PROBLEMS WITH HOW THE COURT INTERPRETS THE AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT

Dawn Opala Holt worked as an administrator for the Grand Lake Mental Health Center for many years. She has "a mild form of cerebral palsy that adversely affects her speech and her ability to perform certain activities which require fine motor coordination. Holt requires assistance when chopping, peeling, and slicing food. She sometimes has difficulty eating and must chew her food thoroughly or it will become lodged in her throat. She cannot cut her own fingernails or toenails. Holt can dress herself, but sometimes must ask for help when buttoning her clothes." Although she had worked for the company for many years, she was demoted and eventually fired from her job as a mental health clinic administrator, and she claimed that the demotion and termination reflected discrimination.

The court, however, found through a strict interpretation of the American Disabilities Act that she doesn't qualify as having a disability under the ADA, because she doesn't have "substantial" limitations in her ability to perform manual tasks and care for herself. So she's discriminated against because she has a disability, but can't claim protection under the ADA because the court says she doesn't qualify as having a disability. Catch-22!

For more information, read the opinion in Holt v. Grand Lake Mental Health Center, Inc.