Finance          Automotive          Computers          Health          Shopping          Sports         News          Reference           Print Facts in English - BCUZ.COMlos hechos en Español

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990



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. [4]

[

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 fifty states, to bring these groups together.

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.[5]

[

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."[6] ”

[

Criticism

 This section does not cite any references or sources. (February 2007)
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

The ADA is a frequent target of criticism. For example, some claim that individuals who are diagnosed with one of the so-called "lesser disabilities," such as minor neck or back pain (see neuropathy) are being "accommodated" when they should not be.[citation needed]

Second, the public accommodation section of the ADA is often criticized for creating "professional plaintiffs" who make a living out of collecting monetary damages from noncompliant businesses.[citation needed] As violations of Title III are widespread[clarify], and compliance is determined by a highly technical set of comprehensive federal regulations, it is easy for persons with disabilities and lawyers to identify businesses to sue for major and/or minor violations of the law. One Miami attorney filed 700 complaints in a three-year period, typically settling each case for $3000 to $5000 in attorney's fees and a promise to remedy the violation.[citation needed] However, 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 noncompliant businesses. Unless a state law, such as the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, 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 noncompliant businesses. 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. Moreover, there is benefit to these "private attorneys general" who identify and compel the correction of illegal conditions: they increase the number of public accommodations accessible to persons with disabilities.

Even those who support the intent of the law worry that it might have unintended consequences. Among other arguments, they[who?] 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).

The ADA did not come with a guide for how employees and employers should apply the Act to mental disabilities. Psychologist Dr. John Fielder (1994) wrote a manual for employers that has been used by many parties concerned with issues of cognitive disabilities.[citation needed]

Others (see Schall, 1998) believe that the law has been ineffectual. Many people[who?] 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.[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.

Many libertarians oppose accommodation laws on the basis that, like "wholesome food" laws, they restrict individual rights.[clarify]

[

Case Law

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 [7]. 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 [8]. 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 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. [9].

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.

Olmstead, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Human Resources, et al. v. L. C., by zimring, guardian ad litem and next friend, et al. 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.[10] (Olmstead v. L.C. should not be confused with Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), a case in 1928 regarding wiretapping.)

[

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.

[

See also

[

External links

[

References

  1. ^ 42 U.S.C. § 12111
  2. ^ 42 U.S.C. § 12131
  3. ^ 42 U.S.C. § 12162
  4. ^ 42 U.S.C. § 12187
  5. ^ :: Laredos.net :: - Bussines
  6. ^ The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  7. ^ Disability Rights Advocates
  8. ^ Disability Rights Advocates
  9. ^ Barden v. Sacramento from Disability Rights Advocates
  10. ^ [1]Syllabus for the Supreme Court Decision in 1999



BCUZ.com FACTS Encyclopedia content is licensed under the GFDL as approved by Wikipedia.
For more information review our copyright contact and privacy policy.
© 1996 - BCUZ.COM - We have all the FACTS you need about Small Business Financing, Behavior Disorder, Having Too Many Bills, Needing Cash Fast, Structured Settlements, Frequent Flier Programs, Top Steak Houses, The Mayan Indians, Norfolk and Suffolk England, Growing Longer Hair and a full reference English Encyclopedia and Spanish Encyclopedia.Privacy Policy