated that: "...the plain meaning of the word 'major' denotes comparative importance and suggest that the touchstone for determining an activity's inclusion under the statutory rubric is its significance." The defendant's argument in Bragdon v Abbott was that major activities as it appeared in ADA was intended to only refer to those activities that had a "public, economic, or daily character." The US Supreme Court however, did not agree and went on to rule that: "Nothing in the definition suggests that activities without a public, economic, or daily dimension may somehow be regarded as so unimportant or insignificant as to fall outside the meaning of the word 'major.'"19 The US Supreme Court, in capitalizing Bragdon defined the meaning of major activities in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v Williams 534 US 184 (2002). In delivering the representative ruling of the majority of the justices of the US Supreme Court Justice O'Connor ruled that major in terms of major life activity would necessarily mean activities that are "of central importance to daily life."20 Thus, in Bragdon, the US Supreme Court came to the conclusion that interacting with others is a major life activity.21 As the very nature of human beings is social and as such "it is important for every individual to be able to interact and communicate with others, not only for basic survival needs, but also for entertainment, work, and family purposes. The fact that all individuals must interact and communicate with others at some point, and those that cannot are considered handicapped (such as the mentally retarded), shows the significance of this activity."22 The sum total of the US Supreme Court's ruling in Toyota is that interacting with others not only happens frequently, but is also of "central importance to daily life."23 For instance, talking, walking, speaking and listening are unquestionably major life activities and more often than not require interaction with others. Obviously communicating with others requires interaction among individuals. It therefore follows that if an individual cannot communicate with others he likewise cannot interact with others. In Soileau v Guilford of Me. Inc. 105 3d 12 (1st Cir. 1997) distinguished between the ability to get along with others and the ability to interact with others. The former does not constitute a major life activity while the latter does.24 The 1st Circuit Court distinguished between the two by analogy. For instance, perceiving is akin to getting along with others while "seeing" or "hearing" is analogous to interacting with others.25 In Jacques v DiMarzio, Inc 386 F 3d 192 (1st. Cir 2004) it stated that "'interacting with others' more objectively describes a life activity than does 'getting along with others,' which connotes proficiency or success and worsens the problem of subjectivity". In Jacques, the Court ruled that a person's ability to interact with others is impaired when he has severe limitations in his or her ability to connect with others or to respond to them "at the most basic level." The Jacques test in particular leads to a conclusion that interacting with others is an essential part of daily activities and hence, a major life activity. C. Interacting with others is a major life activity under the ADA. Defendant would argue that the ability to interact with others should not be considered a major life activity because it is an unworkably subjective standard that would protect disruptive behavior in the workplace. Its argument fails, however, for several reasons. Interacting with others is indisputably an activity of central importance to daily life, and the EEOC has recognized it as a major life activity in its compliance manual.26 Additionally, interacting with others is considered a major life activity under the Rehabilitation Act, and such recognition under the ADA would serve the legislative purpose of rectifying stereotypes about the mentally disabled.27 Neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit have addressed the issue of whether interacting with others is a major life activity.28 The only circuit to have squarely addressed the issue has adopted it as a major life activity,29 and no circuit has held that interacting with others is not a major life activity.30 An Appellate Court has de novo review of a lower court's conclusion that the ability to interact with others is a major life activity.31 1. Interacting with others is of central importance to daily life. In Toyota, the Supreme Court explained that "the term major life activity as used in the ADA, refers to those activities that are of central importance to daily life."32 Because major life activity is not defined in the ADA, it should be construed according to its ordinary and natural meaning.33 The plain meaning of the word "major" denotes an activity that is important and significant,34 as well as basic. It is an "activity that the average person in the general population can perform with little or no difficulty."35 Interact is defined by the dictionary to mean to "act upon one another."36 Interacting with others is an important and significant function and "easily falls within the definition of 'major life activity.'"37 It is necessary for participation in the workforce.38 The ability to interact with others depends on the tacit understanding between members