Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Federal law established in 1991 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of workers' disabilities. The act is designed to protect the rights of people with virtually any physical or mental disability. It protects consumers in that it makes discrimination against the disabled illegal in public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. In industry, it applies to companies with 15 or more employees and protects job applicants as well as employees.

act that prevents employers from rejecting disabled job applicants on the grounds that hiring such an applicant would result in higher employee health care cost. Additionally, if the job applicant has a disabled spouse, child, or other dependent, regardless of whether or not the job applicant is also disabled, the employer cannot reject the job applicant on those grounds. Thus, the employer cannot exclude disabled employees and their dependents from its health plan on the ground that providing such coverage would increase the cost of health care. Title I of the act became effective for all employers with 25 or more employees on July 26, 1992.

A disability is defined by the ADA as: "A physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; or a record of such impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment." Title I mandates that: "All personnel actions must be unrelated to either the existence or consequence of disability to include recruitment and selection of employees; compensation of employees; training and all terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. If there are any conflicts with state laws, ADA takes precedence."

Federal law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with physical handicaps, including hiring practices and design of buildings intended to serve the public.
Example: To comply with ADA, a restaurant owner had to build wheelchair ramps by the door. In each bathroom, required changes included widening one stall, elevating the toilet seat, and bolting a handrail to the wall.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is a comprehensive civil rights act for people with disabilities. On July 26, 1990, President George Bush signed the ADA into law as wide-ranging legislation intended to make American society more accessible to people with disabilities and to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. The act is divided into five titles:

1. Employment. Businesses must provide reasonable accommodations in all aspects of employment to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities.
2. Public services. People with disabilities cannot be denied participation in public service programs or activities that are available to people without disabilities.
3. Public accommodations. All new construction must be accessible to individuals with disabilities.
4. Telecommunications. Telecommunication companies must have a telephone relay service for individuals who use telecommunications devices for the deaf (TTYs) or similar devices.
5. Miscellaneous. This title includes a provision prohibiting coercing, threatening, or retaliating against individuals with disabilities or those assisting them in asserting their rights under the ADA.

The protection of the ADA applies primarily, but not exclusively, to individuals with physical and mental disabilities.

Built on a foundation of statutory, legal, and programmatic experience, the ADA was modeled after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In order to understand the basis for the enactment of the ADA, one must look at certain historical events of the 1970s and the disability rights movement. First and fore-most has been the desire of individuals with disabilities to work toward their goal of full participation in American society, which led to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1974 that so strongly influenced the ADA.

Effects the ADA may have on businesses include restructuring or altering the layout of a building, modifying equipment, and removing barriers. For example, in September 1999, Greyhound Bus Lines of Dallas, Texas, removed architectural barriers and began to provide assistance to passengers with disabilities by means of lift-equipped buses. Another example of the effects of the ADA occurred in February 1997, when Harrison County, Mississippi, gave people who are deaf or hard of hearing an equal opportunity to serve as jurors.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 has been regarded as the most sweeping piece of legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More information on the ADA is available at (800)514-0301 (voice) or (800)514-0383 (TDD).

Bibliography

The Consumer Law Page; http://consumerlawpage.com

Department of Rehabilitation Web Site; http://www.rehab.cahwnet.gov/adaoview.htm#overview

Indiana University/Purdue University Web Site; http://www.iupui.edu/~aao/legis.html

Job Accomodation Network; http://janweb.icdi.wvu.edu/kinder/overview/htm

U.S. Department of Justice Web Site; http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm

[Article by: NIKOLE M. POGEMAN]

A federal law enacted on July 26, 1990, that defines a private dental office as a place of public accommodation, thereby requiring, as of January 26, 1992, that dentists serve persons with disabilities.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush in 1990. Often referred to as the world's first comprehensive disability antidiscrimination law, the statute specifies what exactly employers, government agencies, and managers of public facilities must do to ensure that people with disabilities are not unfairly excluded from social life. The ADA is enforced by an array of federal agencies and by private litigants, who under some provisions may sue and collect damages for violations.

