Suing Under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Seeking Disability Benefits: A Hobson's Choice for People with Disabilities
Scott Johnson
DOI: 10.2190/69YP-QKBT-UGQ0-HVAC
Abstract
In this article a relatively new development in the law is discussed where courts are currently undecided. The issue is whether filing for social security disability benefits should preclude a person from accessing the protections of the ADA. The issue arises when an individual loses their job, applies for benefits for financial and medical assistance, and then sues their previous employer under the ADA alleging their termination was discriminatory. The controversy is essentially over definitions. The ADA applies to qualified individuals with a disability. To be qualified an individual must meet the job eligibility requirements, and they must be able to perform the essential functions of a job with or without a reasonable accommodation. In order to qualify for social security disability benefits an individual must show they are unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. Some courts feel these terms are mutually exclusive. In other words, you can't be able to perform the essential functions of a job, and unable to engage in substantial gainful activity at the same time. Other courts have held these definitions are compatible, and although meeting one of them can certainly be used as evidence to show a plaintiff does not meet the other it should not be given preclusive effect. This issue is very important because it is at the core of public policy initiatives aimed at integrating people with disabilities into society.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.