April 6 ââ“ Philadelphia Pa ââ“ Temple Performing Arts Center

1990 U.S. civil rights police force prohibiting bigotry based on disabilities

Parts of this article (those related to documentation) demand to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (Oct 2019)

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Long title	An Act to establish a articulate and comprehensive prohibition of bigotry on the basis of disability
Acronyms (colloquial)	ADA
Nicknames	Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989
Enacted past	the 101st U.s. Congress
Effective	July 26, 1990
Citations
Public law	101-336
Statutes at Large	104 Stat. 327
Codification
Titles amended	42 U.S.C.: Public Health and Social Welfare
U.Southward.C. sections created	42 U.s.a.C. ch. 126 § 12101 et seq.
Legislative history
Introduced in the Senate every bit S. 933 by Tom Harkin (D–IA) on May nine, 1989 Committee consideration past Senate Labor and Human Resources Passed the Senate on September 7, 1989 (76–8) Passed the Business firm on May 22, 1990 (unanimous voice vote) Reported by the joint briefing committee on July 12, 1990; agreed to by the Firm on July 12, 1990 (377–28) and by the Senate on July 13, 1990 (91–6) Signed into police force by President George H. Due west. Bush-league on July 26, 1990
Major amendments
ADA Amendments Human activity of 2008
United States Supreme Courtroom cases
Bragdon v. Abbott Olmstead v. L.C. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams

The Americans with Disabilities Human activity of 1990 or ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101) is a civil rights constabulary that prohibits discrimination based on inability. It affords similar protections confronting bigotry to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Deed of 1964,^[ane] which made discrimination based on race, religion, sexual practice, national origin, and other characteristics illegal, and subsequently sexual orientation and gender identity. In improver, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA as well requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.^[two]

In 1986, the National Council on Disability had recommended the enactment of an Americans with Disabilities Deed (ADA) and drafted the first version of the nib which was introduced in the House and Senate in 1988. The final version of the bill was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush. It was later amended in 2008 and signed past President George W. Bush with changes effective every bit of January 1, 2009.^[3]

Disabilities included [edit]

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988, S. 2346, Page 1^[4]

Americans with Disabilities Deed of 1990, Page 52^[5]

Americans with Disabilities Deed of 1990, Page 1^[5]

ADA disabilities include both mental and physical medical conditions. A condition does non need to be severe or permanent to be a inability.^[6] Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations provide a listing of weather condition that should easily be concluded to be disabilities: deafness, incomprehension, an intellectual inability (formerly termed mental retardation), partially or completely missing limbs or mobility impairments requiring the employ of a wheelchair, autism, cancer, cognitive palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, attention arrears hyperactivity disorder, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia.^[vii] Other mental or physical health conditions likewise may be disabilities, depending on what the private's symptoms would exist in the absence of "mitigating measures" (medication, therapy, assistive devices, or other means of restoring function), during an "active episode" of the condition (if the condition is episodic).^[seven]

Certain specific conditions that are widely considered anti-social, or tend to result in illegal activity, such as kleptomania, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, etc. are excluded under the definition of "disability" in order to forestall corruption of the statute's purpose.^{[8] [9]} Additionally, gender identity or orientation is no longer considered a disorder and is also excluded nether the definition of "disability".^{[nine] [10]}

Titles [edit]

Title I—employment [edit]

Encounter also US labor police force and 42 U.s.a.C. §§ 12111–12117.

Speech cards used by President George H. W. Bush at the signing anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on July 26, 1990^[11]

The ADA states that a "covered entity" shall not discriminate against "a qualified individual with a disability".^[12] This applies to chore application procedures, hiring, advancement and discharge of employees, task preparation, and other terms, weather, and privileges of employment. "Covered entities" include employers with fifteen or more employees, as well every bit employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management committees.^{[13] [14]} There are strict limitations on when a covered entity can ask job applicants or employees disability-related questions or require them to undergo medical examination, and all medical information must be kept confidential.^{[15] [16]}

