The recent change of administration at the White House has brought a lot of attention to regulations, interpretations and guidance from government agencies. Recent court decisions confirm that congressionally mandated ADA regulations are well protected against unreasonable interference from the administrative and judicial branches.
As noted in my recent blawg, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U. S. ____ (2024) is one of several recent Supreme Court decisions tightening the reins of administrative power, requiring clear congressional intent when delegating authority and expanding the ability of courts to review statutory interpretations, administrative regulations and agency decisions.
However, the Americans with Disabilities Act and its Amendment (collectively the “ADA”) provide detailed statutory guidance for both agencies and courts to implement its broad scope of protection. After appropriate publication, public comment and procedural requirements, both the administrative and judicial branches of government do not have unilateral authority to repeal and/or limit their applicability.
Those who follow ADA cases know predicting how courts will rule is a risky proposition. I stuck my neck out a bit in concluding the ADA and regulations promulgated thereunder would survive the enhanced judicial scrutiny of Loper Bright. A recent case from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, Sutherland v. Peterson’s Oil Service, Inc., supports that conclusion.
Factual Background
The plaintiff, Jesse Sutherland, injured his right knee two months into his new job with Peterson’s Oil Service. Because of his injury, Sutherland twice requested that Peterson’s reduce the length of his workday. Eventually, he took a 12-week leave of absence to undergo knee surgery and recover. When he tried to return to work, Sutherland learned that Peterson’s had terminated him, effective the date he was supposed to return from leave, ostensibly “due to lack of work during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Sutherland ultimately sued Peterson’s for disability discrimination and related state law termination claims.
Findings of Law
The Sutherland opinion confirmed the definition of disability must be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals. In enacting the amendments to the ADA, Congress expressly rejected overly strict interpretations of disability in prior Supreme Court decisions. Citing Loper Bright, the court noted Congress granted the EEOC “the authority to issue regulations implementing the definitions of disability (including rules of construction). This is a quintessential example of Congress expressly delegat[ing] to an agency the authority to give meaning to a particular statutory term.”
The court also ruled disabled persons are entitled to reasonable accommodations and employers must engage in a good faith interactive process to determine an appropriate accommodation. Failure to do so is a violation of the ADA, and may also give rise to separate claims of retaliation. The court concluded the timing of his discharge raised the inference the discharge was related to his disability, and the COVID slowdown rationale was pretextual.
Commentary
The ADA, the Sutherland case and several other decisions all expressly validate the regulations promulgated by the EEOC, DOJ and Department of Transportation implementing the broad scope and protection of the ADA. Although the administrative branch may challenge these regulations, because the legislative authority is clear and unambiguous, I believe they will ultimately survive and, as in the Sutherland case, even be reinforced by the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court.
Copyright John Drinkwater 2025 All Rights Reserved Turn Up the Quiet TM
Disclaimer: This content is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in all jurisdictions. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. Readers should consult their own advisor for legal or other advice.