The origins of the ADA can be traced to an earlier statute, section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. A small clause in what was mainly a spending measure, section 504 provided that “no otherwise qualified individual … shall, solely by reason of his handicap … be subjected to discrimination in any program or activity receiving federal funds.” Federal agencies and courts interpreted the law as creating the right to sue for discrimination, and to receive “reasonable accommodation.” Section 504 only covered entities receiving federal funds, however, so disability advocates pressed for a more comprehensive law. One early proposal was to simply amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include people with disabilities, but many feared the consequences of opening up the act for amendment, and others argued that complexity and variety of individual disabilities warranted a separate, stand‐alone law. During the Reagan administration the National Commission on the Handicapped created the first draft of the ADA; an amended version was introduced into Congress in the spring of 1988. This bill never got out committee, but in the 1988 presidential election both candidates endorsed the ADA in concept, and George H. W. Bush's endorsement smoothed the way for passage of the law. Revised through negotiations with disability groups, civil rights groups, and the Bush Administration, the ADA was reintroduced into Congress in 1989, and in 1990 passed both houses by overwhelming margins.

The ADA is divided into five titles. Title I covers employment in both the private and public sectors. Those who feel discriminated against have the same remedies as under the Civil Rights Act of 1964; they may bring a complaint to the EEOC and then a lawsuit. Title II covers services, facilities, and programs operated by state, local, and federal government. Complainants can make a complaint to the Justice Department, but may also bring a federal lawsuit to enjoin discriminatory conduct; limited monetary damages can also be awarded. Title III covers a vast array of private nongovernmental facilities and programs, from bars and bakeries to parks and zoos. Complainants have the same rights as under Title II. The attorney general can also sue, and where there is a “pattern and practice” of discrimination, ask for money damages and civil fines. Title IV covers telecommunications services for speech‐ and hearing‐impaired individuals and grants the Federal Communications Commission authority to enforce the law. Title V is a catch‐all section that among other things, exempts most insurance services from coverage, provides for the award of attorneys fees to prevailing parties, and declares that transvestism, homosexuality, kleptomania and current drug use are not disabilities under the ADA.

The drafters of the ADA had hoped to minimize conflict over the law by using terms and definitions drawn from the regulations and case law created under section 504, by then more then a decade old. In this they manifestly failed, and federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have for years wrestled over the ADA's key concepts. The law, for example, requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” to facilitate employees with disabilities, but not if this causes “undue hardship”—leaving courts to decide what is “reasonable” and what is “undue.” Most of all, courts have puzzled over who exactly is disabled under the law. The ADA defines disability as having an impairment that “substantially limits” an individual in a “major life activity”—but what counts as “substantial” and “major”? Supreme Court decisions have narrowed the scope of this definition, ruling for example that correctable impairments—severe myopia in one case—are not disabilities under the ADA (Sutton v. United Airlines, 1999). Indeed, research suggests that ADA plaintiffs have fared miserably in court. But the law has indisputably led to broad changes in the operation of programs and physical structures, and has inspired disability rights activists around the world.

See also Tennessee v. Lane.

— Thomas F. Burke

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990 when Congress determined that the estimated 43 million disabled persons in the United States were a "minority … subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment." The ADA prohibited private employers from disability-based discrimination if an individual could do a job's "essential functions" with or without "reasonable accommodations." The act also mandated accessibility and reasonable accommodations and prohibited disability-based discrimination in state and local government services, public transit, telecommunications, and public places (restaurants, stores, theaters, private schools, hospitals, and other entities offering the public goods and services). The ADA allowed exemptions if compliance would cause "undue hardship" because of excessive cost. Because the act imported a tripartite definition of disability from the Rehabilitation Act without also adopting the existing agency regulations that explicated that definition, the scope of ADA coverage remains un-clear. Since 1998 the Supreme Court has decided an increasing number of cases under the act, many of which focus on the question of who is "disabled" under the ADA. Despite these rulings being limited to individual claimants, the court has curbed the scope of the ADA by holding that mitigating measures used to ameliorate functional limitations (for example, medication) also mitigate eligibility for disability status under the act. At the same time, the court has not yet articulated a standard for measuring the reasonableness of an accommodation.

Bibliography

Burgdorf, R. L., Jr. "The Americans with Disabilities Act: Analysis and Implications of a Second-Generation Civil Rights Statute." Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review 26 (summer 1991): 413–522.

—Paul K. Longmore

ADA Title I provides that: No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

ADA Title II provides that: [N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.

ADA Title III provides that: No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.

