Americans with Disabilities Act

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^[1] (ADA) is the short title of United States (Pub.L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, enacted July 26, 1990), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. It was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush, and later amended with changes effective January 1, 2009.^[2] 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^[3], 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 abuse and visual impairment which is correctable by prescription lenses.

On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). It is intended to give broader protections for disabled workers and "turn back the clock" on court rulings which Congress deemed too restrictive.^[4] The ADAAA includes a list of major life activities.

Contents 1 Titles of the ADA 1.1 Title I - Employment 1.2 Title II - Public Entities (and public transportation) 1.3 Title III - Public Accommodations (and Commercial Facilities) 1.4 Title IV - Telecommunications 1.5 Title V - Miscellaneous Provisions 2 Major life activities 3 Political pressure 4 Quotes 5 Criticism 5.1 Employment 5.2 "Professional plaintiffs" 5.3 Accessibility 5.4 Extra exam time 6 ADA case law 7 See also 8 References 9 External links 10 Resources

Titles of the ADA

Speech cards used by President George H. W. Bush at the signing ceremony of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on July 26, 1990.^[1]

Title I - Employment

See 42 U.S.C. § 12111–12117.

The ADA states that a covered entity shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability.^[5] This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement and discharge of employees, workers' 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.^[6] Discrimination may include, among other things, 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 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.^[7]

Part of Title I 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 sovereign immunity rights of the several states as specified by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. The provision allowing private suits against states for money damages was invalidated.

Title II - Public Entities (and public transportation)

See 42 U.S.C. § 12131–12165.

Title II prohibits disability discrimination by all public entities at the local (i.e. school district, municipal, city, county) and state level. Public entities must comply with Title II regulations by the U.S. Department of Justice. These regulations cover access to all programs and services offered by the entity. Access includes physical access described in the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and programmatic access that might be obstructed by discriminatory policies or procedures of the entity.

Access sign

Title II also applies to public transportation provided by public entities through regulations by the U.S. Department of Transportation. It includes the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, along with all other commuter authorities. This section requires the provision of paratransit services by public entities that provide fixed route services.

Title III - Public Accommodations (and Commercial Facilities)

See 42 U.S.C. § 12181–12189.

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.

Under Title III of the ADA, all "new construction" (construction, modification or alterations) after the effective date of the ADA (approximately July 1992) must be fully compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG")^[1] found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 28 C.F.R., Part 36, Appendix "A."

Title III also has application to 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. § 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 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 or local business.

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 may 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^{[citation needed]}, 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.^[8]

Title IV - Telecommunications

Title IV of the ADA amended the landmark Communications Act of 1934 primarily by adding section 47 U.S.C. § 225. This section requires that all 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.

Title V - Miscellaneous Provisions

See 42 U.S.C. § 12201–12213.

Title V includes technical provisions. It discusses, for example, the fact that nothing in the ADA amends, overrides or cancels anything in Section 504. ^[9] Additionally, Title V includes an anti retaliation or coercion provision. The Technical Assistance Manual for the ADA explains it: "III-3.6000 Retaliation or coercion. Individuals who exercise their rights under the ADA, or assist others in exercising their rights, are protected from retaliation. The prohibition against retaliation or coercion applies broadly to any individual or entity that seeks to prevent an individual from exercising his or her rights or to retaliate against him or her for having exercised those rights . . . Any form of retaliation or coercion, including threats, intimidation, or interference, is prohibited if it is intended to interfere with the exercise of rights under the ADA."

Major life activities

The ADA defines a covered disability as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was charged with interpreting the 1990 law with regard to discrimination in employment. Its regulations narrowed "substantially limits" to "significantly or severely restricts".

In 2008, effective January 1, 2009, the ADAAA broadened the interpretations and added to the ADA examples of "major life activities" including, but not limited to, "caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working" as well as the operation of several specified "major bodily functions".^[4] The Act overturns a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case which held that an employee was not disabled if the impairment could be corrected by mitigating measures; it specifically provides that such impairment must be determined without considering such ameliorative measures. Another court restriction overturned is the interpretation that an impairment that substantially limits one major life activity must also limit others to be considered a disability.^[4]

The ADAAA will undoubtedly lead to broader coverage of impaired employees. The United States House Committee on Education and Labor states that the amendment "makes it absolutely clear that the ADA is intended to provide broad coverage to protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability."^[10]

Political pressure

The ADA (1990) is unusual because more than a hundred groups dedicated to disability rights, civil rights, and social justice worked together to ensure its passage. Justin Dart was a major organizer.

