Airline Rights of Disabled to Be Reviewed : In Key Test, Court to Rule on Case Linking Federal Aid, Bias Laws

In an important test of the reach of federal anti-discrimination laws, the Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether commercial airlines must comply with government regulations protecting the rights of the handicapped.

The justices will review a far-reaching federal appeals court ruling here which held that the airlines were subject to the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which bars discrimination against the disabled in “any program or activity” receiving federal aid.

In recent months, individual airlines have instituted new procedures to aid the handicapped--such as equipping their planes with collapsible wheelchairs that allow passengers to move through cabins unassisted. But groups representing the handicapped say that the airlines have not gone far enough collectively.

Called ‘Recipients’

The appellate court ruled last January that, although commercial airlines were not directly subsidized, they were “recipients” covered by the act because they benefit from federally supported airports and the federally operated air traffic control system.

The Reagan Administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, saying that the broad language of the ruling potentially could affect any business in the nation that relied on air travel to sell goods and services or to transport its employees.

Government lawyers pointed to an opinion by dissenters in the case, saying that under the majority’s reasoning, anti-discrimination laws could be extended to cover trucking companies that use federally built highways, electric companies that rely on federal dams and even farmers who benefit from the National Weather Service.

Uniform Regulations

Three groups have filed suit against the Transportation Department, saying that anti-discrimination provisions of the act should be extended to commercial airlines to ensure that uniform regulations protect all disabled passengers. They claim instances of discrimination, such as forcing blind passengers to sit on blankets because an airline feared that they might have difficulty reaching a lavatory.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the department to draft new rules covering commercial airlines, along with a limited number of smaller airlines already covered because they received direct subsidies for carrying mail and serving small communities.

Judge David L. Bazelon, writing for the panel, declared: “It is time that a handicapped person’s right of reasonable access to non-discriminatory commercial air transportation had the force of law.”

The full appeals court refused to overturn the panel’s decision by a vote of 7 to 3.

Minimal Burden Cited

Attorneys for the groups representing the handicapped in the case (U.S. Department of Transportation vs. Paralyzed Veterans of America, 85-289) said the regulations would prove to be only a minimal burden for airlines. For example, the regulations would permit disabled persons to bring battery-powered wheelchairs and personal oxygen supplies aboard a plane, the attorneys said.

In another case that could have nationwide impact, involving land-use policies of local governments, the court said it would decide whether private property owners must be compensated when environmental restrictions prevent them from developing their land.

The court, which has sidestepped a direct ruling on the issue three times in recent years, said it will hear an appeal by California developers who claim that “open-space” regulations by the City of Davis and Yolo County unfairly stopped them from transforming a 40-acre parcel into a residential housing project (MacDonald, Sommer & Frates vs. Yolo County, 84-2015).

‘Just Compensation’

The state Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled last January that government officials were not required to pay landowners when they refuse to allow them to develop their property to its greatest economic potential. The property owners contend that the authorities’ action represented an unlawful “taking” of property without “just compensation,” barred by the Constitution.

The court also agreed in a California case to grapple again with the ongoing controversy over the fees that must be paid by governmental defendants to attorneys who win civil rights cases against them (City of Riverside vs. Santos, 85-224).

At issue is a ruling by a federal appeals court in San Francisco requiring the City of Riverside to pay $245,456.25 in attorneys’ fees to a group of residents who won only $33,350 in damages for civil rights violations when city police forcibly broke up a party they were attending in 1975.

Under federal law, plaintiffs who win such cases are entitled to “reasonable attorneys’ fees” from the losing side. Last summer, Justice William H. Rehnquist issued an order temporarily blocking the fee-award against the city, saying the amount was so disproportionately large that “it could hardly be described as ‘reasonable.’ ” The full court will decide the issue later this term.