Prohibited discrimination may include, among other things, firing or refusing to hire someone based on a real or perceived disability, segregation, and harassment based on a disability. Covered entities are also required to provide reasonable accommodations to job applicants and employees with disabilities.^[17] A reasonable accommodation is a change in the style things are typically done that the person needs because of a disability, and can include, amidst other things, special equipment that allows the person to perform the job, scheduling changes, and changes to the way work assignments are chosen or communicated.^[18] An employer is not required to provide an accommodation that would involve undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense), and the individual who receives the accommodation must nonetheless perform the essential functions of the task and encounter the normal performance requirements. An employee or applicant who currently engages in the illegal use of drugs is not considered qualified when a covered entity takes adverse activity based on such employ.^[19]

There are many ways to discriminate confronting people based on disabilities, including psychological ones. Anyone known to take a history of mental disorders tin be considered disabled. Employers with more than than 15 employees must take care to treat all employees fairly and with any accommodations needed. Even when an employee is doing a job exceptionally well, she or he is not necessarily no longer disabled; employers must continue to follow all policies for the disabled.

Office of Title I was found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court as it pertains to states in the case of Board of Trustees of the Academy of Alabama five. Garrett every bit violating the sovereign immunity rights of the several states as specified by the Eleventh Amendment to the Usa Constitution. The Court adamant that state employees cannot sue their employer for violating ADA rules. Country employees can, all the same, file complaints at the Department of Justice or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who tin sue on their behalf.^[20]

Title II—public entities (and public transportation) [edit]

Title Two prohibits inability discrimination by all public entities at the local level, e.thou., school district, municipal, metropolis, or canton, and at state level. Public entities must comply with Championship 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 past discriminatory policies or procedures of the entity.

Title II applies to public transportation provided by public entities through regulations by the U.S. Section of Transportation. Information technology includes the National Railroad Rider Corporation (Amtrak), along with all other commuter authorities. This section requires the provision of paratransit services by public entities that provide fixed-route services. ADA also sets minimum requirements for space layout in order to facilitate wheelchair securement on public transport.^[21]

Title Two too applies to all state and local public housing, housing assistance, and housing referrals. The Function of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is charged with enforcing this provision.

Title III—public accommodations (and commercial facilities) [edit]

The ADA sets standards for construction of attainable public facilities. Shown is a sign indicating an accessible fishing platform at Drano Lake, Washington.

Nether Title III, no individual may be discriminated confronting on the basis of inability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public adaptation by any person who owns, leases, or operates a identify of public accommodation. Public accommodations include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, forth with stores, intendance providers, and places of public displays.

Under Title 3 of the ADA, all new construction (construction, modification or alterations) later on the effective date of the ADA (approximately July 1992) must be fully compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Deed Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)^[11] establish in the Code of Federal Regulations at 28 C.F.R., Office 36, Appendix A.

Championship Three also has applications to existing facilities. One of the definitions of "discrimination" under Championship III of the ADA is a "failure to remove" architectural barriers in existing facilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(two)(A)(iv). This means that even facilities that have non been modified or altered in whatsoever way after the ADA was passed still accept obligations. The standard is whether "removing barriers" (typically defined equally bringing a condition into compliance with the ADAAG) is "readily achievable", defined as "...hands accomplished without much difficulty or expense".

The statutory definition of "readily achievable" calls for a balancing test between the toll of the proposed "fix" and the wherewithal of the business organisation and/or owners of the business organization. Thus, what might be "readily achievable" for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might non be readily achievable for a small or local concern.

There are exceptions to this title; many private clubs and religious organizations may not be bound by Title 3. With regard to historic properties (those properties that are listed or that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Celebrated Places, or properties designated as historic under land or local law), those facilities must still comply with the provisions of Title 3 of the ADA to the "maximum extent feasible" but if following the usual standards would "threaten to destroy the celebrated significance of a feature of the building" so alternative standards may exist used.

