"[O]rdinary considerations of cost and convenience alone cannot justify a State's failure to provide individuals with a meaningful right of access to the courts. Judged against this backdrop, Title II's affirmative obligation to accommodate persons with disabilities in the administration of justice cannot be said to be 'so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.' It is, rather, a reasonable prophylactic measure, reasonably targeted to a legitimate end."
- Justice John Paul Stevens, Tennessee v. Lane, May 17th, 2004

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Congress passed the ADA in 1990 "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." The ADA is the world's first comprehensive, national law protecting the civil rights of individuals with disabilities. At the time the ADA was passed, over 43 million Americans experienced some form of disability. In its lengthy findings about the necessity of the ADA, Congress stated that "the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity."

Equal Opportunity

The goal of the ADA is to provide equal opportunity for people with disabilities. In the administration of justice, Georgia courts must provide an equally effective opportunity for people with disabilities to participate in the programs the court offers to citizens. The general principle underlying a court's obligations under the ADA is protecting the civil rights of people with disabilities to enjoy and benefit from the services, programs and activities provided to all people by the court system.

Defining Disability Under the ADA

Under the ADA, an individual with a disability is a person who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) has a "record of" such an impairment; or is (3) "regarded as" having such an impairment. Under the first prong of the definition, a physical impairment is defined as any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine. A mental impairment is defined as any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.

Not all physical or mental impairments constitute disabilities under the ADA. For a physical or mental impairment to be defined as a disability, the impairment or a combination of impairments must substantially limit one or more major life activities. Major life activities include caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, working, and participating in community activities. Whether an individual has a disabling impairment depends on the particular facts of each individual case.

To determine if an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, the following factors should be considered: the nature and severity of the impairment; the permanent or long-term impact of the impairment; and the duration of the impairment. Thus, temporary, nonchronic impairments that do not last a long time and have little or no long-term impact, such as broken limbs, sprained joints, concussions, appendicitis, and influenza, usually are not viewed as disabilities. For example, a broken leg, which is an impairment of relatively brief duration, would not be considered a disability. However, the residual impact of an improperly healed broken leg might be considered a disability. Likewise, a temporary psychological impairment is not considered a disability under the ADA, while a long-term or permanent impairment may be a disability.

In three cases decided in 1999, the United States Supreme Court resolved the issue of whether "mitigating measures" should be considered when determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. The Court narrowed the parameters of who is covered under the ADA, ruling that mitigating measures, such as eyeglasses and medication, must be considered when deciding whether an individual is "substantially limited in a major life activity," and therefore protected under the ADA. The Court held that when mitigating measures are available, a person is not disabled unless the medical condition substantially limits a major life activity in the condition's corrected state.

The second prong of the ADA definition of disability covers individuals who have a "record of" such an impairment although they are currently not impaired in any way. For example, an individual with cancer may have taken significant time off from work for chemotherapy. Years later, a potential employer, noting the gap in employment, may not hire that individual even though the individual is currently not impaired in any way. The individual would be covered by the ADA because of the past "record of" a disability.

The third prong of the ADA definition of disability covers individuals who are "regarded as" having such an impairment by a covered entity. This prong covers (1) individuals who are believed to have substantially limiting impairments they do not have or (2) who are believed to have substantially limiting impairments when, in fact, the impairments are not so limiting. For example, a person with severe burn scars may be viewed as substantially limited in some way when, in fact, there is no limitation.

Congress specified numerous conditions that are excluded from the definition of disability, including: sexual disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, and disorders resulting from current illegal drug use. In addition, the ADA does not protect individuals who would create an imminent and substantial danger to themselves or others when there is no reasonable accommodation that would remove the danger.

Qualified Individual with a Disability

Under the ADA, qualified individuals with disabilities must have equal access to court programs, services and activities. An individual is qualified when he or she meets the essential eligibility requirements for participation.

When determining whether someone is qualified, courts must (1) make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices and procedures; or (2) furnish auxiliary aids or services when necessary to ensure an equally effective opportunity to participate. However, a court is not required to take any action that would constitute an undue financial or administrative burden or fundamentally alter the nature of the program, service or activity.

For example, a court may have a policy against bringing animals into a courtroom. If a woman who is blind is called as a potential juror and would need to bring her guide dog into the jury box, the court should make a reasonable modification of that policy and allow the juror to bring her guide dog. However, such a request could be a "fundamental alteration" in some instances. For example, if one party in a civil case has an extreme fear of dogs or has an attorney who objects to the presence of dogs on religious grounds, a court could find that the presence of the dog would fundamentally alter the court proceeding by infringing on the rights of an indispensable party or attorney in this case. Thus, a court may arrange to have the juror serve in another courtroom for another case, or excuse the juror.

Eligibility criteria for access to court programs, services and activities which tend to exclude persons with disabilities must not be based on stereotype, speculation or arbitrary basis. Instead this determination must be made on a case by case basis. For example a potential juror who is blind may not be qualified to serve on a jury requiring visual perception such as at a trial for forgery, but may be qualified to serve as a juror in other cases if provided with reasonable accommodations, i.e. written evidence could be provided in alternate format or by the provision of a reader.

A court may reject an accommodation request where the individual with a disability is not otherwise qualified, For example, a court would not be required to provide a sign language interpreter for a potential juror if that juror who did not meet the essential eligibility requirement of residency.

Activities Covered by The ADA

Almost every activity conducted by a Georgia court is covered by Title II's mandate that state and local courts ensure that qualified individuals with physical or mental disabilities are afforded an equal opportunity to participate in court programs, services or activities. Title II covers the juror selection system, trials, hearings, courthouse security procedures and access to libraries, publications, Internet sites, dispute resolution programs, and seminars offered by the court. Even if a trial or hearing is closed to the public, Title II applies if one of the participants has a disability. Title II also applies to the physical accessibility of courtrooms and courthouse structures.

The U.S. Supreme Court has broadly applied the "program access" requirement of Title II. In Pennsylvania v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court applied the ADA's use of the terms "services, programs, and activities" liberally to include a "motivational boot camp" offered for state prisoners. The Court held that state prisons were clearly subject to the ADA and that the boot camp was an ADA-protected, voluntary program by virtue of its definition in a Pennsylvania statute.

Certain internal administrative functions of the court which are not open to the public, such as regular staff meetings for courthouse personnel, are not covered under Title II. However, a court may have to provide reasonable accommodations to court employees with disabilities under the employment provisions of the ADA.

Integrated Settings

Court programs, services and activities must be provided to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting to the maximum extent feasible. The ADA's "integration mandate" provides that segregation and isolation are forms of discrimination and should be avoided to achieve equal opportunity. Sometimes, it may be necessary to provide access in an alternative manner. For example, a court may construct a fully accessible courtroom in a courthouse to accommodate people with disabilities. However, the court must ensure that this effort does not result in unnecessary segregation, i.e. the court must not reserve the accessible courtroom solely for cases involving people with disabilities.