of society which form the expectations under which we all operate. The ability to interpret and convey these signals in a way that is recognizable to others is an essential part of human communication.39 Moreover, in enacting the ADA, Congress implicitly recognized that interacting with others is of central importance, finding that integrating disabled individuals into the general population so that they could fully participate in society constituted a proper goal for the Nation.40 Congress appreciated that interacting with others is a significant component of human life. It determined that "the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous."41 2. The history and purpose of and public policy behind the ADA compel recognizing interacting with others as a major life activity. Congress drew the ADA's definition of disability "almost verbatim from the definition of 'handicapped individual' included in the Rehabilitation Act ["RA"]."42 Accordingly, judicial interpretations of the RA are instructive in interpreting the ADA. Interacting with others was recognized as a major life activity under the RA in Dolton.43 The court in Dolton found that a student with AIDS was substantially impaired in his ability to interact with others.44 Interacting with others has also been recognized as a major life activity under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. 3601, et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHA"), 43 P.S. 951-961.45 Recognizing that disabled individuals are subjected to "stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of [their] ability,"46 Congress' explicit purpose in promulgating the ADA was to strive for the "elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." Unfortunately, "[b]ias against the mentally ill is one of the last invisible and socially acceptable forms of discrimination, perpetuated by our use of ... stereotype-based reasoning about mental illness."47 The uneasiness and fear engendered by an individual with a mental impairment has no correlation with whether she is substantially limited in any major life activity.48 As one commentator has explained: "In passing the ADA, Congress intended to eradicate the barriers and stereotypes precluding people with disabilities from full-participation in society. In doing so, legislators implicitly recognized that the ability to interact fully with others is a key and basic inalienable right of all people and a significant component of human life. As such, this ability clearly deserves consistent recognition as a major life activity under the ADA, permitting individuals impaired in their ability to interact with others to establish legitimate claims of disability."49 The defendant may argue that the line between a merely cantankerous person and a person who is substantially limited in the major life activity of interacting with others is too fine to be drawn. This argument invokes the exact prejudice that the ADA was implemented to combat. A person would be able to distinguish between an emotionally disturbed person and someone who was merely cantankerous. Defendants may misperceive a normally behaving employee as being "emotionally disturbed." And this is exactly the kind of discrimination the ADA was designed to prohibit. The defendant may argue that recognizing the ability to interact with others will open the floodgates to litigation is incorrect. The ADA was enacted to protect the interests of disabled employees, but it also protects the employer's interests by establishing two threshold requirements: (1) the plaintiff must show that she is capable of performing the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation, and (2) the plaintiff must demonstrate that she is substantially limited in a major life activity.50 To make a prima facie case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that she is qualified to perform her job.51 Similarly, an impairment must pose "not any limitation, but only a 'substantial' limitation, on not any life activity, but only a 'major' life activity" to constitute a disability under the ADA.52 CONCLUSION Interacting with others should be considered as a major life activity as recognized in the EEOC Compliance Manual and Rehabilitation Act and supported by applicable jurisprudence. Moreover, the legislative intent and considerations of public policy behind the ADA warrant that "interacting with others" be considered as a major life activity. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Anderson v. Bessemer City. 470 U.S. 564 (1985) Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1996) Annis v. County of Westchester, 136 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 1998) Bailey v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 306 F.3d 1162 (1st Cir. 2002) Baker v. Taco Bell Corp., 163 F.R.D. 348 (D.Colo. 1995) Bank of China v. NBMLLC, 359 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2004) Baxter v. City of Belleville, Illinois, 720 F. Supp. 720 (N. D. Ill. 1989) Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) Cain v. Hyatt, 734 F. Supp. 671 (E.D.Pa. 1990) Cameron v. Comm'ty Aid for Retarded Children, Inc., 335 F.3d 60 (2d Cir 2003) Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) Charles v. Wade, 665 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1982) Colwell v. Suffolk Cty. Police Dept., 