WASHINGTON, DC — Kathy Adam’s discrimination case against the State Department is an odd one – and the July 18th ruling doesn’t have everyone convinced — but it’s created an interesting precedent that will likely make many an attorney at least slightly more financially comfortable. The DC Circuit Court decision, which declared that Adam’s feelings of romantic doom after a cancer-inspired mastectomy and partial hysterectomy made her legally disabled. Because of this, the State Department’s refusal to provide Adams with Foreign Service clearance due being a cancer survivor was in violation of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act.
After passing both the written and oral examinations required to serve in the Foreign Service, Adams, a Piedmont, SC attorney, received a letter in October 2003, announcing her acceptance within the Service. Shortly after, in spite of a doctor’s insistence that she was healthy, she was denied medical clearance because of a diagnosis and subsequent treatment for breast cancer later that same year.
She sued the State Department in 2005 and her case was dismissed by the district court in 2007, stating that cancer is not a disability since it is not a permanent condition.
The Circuit Court to which Adams appeared disagreed, stating that her history of cancer qualified if she could prove that it continues to limit a major life activity – and that is where the case becomes most interesting.
While some think of a disability as something that makes an individual incapable of performing simple tasks or actions necessary for self-care, communication, employment, education, locomotion, or basic life function, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington DC Circuit has twice this month expanded the definition of “major life activity” under the country’s federal employee anti-discrimination law. According to Legal Times, the law now includes conditions which result in sleeplessness or sexual inability.
At the heart of Adams’ designation as “disabled” was her contention that her surgeries had “crippled indefinitely and perhaps permanently” her ability to find a romantic partner.
While hundreds of thousands of post-mastectomy/hysterectomy women might strongly disagree with the court’s reasoning, Adams’ fears and negative self-image have resulted in a legal decision that is expected to encourage new claims of discrimination.
“Our client just wept when we read the decision to her,” attorney David Shapiro told Legal Times. “Here’s a person who came to the conclusion she wanted to serve the country, she’s well qualified to do so, and she’s denied because she had cancer?”
Although pleased with the ultimate decision, Shapiro is not as pleased with the reasons behind it. “They discriminated against her based on a history – and this is exactly what the statute is supposed to guard against.” But instead of ruling on that point, it was his client’s perception of herself as damaged and of lesser value that earned her legal relief.
Judge David Tatel explained the court’s decision, pronouncing procreation to be a “significant human activity, one our species has been engaging in at least since the biblical injunction to ‘be fruitful and multiply.’”
Speaking for the dissent, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote that because Adams failed to prove that her illness had truly limited her ability to engage in sex or find a partner prior to the rescinded offer, thus providing no evidence to support her contention that she was denied a major life activity.
Adams wishes to be hired into the Foreign Service at a salary level in line with where her career would likely have led her had she been cleared in 2003. Representatives for the Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia indicate that the matter is under review.
