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
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 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.
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 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.
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
Related categories
- Category:Disability legislation
- Category:Disability rights
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)