Under 2010 revisions of Department of Justice regulations, newly constructed or altered pond pools, wading pools, and spas must accept an accessible means of archway and exit to pools for disabled people. However, the requirement is conditioned on whether providing access through a fixed lift is "readily achievable". Other requirements exist, based on puddle size, include providing a sure number of accessible ways of entry and exit, which are outlined in Department 242 of the standards. Still, businesses are costless to consider the differences in the application of the rules depending on whether the pool is new or contradistinct, or whether the swimming pool was in being before the effective date of the new dominion. Full compliance may non be required for existing facilities; Section 242 and 1009 of the 2010 Standards outline such exceptions.^[22]

Service animals [edit]

The ADA provides explicit coverage for service animals.^{[23] [24]} Guidelines have been developed not merely to protect persons with disabilities just as well to indemnify businesses from damages related to granting access to service animals on their bounds. Businesses are allowed to ask if the animate being is a service animal and ask what tasks it is trained to perform, but they are not allowed to enquire the service animal to perform the task nor enquire for a special ID of the animate being. They cannot ask what the person's disabilities are. A person with a inability cannot be removed from the premises unless either of two things happen: the animal is out of control and its owner cannot get it under command (e.k. a domestic dog barking uncontrollably in a eating house), or the animal is a direct threat to people's wellness and safety. Allergies and fear of animals would not be considered a threat to people'due south health and safety, so it would not be a valid reason to deny access to people with service animals. Businesses that prepare or serve nutrient must allow service animals and their owners on the bounds even if state or local health laws otherwise prohibit animals on the premises. In this case, businesses that prepare or serve food are not required to provide care or nutrient for service animals, nor practice they accept to provide a designated surface area for the service fauna to relieve itself. Lastly, people that require service dogs cannot be charged an extra fee for their service dog or be treated unfairly, for case, being isolated from people at a eating house. People with disabilities cannot be treated as "less than" other customers. All the same, if a business unremarkably charges for damages caused by the person to property, the customer with a disability will be charged for his/her service animal's damages to the property.

Auxiliary aids [edit]

The ADA provides explicit coverage for auxiliary aids.^[25]

Auxiliary aids and services are items, equipment or services that assist in effective communication between a person who has a hearing, vision or speech disability and a person who does not.^[26]

ADA says that a public accommodation shall take those steps that may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a inability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that taking those steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations existence offered or would result in an undue brunt, i.e., significant difficulty or expense. The term "auxiliary aids and services" includes:

1. Qualified interpreters on-site or through video remote interpreting (VRI) services; notetakers; real-time figurer-aided transcription services; written materials; exchange of written notes; telephone handset amplifiers; assistive listening devices; assistive listening systems; telephones compatible with hearing aids; airtight explanation decoders; open and airtight captioning, including real-time captioning; voice, text, and video-based telecommunications products and systems, including text telephones (TTYs), videophones, and captioned telephones, or equally constructive telecommunication devices; videotext displays; accessible electronic and data engineering; or other effective methods of making aurally delivered information available to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing;
2. Qualified readers; taped texts; sound recordings; Brailled materials and displays; screen reader software; magnification software; optical readers; secondary auditory programs (SAP); big impress materials; accessible electronic and information technology; or other effective methods of making visually delivered materials bachelor to individuals who are bullheaded or have low vision;
3. Acquisition or modification of equipment or devices; and
4. Other like services and actions.

Captions are considered one type of auxiliary aid. Since the passage of the ADA, the use of captioning has expanded. Entertainment, educational, informational, and training materials are captioned for deaf and hard-of-hearing audiences at the time they are produced and distributed. The Tv set Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 requires that all televisions larger than 13 inches sold in the United states later July 1993 have a special built-in decoder that enables viewers to watch closed-captioned programming. The Telecommunication Act of 1996 directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prefer rules requiring closed captioning of about television programming. The FCC'south rules on airtight captioning became effective January i, 1998.^[27]

Title 4—telecommunications [edit]

Title IV of the ADA amended the landmark Communications Deed of 1934 primarily by adding section 47 U.Southward.C. § 225. This department requires that all telecommunication companies in the U.S. take steps to ensure functionally equivalent services for consumers with disabilities, notably those who are deafened or difficult of hearing and those with speech impairments. When Title IV took outcome in the early 1990s, it led to the installation of public teletypewriter (TTY) machines and other TDD (telecommunications devices for the deafened). Title Iv likewise led to the creation, in all fifty states and the District of Columbia, of what was then called dual-party relay services and at present are known equally Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), such as STS relay. Today, many TRS-mediated calls are made over the Internet by consumers who employ broadband connections. Some are Video Relay Service (VRS) calls, while others are text calls. In either variation, communication assistants translate between the signed or 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.

