Cleveland, Carolyn v. Policy Management Systems, et al. (05/24/1999)
Cleveland, Carolyn v. Policy Management Systems, et al. (05/24/1999)
By: Gina George, Medill News Service
Questions presented
1. Whether the application for, or receipt of, disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. sec. 428, creates a rebuttable presumption that the applicant or recipient is judicially estopped from asserting that she is a ""qualified individual with a disability"" under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12101 et seq.
2. If it does not create such a presumption, what weight, if any, should be given to the application for, or receipt of, disability insurance benefits when a person asserts she is a ""qualified individual with a disability"" under the ADA?
Brief
Carolyn C. Cleveland had a stroke Jan. 7, 1994, which caused her to suffer from aphasia, a condition that affects concentration, memory, reading skills and speech.
Unable to work, Cleveland took a leave of absence from her job at Policy Management Systems Corp. in Dallas. Her family helped her apply for Social Security disability benefits.
By April 1994, Clevelands doctor told her she could return to work. Cleveland claims she then notified the Social Security Administration that she no longer needed benefits.
When she returned to work, Cleveland had trouble doing her job. She requested accommodations such as a different job position, computer training and permission for the Texas Rehabilitation Commission to provide a counselor to assist her.
Policy Management Systems denied Clevelands requests and in July 1994 fired her for poor job performance.
Cleveland claims that getting fired caused her aphasia to worsen. After filing two requests asking the Social Security Administration to reinstate her benefits, Cleveland asked for a hearing.
In September 1995, an administrative law judge ruled that Cleveland was eligible for Social Security benefits, and that because she was continuously disabled, she should receive retroactive benefits from the day she had her stroke.
A week before the judges decision, Cleveland sued Policy Management Systems for wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Texas Labor Code.
Policy Management Systems asserted that the ADA could not protect Cleveland as a ""qualified individual with a disability"" if she was receiving Social Security benefits, which require a person to be unable to work.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed and granted Policy Managements motion for summary judgment.
Cleveland appealed, claiming that she was disabled for the purposes of Social Security benefits when she first applied, that she notified the Social Security Administration when she wasnt eligible, and then she reapplied when her condition worsened after she was fired. She claimed that when she was at her job, she was a qualified individual with a disability.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that even though there are circumstances in which a person is disabled for Social Security purposes and a qualified individual with a disability for ADA purposes, Cleveland could not make that claim.
""Cleveland consistently represented to the SSA that she was totally disabled,"" so she could not assert that for the time in question she was a qualified individual with a disability for the purposes for her ADA claim, the court stated in its opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 5, 1998, and limited review to the two questions presented above.
On May 24, 1999, a unanimous Court sided with Cleveland, finding that both sides should have been given an opportunity in the trial court to address the apparent discrepancy between Cleveland's social security statements that she was totally disabled and her ADA claim.
In conceding that the typical disability claim provides benefits to a person with a disability so severe that she is unable to do gainful work, and the ADA prohibits covered employers from discriminating against a disabled person who can perform the essential functions of her job, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the Court that that there are many situations in which a social security disability claim and an ADA claim can comfortably exist side by side.
The 5th Circuit's judgment was vacated and the case was remanded to the district court.