Creative Commons
The inevitable overturning of Roe v. Wade is scary as hell. If these judicial bullies can set the clock back fifty years without flinching, what else might they be looking to destroy? It makes me feel like nothing is safe.
The federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is also almost fifty years old, and critically important to disabled folks because Section 504 of the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of federal funds.
“The court’s decision today allows victims of discrimination to recover damages only if they can prove that they have suffered economic harm, even though the primary harm inflicted by discrimination is rarely economic.”
But the U.S. Supreme Court has all but destroyed it, too, in the case of Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller. In 2016, Jane Cummings, a Deaf woman, sought physical therapy services from Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. in Texas. She asked the company to provide a sign language interpreter so she could adequately communicate with her therapist. But her request was denied, and the company only offered communication through gesturing, lip reading or written notes.
So Cummings sought and received therapy elsewhere but later filed the lawsuit, charging that the refusal to accommodate her disability violated the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act. A U.S. District Court judge ruled against Cummings, somehow interpreting those laws to mean she was not illegally discriminated against because she suffered only emotional distress and not monetary damage. An Appeals Court upheld that decision and the logic behind it, and in April the Supreme Court upheld it as well, in a 6-3 decision.
This time, Chief Justice John Roberts joined in the majority with his five fellow horsemen of the apocalypse. Roberts wrote the majority opinion, offering a detailed rationale for how inflicting emotional distress alone doesn’t constitute genuine discrimination, based on the Spending Clause of the Constitution.
I’ll not duke it out with him in that realm, since I’m not a lawyer. But in the realm of real life and real people, it doesn’t take much deep contemplation to see that his conclusion is nonsense.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “The court’s decision today allows victims of discrimination to recover damages only if they can prove that they have suffered economic harm, even though the primary harm inflicted by discrimination is rarely economic. . . . The court’s decision today will leave those victims with no remedy at all.”
Yep. If laws like the Rehabilitation Act only apply to situations where there is tangible economic damage, then what the hell are they good for? When Cummings asked for an accommodation, she received a response that was profoundly ignorant and insulting. But the judicial system said, “So what?” If it didn’t cost her any money, it’s no big deal. She should just suck it up.
This warped logic can be used to eviscerate every other kind of civil rights law, too. (And you can bet somebody will try.) Signs on public bathrooms and water fountains that say WHITES ONLY may be degrading and dehumanizing, but they don’t cost anybody any money. So what’s all the fuss about?
The stomping of Roe v. Wade is probably just the beginning of the rampage.