The term disability is defined as: (a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (b) a record of such an impairment; or (c) being regarded as having such an impairment.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (P.L. 108-23), enacted by Congress in 1990, forbids discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The act consists of three major provisions, called "titles": Title I prohibits discrimination in public or private employment; Title II prohibits discrimination at public entities (like public universities or hospitals); and Title III prohibits discrimination at places of public accommodation (like hotels and restaurants). The ADA extended existing prohibitions against discrimination entities that receive federal financial assistance, like public parks, to private entities like privately owned recreational facilities.

In general, the statute prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. In order to be qualified, an individual must be able to engage in the activity in question with "reasonable accommodation." A reasonable accommodation might be a modification in a rule or procedure, or the provision of an auxiliary aid. Whether an accommodation is "reasonable" will rest, in part, on whether it is unduly expensive. Which accommodations are reasonable varies throughout the statute, depending on whether one is suing under Titles I, II, or III. Not all individuals with disabilities, however, require accommodations to engage in programs or activities. Often, they simply need an entity to provide nondiscriminatory treatment by, for example, ending their ban on participation by individuals with disabilities.

The statute also provides various "defenses," or grounds on which a person or entity can legally discriminate against an individual with a disability. One of the most important defenses is the "direct threat" defense. An employer can refrain from hiring an individual not merely because the individual might cause harm to others but because the individual may cause harm to him- or herself through the employment in question. For example, in 2002 the Supreme Court ruled in Chevron v. Echabazal that the employer could refrain from employing a person out of concern that working conditions would exacerbate his liver disease.

Constitutional Basis for the Act

The constitutional basis for the ADA is the commerce clause authority given to Congress, as well as its authority under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under section 5, Congress has the authority to enact legislation to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection or due process clause. However, Supreme Court rulings in the years after ADA was enacted challenged the act's constitutionality under both the commerce clause and section 5. In 2001 the Supreme Court ruled in Board of Trustees v. Garrett that Congress could not constitutionally create a private right of action for monetary damages against the state involving employment discrimination under ADA Title I. In other words, a private individual could not bring an employment discrimination action in federal court for back pay or damages due to disability discrimination by the state. Numerous lower courts have extended that holding to ADA Title II, ruling more broadly that Congress does not have the authority to create a private right of action against the states to remedy disability discrimination in the nonemployment context. It is expected that the Supreme Court will ultimately resolve this issue.

Even if the Supreme Court eventually rules that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to create a private right of action against the states to remedy disability discrimination, the United States Department of Justice can still enforce the ADA against the states. Sovereign immunity principles protect the state from suit by private individuals. However, these principles do not apply when the federal government sues the state on behalf of an aggrieved individual (an individual with a claim of discrimination). Moreover, private rights of action may still be maintained against private defendants and against local governments.

Legislative Debate and Compromise

The ADA grew out of different roots from those of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The National Council on the Handicapped, a panel of thirteen people appointed by President Ronald Reagan, proposed the first version of the ADA in 1988. This version, which offered more protections for people with disabilities than the enacted version, was largely ignored when Senator Lowell Weicker, a Republican from Connecticut, introduced it in the closing days of the 100th Congress.

In the early days of the George H. W. Bush administration, the bill was cut back to make it more acceptable to the business community. Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, and Representative Tony Coelho, a Democrat from California, were the chief sponsors of the new version of the ADA, which had been worked out through compromise between the act's supporters and detractors. Some disabilities rights advocates worried that proponents of the ADA gave away too much during compromise negotiations. The bill contained the following revisions:

• •It required modifications of existing structures to accommodate people with disabilities only if these changes could be easily achieved at reasonable expense.
• It eliminated damages for cases involving public accommodations; private individuals could only seek injunctive relief when they were excluded from public accommodations due to barrier access problems.
• It did not require television broadcasters to make their programs accessible to persons with impaired hearing.
• The original bill included an "undue hardship" exception to the requirement that reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or services be provided for persons with disabilities. This version of the bill made it easier to claim this undue hardship exception.

The compromise bill eventually became law in the summer of 1990 in an overwhelming bipartisan vote in both the House and Senate.

