We have an interesting case from California in which the court wrestled with the notion of “regarded as” having a disability.  As you well informed readers already know, both Section 504 and the ADA define people as having a disability if they 1) actually have one; 2) have a record of one; or 3) are regarded as having one.  Litigation over that third prong in the definition is rare, so let’s take a look at this case.

The case involves a boy named C.C., who had genetic screening done on him as a newborn.  The screening showed that he had the “genetic markers” for cystic fibrosis (CF).  He didn’t actually have CF, but he had the markers.

Fast forward to when C.C. is at Jordan Middle School in Palo Alto.  Somehow, one of the teachers gets hold of C.C.’s medical records, and sees some reference to CF. She is concerned.  There is another child in the school who has CF.  What to do?

The teacher decides to tell the parents of the other kid about C.C.  The court did not rule on the FERPA aspect of this, so let’s just set that aside for today. What the court addressed was the suit by C.C.’s parents, claiming disability discrimination after he was involuntarily transferred out of Jordan Middle School for two weeks.

The court ruled in favor of the school district, for reasons we will explain tomorrow. But for today, let’s look at what the court said about C.C.’s status as an individual with a disability.  He didn’t actually have cystic fibrosis. Does he qualify as an individual with a disability?  The court ruled that he did.

To meet the definition of a person who is “regarded as” having a disability you must show that you suffered discrimination because of an actual or perceived impairment, whether or not that impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. As you can see, much of this lies in the perception.

Here, the court concluded that C.C. made a good start in his lawsuit. He alleged facts that would show that the school district “acted on the basis of a mistaken belief about C.C.’s status as a genetic carrier for CF and, hence, regarded him as disabled.”

Nevertheless, the school district prevailed in this case. We will talk about that tomorrow. The case is Chadam v. Palo Alto USD, decided by the federal court for the Northern District of California on November 4, 2014.

DAWG BONE: YOU CAN SUE UNDER THE ADA AND 504 BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS PERCEPTION OF YOU THAT LEADS TO DISCRIMINATION.