Championship V—miscellaneous provisions [edit]

Title Five includes technical provisions. It discusses, for example, the fact that nothing in the ADA amends, overrides or cancels anything in Section 504.^[28] Additionally, Championship V includes an anti-retaliation or coercion provision. The Technical Assistance Transmission for the ADA explains this provision:

III-three.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 compulsion 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.

History [edit]

The ADA has roots in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.^[29]

Drafting [edit]

Development of George H.Due west. Bush Administration Disability Policy. White House Memo. April 21, 1989.^[thirty]

In 1986, the National Council on Inability (NCD), an independent federal agency, issued a study, Towards Independence, in which the Council examined incentives and disincentives in federal laws towards increasing the independence and full integration of people with disabilities into our society. Among the disincentives to independence the Quango identified was the existence of large remaining gaps in our nation's civil rights coverage for people with disabilities. A principal conclusion of the report was to recommend the adoption of comprehensive civil rights legislation, which became the ADA.^[31]

The idea of federal legislation enhancing and extending ceremonious rights legislation to millions of Americans with disabilities gained bipartisan support in late 1988 and early 1989. In early 1989 both Congress and the newly inaugurated Bush White House worked separately, then jointly, to write legislation capable of expanding civil rights without imposing undue impairment or costs on those already in compliance with existing rules and laws.^[32]

Lobbying [edit]

Over the years, key activists and advocates played an important role in lobbying members of the U.South. Congress to develop and pass the ADA, including Justin Whitlock Dart Jr., Patrisha Wright and others.

Ms. Wright is known as "the Full general" for her work in coordinating the campaign to enact the ADA.^{[33] [34]} She is widely considered the primary force backside the campaign lobbying for the ADA.^[35]

Support and opposition [edit]

Back up [edit]

Senator Dole was a supporter and abet for the bill.^[36]

Nearly the importance of making employment opportunities inclusive, Shirley Davis, director of global variety and inclusion at the Society for Homo Resource Management, said: "People with disabilities stand for a disquisitional talent pool that is underserved and underutilized".^{[37] [ relevance questioned ]}

Opposition from religious groups [edit]

The fence over the Americans with Disabilities Act led some religious groups to take contrary positions.^[38] The Association of Christian Schools International opposed the ADA in its original class,^[39] primarily considering the ADA labeled religious institutions "public accommodations" and thus would take required churches to brand costly structural changes to ensure access for all.^[40] The cost argument avant-garde by ACSI and others prevailed in keeping religious institutions from beingness labeled equally "public accommodations".^[28]

Church building groups such as the National Clan of Evangelicals testified confronting the ADA'southward Title I employment provisions on grounds of religious liberty. The NAE believed the regulation of the internal employment of churches was "... an improper intrusion [of] the federal government."^[38]

Opposition from business interests [edit]

Many members of the business community opposed the Americans with Disabilities Deed. Testifying before Congress, Greyhound Motorbus Lines stated that the act had the potential to "deprive millions of people of affordable intercity public transportation and thousands of rural communities of their merely link to the outside world." The US Bedchamber of Commerce argued that the costs of the ADA would be "enormous" and have "a disastrous impact on many small-scale businesses struggling to survive."^[41] The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that lobbies for small businesses, called the ADA "a disaster for small business."^[42] Pro-business conservative commentators joined in opposition, writing that the Americans with Disabilities Human action was "an expensive headache to millions" that would non necessarily improve the lives of people with disabilities.^[43]

"Capitol Crawl" [edit]

Presently before the act was passed, disability rights activists with concrete disabilities coalesced in front of the Capitol Building, shed their crutches, wheelchairs, powerchairs and other assistive devices, and immediately proceeded to crawl and pull their bodies upwardly all 100 of the Capitol'due south front end steps, without warning.^[44] As the activists did so, many of them chanted "ADA now", and "Vote, Now". Some activists who remained at the bottom of the steps held signs and yelled words of encouragement at the "Capitol Crawlers". Jennifer Keelan, a 2d grader with cerebral palsy, was videotaped every bit she pulled herself up the steps, using mostly her hands and arms, saying "I'll accept all night if I accept to." This straight action is reported to have "inconvenienced" several senators and to have pushed them to approve the human action. While there are those who do not attribute much overall importance to this activity, the "Capitol Crawl" of 1990 is seen past some present-day inability activists in the United States as a central act for encouraging the ADA into constabulary.^[45]