One reason for the bill's strong support was that many members of Congress had personal or family reasons for being concerned about disability issues. Other key figures in passage of the act were Attorney General Richard Thornburgh; Senator Robert Dole, a Republican from Kansas; and Senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts. The major public interest advocates for the ADA were the Disability Rights Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Act's Precursors

The historical roots of the ADA lie in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which creates protection against disability discrimination in programs receiving "federal financial assistance." The ADA is modeled on the basic framework used in section 504, including its definition of an individual with a disability. Congress held extensive hearings before enacting the ADA, and key committees wrote extensive reports on the act before it was adopted. The Supreme Court has not relied on that background material in interpreting the act. However, it has sought to interpret the ADA consistently with previous cases argued under section 504.

Another important precursor of the ADA was the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988. These amendments extended some of section 504's protections to the private sector by prohibiting discrimination in housing on the basis of disability. It was not until the passage of the ADA in 1990, however, that the private sector began to be broadly covered under federal law by a requirement of nondiscrimination in housing as well as employment.

Experience Under the Act

In the first decade of enforcement of the ADA, many legal cases focused on the definition of an "individual with a disability." The ADA is different from most other civil rights laws in that a person must belong to a protected category to receive legal protection from it. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by contrast, both males and females can bring claims of sex discrimination, just as both whites and blacks can bring claims of race discrimination. Under the ADA, only individuals who qualify as "individuals with a disability" can bring claims of discrimination. An important defense strategy has been to argue that the plaintiff is not "disabled" according to the ADA's definition, and therefore does not have a cause of action. When that strategy is successful, the court does not even reach the question of whether unlawful discrimination occurred.

Sutton v. United Air Lines. In the 1999 case Sutton v. United Air Lines, the Supreme Court interpreted the definition of disability narrowly. The plaintiffs in Sutton sued under Title I, arguing that they had been the victims of unlawful employment discrimination when they failed the vision test required by United Air Lines to work as a commercial pilot. The Court did not come to the question of whether the discrimination they faced was unlawful (or permitted by one of the statute's defenses). Instead, it found that the plaintiffs could not bring an ADA lawsuit because they were not individuals with a disability as defined by the act.

The plaintiffs' uncorrected visual acuity (in other words, sharpness of vision without corrective lenses) was 20/200 or worse in one eye and 20/400 or worse in the other eye. With corrective lenses, their vision was 20/20 or better. The legal question in the case was whether a court should determine the disability status of individuals in their corrected or uncorrected state. The Supreme Court held that "disability under the Act is to be determined with reference to corrective measures." In simpler terms, when wearing glasses or contact lenses the individuals were not disabled. Therefore the plaintiffs had not stated a claim that they were disabled even though United Air Lines had required them to take the vision test without the use of corrective lenses. This interpretation of the ADA has prevented individuals from obtaining protection under the statute if they have an impairment that can be corrected, in part, through some means. Individuals with hearing impairments, diabetes, high blood pressure, and psychological impairments have been found not to be disabled under this narrow standard.

The Importance of Voluntary Compliance. In ADA litigation, particularly in employment discrimination cases, the winners have overwhelmingly been the defendants. Nonetheless, a glance at many public accommodations like hotels, restaurants, and recreational facilities suggests that the ADA has been effective in heightening public awareness of disability issues and encouraging voluntary compliance. Curb cuts, areas where sidewalks dip down to be level with the street to allow easy passage for wheelchairs, or other mechanisms that aid the disabled were virtually unheard of a decade ago and are now seen in most major cities. The most important factor in the act's success in its first decade seems to be voluntary compliance rather than litigation.

Relationship With Other Laws

The ADA is not the only federal statute to prohibit disability discrimination. Until passage of the ADA, the strongest legislation to protect people with disabilities was probably the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (formerly known as the Education of All Handicapped Children Act). This civil rights statute guarantees that each child with a disability can have an "individualized education plan" so that he or she can receive a "free appropriate public education."

Other statutes preceding the ADA include the Developmental Disabilities Bill of Rights Act of 1975, the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, sections 501 and 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988.

Bibliography

Colker, Ruth. "The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Windfall for Defendants." Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review 99 (1999).

Colker, Ruth, and Bonnie Poitras Tucker. The Law of Disability Discrimination, 3d ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing, 2000.

