References (1)


Citations (4)



Mitigation and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Jill Elaine Hasday

University of Minnesota Law School

Michigan Law Review, Vol. 103, November 2004

It is an open question whether the prohibition on employment discrimination in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects plaintiffs who have not attempted to mitigate the effect of their disability on their ability to work. Suppose, for example, that a job applicant has severely impaired vision because of a corneal disease. He can have corneal transplant surgery that his doctors recommend and expect will allow him to see much more clearly, but he does not want to have the surgery because of the complications sometimes associated with the operation and the possibility that the surgery will not work. He applies for a job that has been structured for people who can see clearly, and asks the employer to purchase work equipment (like a new computer) that will enable him to perform the job with limited eyesight. Purchasing this equipment will be costly, and the employer asks why it should have to bear those costs when the applicant could have surgery to enable him to see better.

The question raises a core issue of rights and responsibilities under a civil rights law. But Title I of the ADA, which protects a qualified individual with a disability from employment discrimination based on his disability, never indicates whether there is a duty to mitigate, either by undergoing medical procedures, using medication, pursuing physical therapy, losing weight, abstaining from alcohol and cigarettes, or taking other measures to improve health and eliminate obstacles to employment. The Supreme Court has not yet considered the question, and legal commentators have all but ignored it. The few lower courts to address a duty to mitigate under Title I are divided on whether mitigation should be required, and those in favor of the duty have not developed a clear standard for when that duty should apply. To the extent that the decisions supporting a duty to mitigate imply any principle for implementing the duty, most appear to suggest that Title I plaintiffs are obligated to mitigate whenever mitigation is possible. I reject both extremes of the existing debate. This Article argues that plaintiffs seeking Title I protection should be under a duty to mitigate, but that this duty should require plaintiffs to pursue only those mitigating measures that could reduce their need for workplace accommodation and that a reasonable person in the same situation would pursue.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 71

Keywords: ADA, employment discrimination, rights and responsibilities, civil rights law

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: August 9, 2004  

Suggested Citation

Hasday, Jill Elaine, Mitigation and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Michigan Law Review, Vol. 103, November 2004. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=573521

Contact Information

Jill Elaine Hasday (Contact Author)
University of Minnesota Law School ( email )
229 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 2,983
Downloads: 246
Download Rank: 85,445
References:  1
Citations:  4

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 2.891 seconds