Final passage [edit]

President Bush-league signs the Americans with Disabilities Act into law

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) authored what became the final bill and was its principal sponsor in the Senate. Harkin delivered part of his introduction voice communication in sign language, saying information technology was so his deafened brother could empathize.^[46]

George H. Due west. Bush, on signing the measure on July 26, 1990,^[47] said:

I know there may have been concerns that the ADA may be too vague or too plush, or may atomic number 82 incessantly to litigation. But I want to reassure you lot correct now that my assistants and the The states Congress take carefully crafted this Act. We've all been determined to ensure that information technology 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 up tumbling downward.^[48]

ADA Amendments Act, 2008 [edit]

The ADA defines a covered disability as a physical or mental damage that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a history of having such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was charged with interpreting the 1990 law with regard to discrimination in employment. The EEOC adult regulations limiting an individual'southward impairment to one that "severely or significantly restricts" a major life activity. The ADAAA directed the EEOC to amend its regulations and supplant "severely or significantly" with "essentially limits", a more lenient standard.^[49]

On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) into law. The amendment broadened the definition of "inability", thereby extending the ADA's protections to a greater number of people.^[50] The ADAAA too 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, animate, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working" equally well equally the performance of several specified major bodily functions.^[fifty] The act overturned a 1999 The states Supreme Court case that held that an employee was not disabled if the impairment could be corrected by mitigating measures; it specifically provides that such harm must exist adamant without because such ameliorative measures. Information technology besides overturned the court restriction that an impairment that substantially limits i major life activity must as well limit others to be considered a disability.^[50] In 2008, the The states House Committee on Didactics and Labor stated that the amendment "makes it absolutely clear that the ADA is intended to provide broad coverage to protect anyone who faces bigotry on the footing of disability."^[51] Thus the ADAAA led to broader coverage of impaired employees.

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, 2019 [edit]

In October 2019, the Supreme Courtroom declined to resolve a circuit split as to whether websites are covered by the ADA. The Court turned downwards an appeal from Domino's Pizza and let stand a U.Due south. 9th Circuit Courtroom of Appeals ruling which held that the Americans With Disabilities Act protects access non just to brick-and-mortar public accommodations, but also to the websites and apps of those businesses.^[52]

Impact [edit]

The ADA led to pregnant improvements in terms of access to public services, accessibility in the congenital environment, and societal understanding of inability.^[53]

Accessibility [edit]

This department is empty. You can help by calculation to it. (April 2022)

Employment [edit]

Betwixt 1991 (afterward the enactment of the ADA) and 1995, the employment rate of men with disabilities dropped by seven.viii% regardless of age, educational level, or type of disability, with the virtually affected being young, less-educated and intellectually disabled men.^[54] While no causal link between the ADA and that trend has been definitively identified,^[55] some researchers have characterized the ADA as innefectual and argued that information technology caused this decline by raising the cost of doing business for employers, who quietly avoid hiring people with disabilities for fear of lawsuit.^{[56] [57]}

In 2001, for men of all working ages and women under 40, Current Population Survey data showed a sharp drop in the employment of disabled workers, leading at least two economists to attribute the cause to the Act.^[58] By contrast, a study in 2003 found that while the Act may take led to brusque term reactions by employers, in the long term, there were either positive or neutral consequences for wages and employment.^[59] In 2005, the rate of employment among disabled people increased to 45% of the population of disabled people.^[60]

Societal attitudes [edit]

This department is empty. You lot can assistance by adding to it. (April 2022)

"Professional plaintiffs" [edit]

Since enforcement of the human action began in July 1992, information technology has rapidly go a major component of employment constabulary. 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 Ceremonious Rights Act,^[61] provides for monetary damages to individual plaintiffs, persons with disabilities do not obtain directly financial benefits from suing businesses that violate the ADA.