O'Brien, Ruth. Crippled Justice: The History of Modern Disability Policy in the Workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is the short title of United States Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (July 26, 1990), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., signed into law on July 26, 1990 by President George H. W. Bush. The ADA is a wide-ranging civil rights law that prohibits, under certain circumstances, discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal. Disability is defined as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." The determination of whether any particular condition is considered a disability is made on a case by case basis. Certain specific conditions are excluded as disabilities, such as current substance abusers and transsexuality. Title I of the ADA was found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett as violating the states' Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution sovereign immunity rights insofar as it allowed the states to be sued for money damages.

Structure

President Bush signs the Americans With Disabilities Act

The ADA consists of three introductory sections and five titles:

• Introductory Sections
  • Table of Contents
  • Findings and Purposes
  • Definitions

This law also states that there is no discrimination against disabled people in getting jobs.

Main Section

Title I - Employment

The ADA states that a covered entity shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement and discharge of employees, worker's compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Covered entity can refer to an employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee, and is generally an employer engaged in interstate commerce and having 15 or more workers. Discrimination, among other things, may include limiting or classifying a job applicant or employee in an adverse way, denying employment opportunities to people who truly qualify, or not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of disabled employees, not advancing employees with disabilities in the business, and/or not providing needed accommodations in training. Employers can use medical entrance examinations for applicants, after making the job offer, only if all applicants (regardless of disability) must take it, and if it is treated as a confidential medical record. Qualified individuals do not include any employee or applicant who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs when that usage is the basis for the employer's actions.

Title II - Public Services (and public transportation)

Title II has two sections. One covers public agencies (local, county, state, etc., government and their units). That section generally requires the agencies to comply with regulations similar to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. These rules cover access to all programs offered by the entity. Access includes physical access described in the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards or the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and access that might be obstructed by discriminatory policies or procedures of the entity.

The other section of Title II is specific to public transportation provided by public entities. It includes the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, along with all other commuter authorities. This section requires the provision of paratransit services by public entities.

Both sections state that no qualified individual with a disability shall be subjected to discrimination or excluded from the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity due to his or her disability. A "public entity" can be any state or local government or any department or agency thereof. The lack of accessibility or certain services can be considered discrimination, regardless of who it actually affects. For example, a lack of wheelchair accessibility in passenger cars, or even the leasing of wheelchair inaccessible ones without a "good faith" attempt to lease wheelchair accessible ones is considered discrimination under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Title III - Public Accommodations (and Commercial Facilities)

It has been suggested that ADA Signs be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

A small business advertising the fact that it provides accommodations for disabled persons

Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.

Most of the lawsuits filed under Title III of the ADA deal with the physical conditions or "accessibility" of physical places. Under Title III of the ADA, all "new construction" (construction, modification or alterations) after the effective date of the ADA (approximately July of 1992) must be fully compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 28 C.F.R., Part 36, Appendix "A." Perhaps even more importantly is the fact that Title III also has application to already existing facilities. One of the definitions of "discrimination" under Title III of the ADA is a "failure to remove" architectural barriers in existing facilities. See 42 U.S.C. section 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). This means that even facilities that have not been modified or altered in any way after the ADA was passed still have obligations. The standard is whether "removing barriers" (typically defined as bringing a condition into compliance with the ADAAG) is "readily achievable," defined as "easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense." The statutory definition of "readily achievable" calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed "fix" and the financial wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be "readily achievable" for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small "mom-n-pop" outfit.

There are exceptions to this title; many private clubs and religious organizations may not be bound by Title III. With regard to historic properties (those properties that are listed or that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or properties designated as historic under State or local law), those facilities must still comply with the provisions of Title III of the ADA to the "maximum extent feasible" but if following the usual standards would "threaten to destroy the historic significance of a feature of the building" then alternative standards my be used. Nonetheless, as Frank Bowe predicted when he testified as the lead witness on Title III in the Senate hearings leading up to enactment, the fact that Title III calls for accessibility in, and alterations to, many thousands of stores, restaurants, hotels, etc., in many thousands of communities across the U.S. means that this Title probably has had more effect on the lives of more Americans with disabilities than any other ADA title.

Some of the best resources (and a checklist) for determining whether a business complies with Title III of the ADA is found on the Department of Justice's website located at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm.