Many of the standards mandated by the national government for the ADA were first incorporated by Ruthe B. Cowl, who established and operated the Cowl Rehabilitation Center in Laredo, Texas from 1959 until her death in 2008.^[11]

Quotes

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.^[12]

On the debate of what it means to be disabled, Joan Aleshire stated in the book Voices From the Edge:

If the definition of disability is the inability to do the common daily tasks of life—getting out of bed, washing dressing, eating, going to the bathroom—and working at one’s age level in school, I’ve never really been disabled.^[13]

Criticism

Employment

The ADA has been a frequent target of criticism. For example, a common claim is that individuals who are diagnosed with one of the so-called "lesser disabilities" are being "accommodated" when they should not be.^{[citation needed]} On the other hand, court decisions have made necessary "an individualized assessment to prove that an impairment is protected under the ADA. Therefore, the plaintiff must offer evidence that the extent of the limitation caused by the impairment is substantial in terms of his or her own experience;" a medical diagnosis or physician's declaration of disability is no longer enough.^[14] Most people never have their discrimination cases heard in court because of the difficulty of getting past the first step.

Even those who support the intent of the law worry that it might have unintended consequences. Among other arguments, supporters 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^[15] claim to have documented a sharp drop in employment among individuals with a disability after passage of the Act.^[16] Others believe that the law has been ineffectual. ^[17]

"Professional plaintiffs"

The ADA allows private plaintiffs to receive only injunctive relief (a court order requiring the public accommodation to remedy violations of the accessibility regulations) and attorneys' fees, and does not provide monetary rewards to private plaintiffs who sue non-compliant businesses. Unless a state law, such as the California Unruh Civil Rights Act,^[18] provides for monetary damages to private plaintiffs, persons with disabilities do not obtain direct financial benefits from suing businesses that violate the ADA.

Thus, "professional plaintiffs" are typically found in states that have enacted state laws that allow private individuals to win monetary awards from non-compliant businesses.^[18] At least one of these plaintiffs in California has been barred by courts from filing lawsuits unless he receives prior court permission.^[18] The attorneys' fees provision of Title III does provide incentive for lawyers to specialize and engage in serial ADA litigation, but a disabled plaintiff does not obtain financial reward from attorneys' fees unless they act as their own attorney, or as mentioned above, a disabled plaintiff resides in a state which provides for minimum compensation and court fees in lawsuits. Moreover, there may be a benefit to these "private attorneys general" who identify and compel the correction of illegal conditions: they may increase the number of public accommodations accessible to persons with disabilities. “Civil rights law depends heavily on private enforcement. Moreover, the inclusion of penalties and damages is the driving force that facilitates voluntary compliance with the ADA.” ^[19] Courts have noted: “As a result, most ADA suits are brought by a small number of private plaintiffs who view themselves as champions of the disabled. For the ADA to yield its promise of equal access for the disabled, it may indeed be necessary and desirable for committed individuals to bring serial litigation advancing the time when public accommodations will be compliant with the ADA.” ^[20]

Accessibility

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.^{[citation needed]}

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. In most cases of uncooperative businesses, individuals must hire an attorney and bring a civil suit.^{[citation needed]}

Extra exam time

In 2007, outside counsel for the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) sought to bar a student from getting extra time on the LSAT.^[21] The LSAC thought the student was "trying to take advantage of the system," by alleging that his ADHD fell under the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act.^[21] The LSAC won the case (Love v. Law School Admissions Council) and the judge denied the student's demand for extra time.^[21] However, the LSAC continues to grant 75 percent of the requests it receives for accommodations.^[21]

ADA case law

There have been some notable cases regarding the ADA. For example, two major hotel room marketers (Expedia.com and Hotels.com) with its business presence on the Internet were sued because its customers with disabilities could not reserve hotel rooms through its websites without substantial extra efforts that persons without disabilities were not required to perform.^[22] 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.

National Federation for the Blind v. Target

This is a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.^[23]

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

Barden v. The City of Sacramento

Another example, 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.^[24]

Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.

This was a 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.

Olmstead, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Human Resources, et al. v. L. C., by zimring, guardian ad litem and next friend, et al.

This was a case before the United States Supreme Court in 1999. The two plaintiffs L.C. and E.W. were institutionalized in Georgia for diagnosed mental retardation and schizophrenia. Clinical assessments by the state determined that the plaintiffs could be appropriately treated in a community setting rather than the state institution. The plaintiffs sued the state of Georgia and the institution for being inappropriately treated and housed in the institutional setting rather than being treated in one of the state's community based treatment facilities.