158 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 1998) Comber v. Prologue, Inc., No. Civ. 99-2637, 2000 WL 1481300 (D. Md. Sept. 28, 2000) Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of the Int'l Bhd. Of Elec. Workers, 34 F.3d 1148 (2d Cir. 1994) Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 1999) DiMarzio. Inc. v. Jacques, 2003 WL 22415361 (N.L.R.B. Div. of Judges Oct. 20, 2003) Doe v. Dolton Elementary Sch. Dist., 694 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1988) Doyal v. Oklahoma Heart, Inc., 213 F.3d 492 (10th Cir. 2000) Dunlap-McCuller v. Riese Org., 980 F.2d 153 (2d Cir. 1992) Felix v. New York City Transit Auth., 324 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2003) Gilday v. Mecosta Cty., 124 F.3d 760 (1st Cir. 1997) Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv., 283 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2002) Giordano v. City of New York, 274 F.3d 740 (2d Cir. 2001) Greenway v. Buffalo Hilton Hotel, 143 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1998) Hall v. United Parcel Serv., No. Civ. 99-2467, 2000 WL 554059 (D. Kan. Apr. 28, 2000) Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 200 F. Supp. 2d 151 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) Kolb v. Suffolk Cty., 109 F.R.D. 125 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) Lever v. United States, 300 F. Supp. 881 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) Manko, 979 F.2d at 905 Margo v. Weiss, 213 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2000) Mark v. Burke Rehab. Hosp., No. 94 Civ. 3596, 1997 WL 189124 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 1997) ... McAlindin v. City of San Diego, 192 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 1999) Musser v. Gentiva Health Servs., 356 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2004) Nelco Corp. v. Slater Elec. Inc. 80 F.R.D. 411 (E.D.N.Y. 1978) Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc. v. Hollander, 337 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2003) Pack v. Kmart Corp., 166 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 1999) Pahuta v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 170 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 1999) Palazzo v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2000) Parker v. Reda, 327 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2003) Perma Research and Dev. Co., v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1969) Quarantillo v. Consol. Rail Corp., 106 F.R.D. 435 (W.D.N.Y. 1985) Reeves v. Johnson Controls World Srvs., Inc., 140 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 1998) Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) Rodick v. City of Schenectady, 1 F.3d 1341 (2d Cir. 1993) Rose v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 257 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2001) Ryan v. Grae & Rybicki, P.C., 135 F.3d 867 (2d Cir. 1998) Shah v. Pan Am. World Servs., 148 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 1998) Sherrod v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 132 F.3d 1112 (5th Cir. 1998) Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc., 105 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1997) Steele v. Thiokol Corp., 241 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2001) Sutton v. United Airlines, 130 F.3d 893 (10th Cir. 1997) Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999) Taylor v. Phoenixville, 184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999) Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) Trans-Orient Marine Corp. v. Star Trading & Marine Inc., 925 F.2d 566 (2d Cir. 1991) Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2001) Triche v. Overnight Transp. Co., No. Civ. 95-0691, 1996 WL 276353 (E.D.La. May 21, 1996) ... United States v. Manko, 979 F.2d 900 (2d Cir. 1992) United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 343 (2d Cir. 1993) United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) Weissman v. Dawn Joy Fashions, Inc., 214 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2000) STATUTES 28 U.S.C. 1291 28 U.S.C. 1331 28 U.S.C. 1367 29 U.S.C. 706 42 U.S.C. 3601 42 U.S.C. 12101 42 U.S.C. 12102 42 U.S.C. 12111 42 U.S.C. 12112 43 P.S. 951-961 N.Y. Lab. Law 215 (McKinney 2003) OTHER AUTHORITIES EEOC Compliance Manual H.R. REP. 101-485(II) Randal I. Goldenstein, Mental Illness in the Workplace after Sutton v. United Airlines, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 927, 941 (2001) Random House College Dictionary 688 (2d ed. 2001) Susan Stefan, Delusions of Rights: Americans with Psychiatric Disabilities. Employment Discrimination and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 52 Ala. L. Rev. 271, 272 (Fall 2000) ... Wendy F. Hensel, Interacting With Others: A Major Life Activity Under the ADA, 2002 Wis. L. Rev. 1139, 1196 (2002) TREATISES 4 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence 701.08 (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2 ed. 1999) 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Civil 2142 (1971) Hartman, Patrick, A. (2005) "'Interacting with Others' as a Major Life Activity Under the Americans with Disabilities Act." Seton Hall Circuit Review. Vol. 2, pp 139-172 REGULATIONS 29 C.F.R. 1630, App 29 C.F.R. 1630 Read More