Title IV - Telecommunications

Title IV of the ADA amended the landmark 1934 Communications Act by requiring that all of the 1,600 some-odd telecommunications companies in the U.S. take steps to ensure functionally equivalent services for consumers with disabilities, notably those who are deaf or hard of hearing and those with speech impairments. When Title IV took effect in the early 1990s, it led to installation of public Teletypewriter (TTY) machines and other TDDs (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf). Title IV also led to creation, in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, of what were then called dual-party relay services and now are known as Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS). Today, many TRS-mediated calls are made over the Internet by consumers who use broadband connections. Some are video relay service (VRS) calls, while others are text calls. In either variation, communication assistants translate between the signed/typed words of a consumer and the spoken words of others. In 2006, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), VRS calls averaged two million minutes a month. That statistic captures the tremendous impact of Title IV. It has made it not only possible, but very easy, for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, and/or speech-impaired to call friends and co-workers, order a pizza, or make a doctor appointment.

Title V - Miscellaneous Provisions

Title V includes technical provisions. It discusses, for example, the fact that nothing in the ADA amends, overrides or cancels anything in Section 504.

Groups that worked to pass the ADA

The ADA is notable because many disparate groups came together for a common purpose. In addition, other civil rights groups outside the disability community helped. The late Justin Dart worked tirelessly, traveling to all 50 States, to bring these many groups together in common cause.

• AIDS Action Council
• AIDS National InterFaith Network
• American Civil Liberties Union
• American Foundation for the Blind
• Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit (ADAPT)
• Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Handicapped
• Association for Retarded Citizens
• Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
• Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
• Dole Foundation
• Easter Seals
• Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of America
• Epilepsy Foundation of America
• Human Rights Campaign Fund
• Institution for Rehabilitation and Research
• Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
• Legal Action Center
• Mental Health Law Project
• National Association of the Deaf
• National Association of Developmental Disabilities Councils
• National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems
• National Center for Law and the Deaf
• National Council of Independent Living
• National Council on Disability
• National Disability Action Center
• National Organization Responding to AIDS
• National Organization on Disability
• Paralyzed Veterans of America
• President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
• Society for Accessible Travel & Hospitality
• Spina Bifida Association of America
• United Cerebral Palsy Association

Quote

On signing the measure, George H. W. Bush said,

"'I know there may have been concerns that the ADA may be too vague or too costly, or may lead endlessly to litigation. But I want to reassure you right now that my administration and the United States Congress have carefully crafted this Act. We've all been determined to ensure that it gives flexibility, particularly in terms of the timetable of implementation; and we've been committed to containing the costs that may be incurred.... Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.'"

[Emphasis added, see References for the URL]

Criticism

The ADA is frequent target of criticism. For example, some claim that Individuals who are diagnosed with one of the, "lesser disabilities," including clinical depression or minor neck or back pain (see neuropathy) are being accommodated when they should not be. Second, the ADA allegedly creates a class of "professional plaintiffs" who make a living out of collecting monetary damages from noncompliant businesses. However, this criticism is unfounded because Title III does not allow private plaintiffs to recover monetary damages from inaccessible businesses. Remedies for private plaintiffs in Title III lawsuits are limited to injunctive relief; consequently it is nearly impossible for people with disabilities to profit from these legal actions.

Even those who support the intent of the law worry that it might have unintended consequences. Among other arguments, they hypothesize that the Act creates additional legal risks for employers who then quietly avoid hiring people with disabilities to avoid this risk. And such researchers (e.g., DeLeire, 2000; Acemoglu & Angrist, 2001) claim to have documented a sharp drop in employment among Individuals with a disability after passage of the Act (see Schwochau & Blanck for counter arguments).

Others (see Schall, 1998) believe that the law has been ineffectual; presumably, even stronger legislation (or legislation that crafts a different reward structure) is needed to achieve the Act's intended goals.

Many libertarians believe accommodation laws restrict the free market.

Moreover, the ADA did not come with a guide for the cognitive, or, "mental," disabilities section and left employers and employees to fend for themselves. Psychologist Dr. John Fielder (1994) corrected this oversight by writing a manual for employers that has been used by many parties concerned with issues of cognitive disabilities."

Many people think that one of the major flaws or weaknesses of the Americans with Disabilities Act is that it puts almost the entire burden of enforcement on individual persons with disabilities. Thousands of people have submitted requests to the Department of Justice for investigation of barriers in older buildings and design and construction errors in brand new facilities. Most of these are ignored, because even if the government wanted to investigate all of them, they lack the staff or budget to do so. If the individual wants action, he or she had to hire an attorney and bring a civil suit. Because most business owners realized after a while that there was little chance that the DOJ would come after them, and thus put off making changes to remove barriers, some persons with disabilities brought multiple suits. And some attorneys, anxious to make money, exploited these persons with disabilities.