The Supreme Court decided under Title II of the ADA that mental illness is a form of disability and therefore covered under the ADA, and that unjustified institutional isolation of a person with a disability is a form of discrimination because it "perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life." The court added that "confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment."

Therefore, under Title II no person with a disability can be unjustly excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs or activities of any public entity.^[25]

• • (Olmstead v. L.C. should not be confused with Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), a case in 1928 regarding wiretapping.)

Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America v. The University of Michigan

This was a case filed before the The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division on behalf of the Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America against University of Michigan – Michigan Stadium claiming that Michigan Stadium violated the Americans with Disabilities Act in its $226-million renovation by failing to add enough seats for disabled fans or accommodate the needs for disabled restrooms, concessions and parking. The U.S. Department of Justice assisted in the suit filed by attorney Richard Bernstein of The Law Offices of Sam Bernstein in Farmington Hills, Michigan, which was settled in March 2008.^[26] The settlement required the stadium to add 329 wheelchair seats throughout the stadium by 2010, and an additional 135 accessible seats in clubhouses to go along with the existing 88 wheelchair seats.^[27] The agreement now is a blueprint for all stadiums and other public facilities regarding accessibility.^[27]

See also

• Accessibility
• Developmental disability
• American Disability rights movement
• Casey Martin
• Job Accommodation Network — provides information about rights and responsibilities under the ADA and related legislation.
• 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 1964
• ADA Compliance Kit
• Individual rights advocate

References

1. ^ ^{a b c} Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
2. ^ "President Bush Signs ADA Changes into Law". HR.BLR.com. 2008-09-25. http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=78926. 
3. ^ Civil Rights Act of 1964
4. ^ ^{a b c} "ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA)— What Employers Need to Know". HR.BLR.com. 2008. http://www.blr.com/information-ada/. 
5. ^ 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)
6. ^ 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2)
7. ^ 42 U.S.C. § 12111
8. ^ 42 U.S.C. § 12162
9. ^ 42 U.S.C. § 12187
10. ^ House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor. "The ADA Amendments Act of 2008". http://edlabor.house.gov/issues/adaaa.shtml#1. "BROKEN LINK" 
11. ^ :: Laredos.net :: - Bussines
12. ^ The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
13. ^ O'Brien, Ruth, ed (2004). Voices from the Edge: Narratives about the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 0-19-515687-0. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bPwrzd6nthUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA8&dq=voices+from+the+Edge&ots=RFtGVl1b8d&sig=FH0CpQ3ChalXH2JMaIB4g7nzUCE#PPP1,M1. Retrieved 2009-05-01. 
14. ^ Vierling, Lewis E. (January 2004). "Proving disability remains difficult". The Case Manager 15 (1): 25-29. http://www.thecsmgr.com/article/PIIS1061925903003096/fulltext. Retrieved 2009-02-21. 
15. ^ (e.g., DeLeire, 2000; Acemoglu & Angrist, 2001)
16. ^ (see Schwochau & Blanck for counter arguments)
17. ^ (see Schall, 1998)
18. ^ ^{a b c} Stateman, Alison. "Lawsuits by the Disabled: Abuse of the System?". TIME. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1866666,00.html. Retrieved 2008-12-29. 
19. ^ Parr v. L & L Drive-Inn Restaurant (D. Hawaii 2000) 96 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1082, citing and quoting, Committee Print, Vol. II, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., at 1481-82 (1990); 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(2); S.Rep. No. 101-116, at 15 (1989).
20. ^ Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F.3d 1047, 1062; D'Lil v. Best Western Encina Lodge & Suites (9th Cir. 2008) 538 F.3d 1031, 1040.
21. ^ ^{a b c d} http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005554012
22. ^ Rights Advocates
23. ^ National Federation for the Blind v. Target at Disability Rights Advocates
24. ^ Barden v. Sacramento from Disability Rights Advocates
25. ^ OLMSTEAD V. L. C. from Cornell University Law School - Syllabus for the Supreme Court Decision in 1999
26. ^ Erb, Robin. “U-M fans rave about new seats for disabled.” Detroit Free Press. 9 Sept 2008.
27. ^ ^{a b} Wolffe, Jerry. “New wheelchair seats will be full at U-M’s Big House.” The Oakland Press. 14 Sept 2008.

External links

Listen to this article (info/dl)

Note: this file is approximately 18.3 megabytes

This audio file was created from a revision dated 2009-04-09, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)

More spoken articles

• Compliance tool kits from the ADA
• 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
• 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
• Paratransit Watch - Accessible Public Transportation News, Issues, and Resources.
• U.S. Department of Justice. ADA Info
• Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment (ADAAA) Information Center. ADAAA Information for Employers

Resources

• 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
• 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.

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