The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
August 2002
Editor: The National Organization on Disability (N.O.D) reports that
awareness of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is at an all-time
high, and that the overwhelming majority of Americans approve of the
law. Here are portions of the press release.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
National awareness of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is at
an all-time high, and support for the landmark civil rights law for
people with disabilities remains phenomenally strong as the nation marks
the 12th anniversary of the Act's signing. On Capitol Hill, the National
Organization on Disability (N.O.D.) released results of a recent Harris
Poll study showing 77 percent of Americans say they are aware of the
law, a notable increase from the 67 percent recorded in 1999. Of those
who know of the ADA, an overwhelming 93 percent "approve of and
support" it. Respondents with disabilities have a slightly higher
awareness of the ADA than the general population, at 81 percent, and
support it equally.
"This growing awareness of and consistent and long-term support
for the ADA are welcome news for the 54 million Americans, roughly one
in five, who have disabilities," said N.O.D. Board Chairman Michael
R. Deland. "The challenge now is to increase the participation and
contribution of this huge and valuable segment of our society in all
aspects of life."
Harris Poll Chairman Humphrey Taylor noted, "Whereas Americans
can be ambivalent about special legal protections for some minorities,
they are overwhelmingly supportive of protecting the rights of Americans
with disabilities."
These are the results from a Harris Poll/N.O.D. survey conducted
online between June 20-26, 2002 among 2,050 adults who are age 18 or
older, using the same methodology used to forecast the 2000 presidential
election with great accuracy. Within this total sample, 481 respondents
are people with disabilities and 1,569 respondents are people without
disabilities.
N.O.D., which is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, advanced
the cause of the ADA throughout the 1980s, and played an active role in
its passage and in the ceremony at which President George H.W. Bush
signed it into law.
The National Organization on Disability, founded in 1982, promotes
the full and equal participation and contribution of America's 54
million men, women and children with disabilities in all aspects of
life. N.O.D. is funded entirely by private donations. Contact N.O.D. at
202-293-5960; TDD: 202-293-5968; or visit http://www.nod.org.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Editor: On the face of it, it's hard to understand how anyone can
oppose the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). What could be more in
keeping with American tradition than ensuring that everyone has equal
opportunity and equal access? Yet there are people who view the ADA as a
horrible law that must be overturned. And unfortunately, it appears that
they are winning right now.
I'm sure there are a variety of reasons people oppose the ADA. Some
of them might even be reasonable! One such potential reason is that the
ADA is more effective at enriching lawyers than at ensuring the rights
of people with disabilities. A recent article in the LA Times provides
strong evidence of that charge.
The settlement of a 1999 class action suit resulted in UC Davis and
UC Berkeley agreeing to improve accommodations for people with hearing
loss. The two universities also agreed to pay each of five plaintiffs
$10,000 each, and to pay the lawyers fees of $1,100,000. Yep, that's not
a misprint. The lawyers received over 20 times as much as the five
plaintiffs combined. I don't know what the effective hourly rate is, or
even if the fees are out of line with respect to the effort involved.
But it appears a bit ridiculous on the face of it. The viewpoint of a
layperson with no disability experience may well focus on the
"exorbitant" lawyers fees rather than on the fact that
students with hearing loss now have better access at these two schools.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the article. The full article is
available in the LA Times archives. Thanks to Grace Tiessen for the lead
on this story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Under the settlement, the universities will provide additional
listening devices for students' use and make sure all videos, films and
DVDs used in classes with a deaf or hearing-impaired student have
captions. They will also streamline how students get services, such as
note taking, sign language interpreting and real time captioning for
classes and other activities. About 10 hearing-impaired students are
enrolled at the two campuses.
The settlement also deals with safety, increasing the number of
public and emergency telephones on campus that deaf and hearing-impaired
students will be able to use, and adding signs directing students to
them.
An independent panel will evaluate the changes made and determine
whether more should be required.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 2003
Editor: We've been watching the gradual erosion of ADA protections by
our court system for several years now. The most recent damage is a
decision by the Supreme Court that allows many professionals not to be
considered employees in determining whether or not a business has the 15
employees required before the ADA is generally applicable. Here are
portions of an article from UPI. The full text of the article is
available at the Ican website. Here's a short link to it: http://makeashorterlink.com/?S2EC13654
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Supreme Court ruling Tuesday makes it less likely that smaller
medical clinics or other professional corporations can be sued under
federal anti-discrimination law.
Such laws normally target businesses of 15 employees or more, but the
ruling makes it easier for doctors or other professionals not to be
included in the count of employees.
The case is far-reaching since many small professional corporations
across the country -- such as doctors' or dentists' offices -- could be
affected.
"Professional corporations with between 14 and 19 or more
employees are likely to find themselves caught in the gray zone between
small and large employer categories created by the (Americans with
Disabilities Act)," which only applies to businesses with 15
employers or more, a petition filed earlier in the case said.
In the case before the justices, Deborah Wells was employed by
Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, a medical clinic incorporated in
Oregon, beginning in 1986. However, Wells suffered from "mixed
connective tissue disorder," and in 1997 her physician took her off
work for several months. Her employer wanted her back to work earlier
and fired her when she didn't show up.
Wells sued the clinic under the Americans with Disabilities Act in
U.S. District Court in Portland, Ore.
At trial, Clackamas argued that it could not be targeted by the ADA
because it did not have 15 or more employees for the 20 weeks required
by the law. Besides four physicians who were shareholders in the
corporation, the company employed 12 to 15 employees during the time
that Wells was absent from work.
...
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer,
dissented.
"Classifying as employees all doctors daily engaged as
caregivers on Clackamas' premises ... serves the animating purpose of
the Americans with Disabilities Act," Ginsburg said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
June 2008
The Bush administration is about to propose
far-reaching new rules that would give people with disabilities greater
access to tens of thousands of courtrooms, swimming pools, golf courses,
stadiums, theaters, hotels and retail stores. A proposal would rewrite
standards for enforcement of the Americans With Disabilities Act, passed
with strong bipartisan support in 1990. President George Bush signed the
act that year. The proposal would substantially update and rewrite federal
standards for enforcement of the Americans With Disabilities Act, a
landmark civil rights law passed with strong bipartisan support in 1990.
The new rules would set more stringent requirements in many areas and
address some issues for the first time, in an effort to meet the needs of
an aging population and growing numbers of disabled war veterans.
Full Story
