November 3, 2021
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
On November 1, 2021, disability and HIV leaders sent an urgent letter to the CVS Board of Directors calling on the pharmaceutical giant to drop its Supreme Court bid to gut disability civil rights in a case called CVS v. Doe. READ THE LETTER
Signatories demanding that CVS cease and desist include: the Honorable Dr. Judith Heumann, who served in the Clinton and Obama administrations, and is featured in the Oscar-nominated documentary Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution; Jeff Crowley, who served as director of the Office of National AIDS Policy for President Obama, the Honorable Tony Coelho, former member of Congress and a primary sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and the leadership of more than one dozen national disability and HIV organizations.
In the case, CVS is asking the Supreme Court to rule that Section 504 — the model for the Americans with Disabilities Act — does not cover situations where discrimination on the basis of disability is unintentional. But the disability community knows all too well that not all discrimination is intentional. Many policies that seem neutral can harm or exclude people with disabilities – this type of discrimination is often referred to as “disparate impact.” If the Supreme Court agrees with CVS, Section 504 will be gutted.
The case was brought by people living with HIV (the “plaintiffs”) who have insurance for their medications through CVS. CVS requires people with HIV to use a specialty medication program. The plaintiffs want CVS to allow them to opt out of the program because they say they are having problems getting their medications and the information they need from qualified pharmacists.
If CVS drops their appeal to the Supreme Court, it can return to the trial court and defend its business interests. CVS already has all the protections it needs. It can try to show the judge that the plaintiffs are getting “meaningful access” to the pharmacy benefit, or that what the plaintiffs want would be a fundamental alteration or an undue burden. If the plaintiffs have the better case, CVS can make improvements to its pharmacy benefit. CVS does not need to ask the Supreme Court to gut decades of disability law.