Plain-English summary
Court asked whether the Rehabilitation Act and ACA allow disparate-impact disability claims against health plans and CVS
The Court heard argument in CVS Pharmacy v. John Doe about whether section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — and by extension the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — allows disparate-impact claims for disability discrimination, and if so whether those claims can reach neutral terms and conditions of health insurance. The case is argued; no decision yet.
Why this matters
A ruling that disparate-impact claims are available under the Rehabilitation Act and the ACA would let people challenge neutral healthcare rules and insurance practices that disproportionately harm people with disabilities, even when intent to discriminate isn’t alleged. A contrary ruling would limit disability remedies to intentional discrimination and could make it harder to challenge systemic practices that create unequal access to care.
Who may feel it
- People with disabilities who use health services or depend on health insurance
- Health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, and healthcare providers
- Advocacy groups and lawyers who bring disability-discrimination suits
- Employers, government programs, and plan administrators who set coverage rules
Key questions
- Does Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act create a cause of action for disparate-impact disability claims?