November #41 : Equal Protection for All - by Catherine Hanssens

POZ - Health, Life and HIV
Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
Newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:

Back to home » Archives » POZ Magazine issues




Table of Contents

Organizing Inside

Concealed Weapon

Long Day's Journey

Lethal Lottery

Natural Bootleg

Double-Crossed

One for the Books

Flying Ace

Tucker: The Man and His Dream

Hatch a Plan

Signs of Life

The Trouble With Norvir

Engine No. 48,000

S.O.S.

To the Editor

None the Wiser

Tomato, Tomahto

Enter at Your Own Risk

Say What

Swim Lessons

Stigma Enigma

Daddy’s Helper

Nushawn on the Block

Privacy Parsed

Equal Protection for All

“Just Say No” to Welfare

Ms. Thurman Goes to Washington

POZ Picks

Show and Tell

The Eye in the Storm

Get Our Phil

POZarazzi: AIDS! The Musical

Verse: Amirah

Obits

One for the Books

Flying Ace

Tucker: The Man and His Dream

Hatch a Plan

Poetic License

Poetic License

The Vision Thing

Stop the World, I want to Get Off

Surviving Behind the Walls

Prick and Tell

The Bitter End

Draining the Reservoirs

Testosterone Beats Fatigue

Carnitine Boosts CD4s

Multivitamins for Moms

Bleach Works

HIV Med Line

Weight List

Do the Hustle

A Mantra a Day

Attack of the Monster Combo

Helper Cells

He Still Is What He Is

Dark Secrets



Most Popular Lessons

The HIV Life Cycle

Shingles

Herpes Simplex Virus

Syphilis & Neurosyphilis

Treatments for Opportunistic Infections (OIs)

What is AIDS & HIV?

Hepatitis & HIV


email print

November 1998

Equal Protection for All

by Catherine Hanssens

Supreme Court backs application of ADA to prisons

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed for the first time basic questions about the reach of the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The ruling in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey upheld the application of the 10-year-old act to state prisons, and the decision in Bragdon v. Abbott concluded that the ADA may prevent health care workers from refusing treatment to a person with HIV on the basis of their own fears of infection. These cases are big victories for prisoners with HIV. They also raise questions about how other cases brought by prisoners and others with HIV will fare in the future at all levels of the justice system.

At issue in Yeskey was whether a state prison falls within the ADA’s definition of a “public entity.” Ronald Yeskey, sentenced to 18 to 36 months in a Pennsylvania state prison, was eligible for placement in a boot camp for first-time offenders (this would have allowed him to be paroled in six months), but he was refused admission due to his history of hypertension. Yeskey sued Pennsylvania corrections officials, claiming that his exclusion violated Title II of the ADA, which prohibits a public entity from discriminating on the basis of disability against someone qualified for a program.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the ADA clearly extends to prisoners, while leaving open the possibility that its ruling might be successfully challenged on the grounds that Congress lacks the constitutional power to regulate state prisons. (In the wake of Yeskey, a bill specifically exempting prisoners from ADA protections was introduced in Congress, and was pending at presstime.)

There is nothing in the statute, the Supreme Court ruled, suggesting that prisons are not public entities whose programs or services are covered by the ADA. The court was also thoroughly unimpressed with the Pennsylvania corrections officials’ argument that because inmates are not voluntary residents of a prison, the ADA’s prohibition of discrimination against individuals with disabilities otherwise “eligible” to “participate” in a particular program was not intended to cover prisoners. Drug-treatment programs, prison law libraries, the boot-camp program Yeskey wished to enter—all of these, in the court’s eyes, are programs and services that disabled prisoners deserve a shot at if they qualify. Until Congress says otherwise, the ruling necessarily covers inmates who, as often happens, are denied work-release placements or admission to drug-treatment or job-training programs solely on the basis of their HIV diagnosis.

One peculiar aspect of the court’s Yeskey ruling was its tacit acceptance of hypertension as a “disability” under the ADA. The ADA definition of disability was a central issue in Bragdon, the highest court’s first case tackling HIV. The court stopped short of concluding that HIV is automatically a covered disability under the ADA, while broadly hinting that a number of arguments might lead precisely to this conclusion in a future case. Neither Bragdon nor Yeskey addresses the fact that people with HIV usually experience discrimination precisely because they are regarded as having a condition that is “dangerous” to be around. Yet ADA provisions promise protection when individuals are limited in their ability to do things only because of the attitudes of others. Some courts have made it difficult for plaintiffs to prove that they are stigmatized, but future litigation should develop this theory further.

Finally, both rulings leave unresolved whether a “very small” risk of transmission can add up to a “direct threat” sufficient to justify excluding someone with HIV from such necessities as health care—or a prison visitation program. While logic might suggest that prisoners pose no measurable transmission risk in activities like serving food or doing pushups in boot camp, cooler minds by no means always prevail in the judicial resolution of prisoner lawsuits. Until a court grapples with the question of how big a “very small” risk of HIV transmission has to be before it is considered a direct threat, prisoners with HIV still run the risk that their bids to equal access could be defeated by corrections officials willing to stoke fears of HIV infection.




[Go to top]

Facebook Twitter Google+ MySpace YouTube Tumblr Flickr Instagram
Quick Links
Current Issue

HIV Testing
Safer Sex
Find a Date
Newly Diagnosed
HIV 101
Disclosing Your Status
Starting Treatment
Help Paying for Meds
Search for the Cure
POZ Stories
POZ Opinion
POZ Exclusives
Read the Blogs
Visit the Forums
Job Listings
Events Calendar
POZ on Twitter

Ask POZ Pharmacist

Talk to Us
Poll
Should the U.S. gay blood ban end?
Yes
No

Survey
Smoke Signals

more surveys
Contact Us
We welcome your comments!
[ about Smart + Strong | about POZ | POZ advisory board | partner links | advertising policy | advertise/contact us | site map]
© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy.
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.