Should people who file for Social Security disability benefits be prevented from bringing a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA")? On February 24, 1999, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on this issue in Cleveland v. Policy Management Sys. Corp., No. 97-1008 (U.S., cert. granted Oct. 5, 1998).

In January 1994, Carolyn Cleveland suffered a stroke and, as a result, experienced aphasia, a difficulty understanding and processing language. At the time of the stroke, Cleveland's daughter had filled out an application for Social Security benefits and had her sign it. In support of her sworn application, Cleveland certified that she had become "unable to work because of [her] disabling condition," and that she was "still disabled." Three months later, plaintiff recovered enough to return to work and informed the Social Security Administration that she did not need benefits. Cleveland requested several accommodations from her employer, including computer training, permission to take work home in the evenings, a transfer of position, and permission for the Texas Rehabilitation Commission to provide a counselor - free of charge - to assist her. Her employer denied each of her requests and terminated her in July 1994 for poor performance.

Cleveland reapplied for Social Security disability benefits, again making such statements as "I continue to be disabled," and "I could no longer do the job because of my condition." Soon thereafter, she filed a lawsuit under the ADA claiming that she could have continued working if her employer had provided her with a reasonable accommodation. Before trial, Cleveland's former employer moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that Cleveland could not establish a claim under the ADA. Her former employer argued that Cleveland's representations in her application for Social Security benefits prevented her from claiming that she was a "qualified individual with a disability," a necessary element to establish a claim under the ADA.

A "qualified individual with a disability" is an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that the individual holds. Cleveland's employer argued that her statements that she could not do her job precluded her from claiming that she was a qualified individual with a disability. The district court granted the employer's motion, and Cleveland appealed.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court's ruling for the employer. The Court of Appeals held that the application for or receipt of Social Security benefits by a person creates a "rebuttable presumption" that the recipient is not a "qualified individual with a disability" under the ADA. To rebut such a presumption, the plaintiff must raise a "genuine issue of material fact" that, although she is disabled for purposes of Social Security, she is still a "qualified individual with a disability" under the ADA. The court cautioned that while it is "theoretically conceivable" that a plaintiff who receives Social Security disability benefits could maintain a suit under the ADA, such instances would only occur under "some limited and highly unusual set of circumstances." Plaintiff petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear her appeal.

The decision that will be handed down by the Supreme Court, and the decisions that will no doubt follow it, will significantly impact upon whether employees may seek both Social Security disability benefits and recovery under the ADA, and the way employers defend against such claims. If you should have any questions about how this decision will affect your business, please contact us by telephone or e-mail as set forth below.

The information provided herein is for general guidance on matters of interest only. While every effort has been made to ensure the information provided herein is accurate and timely, no decision should be made or action taken on the basis of information without first consulting an Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. professional.

Elliot Mandel
Epstein Becker & Green
250 Park Avenue
New York
10177-007
USA

Tel: 212 351-4500

Fax: 212 661-0989

E Mail:  Click Contact Link 
Please visit our website at  Click Contact Link