Many advocates, of access for all, believe that persons with disabilities are justified in being discouraged and disgusted with the slow pace of barrier removal and accessible construction since 1992, and are struggling to come up with ways to bring complaints against those who are deliberately violating their civil rights.

There have been some notable cases regarding the ADA. For example, Target Corp. a major retailer, was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it (http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php). In addition, a major hotel room marketer with its business presence on the internet is being sued because its customers with disabilities cannot reserve hotel rooms through its website without substantial extra efforts that persons without disabilities are not required to perform (http://www.dralegal.org/search/). These represent a major potential expansion of the ADA in that this, and other similar suits (known as "bricks vs. Clicks"), seeks to expand the ADA's authority to cyberspace where entities may not have actual physical facilities that are required to comply.

Another example, Barden et al V. The City of Sacramento, filed in March 1999, claimed that the City of Sacramento failed to comply with the ADA when, while making public street improvements, it did not bring its sidewalks into compliance with the ADA. Certain issues were resolved in Federal Court. One issue, whether sidewalks were covered by the ADA, was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that sidewalks were a "program" under ADA and must be made accessible to persons with disabilities. The ruling was later appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which refused to hear the case, letting stand the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court (http://www.dralegal.org/cases/public_entities/barden_v_sacramento.php).

Spector V. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. was a complicated case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2005. The defendant argued that as a vessel flying the flag of a foreign nation was exempt from the requirements of the ADA. This argument was accepted by a federal court in Florida and, subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower courts on the basis that Norwegian Cruise Lines was a business headquartered in the United States whose clients were predominantly Americans and, more importantly, operated out of port facilities throughout the United States.

References

• Acemoglu, Daron & Angrist, Joshua D. (2001). Consequences of Employment Protection? The Case of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Political Economy, volume 109 (2001), pages 915–957.
• Bush, George H. W., Remarks of President George Bush at the Signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Available on-line at http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/bushspeech.html.
• DeLeire, Thomas. (Autumn, 2000). The Wage and Employment Effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 693-715
• Fielder, J. F. Mental Disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 2004.
• Hamilton Krieger, Linda, ed., Backlash Against the ADA: Reinterpreting Disability Rights Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003.
• Johnson, Mary. (2000). Make Them Go Away: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve & The Case Against Disability Rights. Louisville, KY: The Advocado Press.
• Schall, Carol M. (Jun 1998). The Americans with Disabilities Act--Are We Keeping Our Promise? An Analysis of the Effect of the ADA on the Employment of Persons with Disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, v10 n3 p191-203.
• Schwochau, Susan & Blanck, Peter David. The Economics of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Part III: Does the ADA Disable the Disabled? BERKELEY JOURNAL OF EMPLOYMENT & LABOR LAW [Vol. 21:271]
• Switzer, Jacqueline Vaughn. Disabled Rights: American Disability Policy and the Fight for Equality. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003...
• Weber, Mark C. Disability Harassment. New York, NY: NYU Press, 2007.

See also

• Accessibility
• Developmental disability
• American Disability rights movement
• List of disability rights activists — includes a list of people who helped pass the ADA
• List of anti-discrimination acts
  • Disability discrimination act
  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965

Related categories

• Category:Disability legislation
• Category:Disability rights

External links

• [1]
• Text of the Act
• Navigable text of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 - 42 U.S. Code Chapter 126
• Searchable collection of over 7,000 Federal ADA documents
• Federally-funded technical assistance network
• Is the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) a good law?
• Mises.org article:What Is Disabled?
• How ADA applies to Disability Discrimination
• Law firm supporting enforcement of the ADA
• Overview of ADA, IDEA, and Section 504: Update 2001
• Overview of ADA, IDEA, and Section 504
• Employment of People with Disabilities
• Accessible Web Design
• Testing Students with Disabilities
• Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act
• Gaskin Class Member A blog written by the mother of a class member in a statewide lawsuit regarding inclusion in education in Pennsylvania.
• ADA Working Group (Florida)
• ADA Tool Kit
• Paratransit Watch - Accessible Public Transportation News, Issues, and Resources.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)