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 a financial reward from attorneys' fees unless they human activity as their own attorney, or as mentioned above, a disabled plaintiff resides in a state that provides for minimum bounty and court fees in lawsuits. Moreover, there may be a benefit to these private attorneys general who identify and compel the correction of illegal weather: they may increment the number of public accommodations accessible to persons with disabilities. "Civil rights law depends heavily on private enforcement. Moreover, the inclusion of penalties and amercement is the driving force that facilitates voluntary compliance with the ADA."^[62] Courts have noted:

As a result, most ADA suits are brought by a small number of individual plaintiffs who view themselves as champions of the disabled. For the ADA to yield its promise of equal access for the disabled, information technology may indeed exist necessary and desirable for committed individuals to bring serial litigation advancing the time when public accommodations will be compliant with the ADA.^[63]

California Governor Gavin Newsom speaking nigh the ADA on the 30th ceremony in 2020.

However, in states that have enacted laws that let private individuals to win monetary awards from non-compliant businesses (equally of 2008, these include California, Florida, Hawaii, and Illinois), "professional person plaintiffs" are typically institute. At least one of these plaintiffs in California has been barred by courts from filing lawsuits unless he receives prior court permission.^[61] Through the end of fiscal year 1998, 86% of the 106,988 ADA charges filed with and resolved by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, were either dropped or investigated and dismissed by EEOC only not without imposing opportunity costs and legal fees on employers.^{[54] [ unreliable source? ]}

Case law [edit]

There have been some notable cases regarding the ADA. For example, two major hotel room marketers (Expedia.com and Hotels.com) with their business presence on the Internet were sued because its customers with disabilities could non reserve hotel rooms through their websites without substantial actress efforts that persons without disabilities were not required to perform.^[64] These correspond a major potential expansion of the ADA in that this, and other like suits (known equally "bricks vs. clicks"), seeks to expand the ADA's potency to cyberspace, where entities may not have actual physical facilities that are required to comply.

Green 5. Country of California [edit]

Green v. State of California, No. S137770 (Cal. Aug. 23, 2007) ^[65] was a case in which the majority of the Supreme Courtroom in California was faced with deciding whether the employee suing the state is required to prove he is able to perform "essential" job duties, regardless of whether or not there was "reasonable adaptation," or if the employer must bear witness the victim was unable to do so. The court ruled the burden was on the employee, not the employer, and reversed a disputed conclusion past the courts. Plaintiff attorney David Greenberg^[66] brought forth considerations of the concept that, even in the country of California, employers do not take to utilise a worker who is unable to perform "essential task functions" with "reasonable accommodation." Forcing employers to do then "would defy logic and establish a poor public policy in employment matters."

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation [edit]

National Federation of the Blind 5. Target Corporation ^[67] was 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.^[68]

Lath of Trustees of the Academy of Alabama v. Garrett [edit]

Lath of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett ^[69] was a United states Supreme Court case about Congress'southward enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Subpoena to the Constitution. It decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed private citizens to sue states for coin damages.

Barden v. The City of Sacramento [edit]

Barden v. The Metropolis of Sacramento, filed in March 1999, claimed that the Metropolis of Sacramento failed to comply with the ADA when, while making public street improvements, it did non bring its sidewalks into compliance with the ADA. Certain problems were resolved in Federal Court. One outcome, whether sidewalks were covered by the ADA, was appealed to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that sidewalks were a "program" nether ADA and must be fabricated accessible to persons with disabilities. The ruling was later appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the instance, letting stand up the ruling of the 9th Excursion Court.^{[70] [71]}

Bates v. UPS [edit]

Bates v. UPS (begun in 1999) was the outset equal opportunity employment course action brought on behalf of Deafened and Difficult of Hearing (d/Deaf/HoH) workers throughout the country concerning workplace discrimination. It established legal precedence for d/Deaf/HoH Employees and Customers to be fully covered under the ADA. Key findings included

1. UPS failed to address communication barriers and to ensure equal atmospheric condition and opportunities for deaf employees;
2. Deaf employees were routinely excluded from workplace data, denied opportunities for promotion, and exposed to dangerous weather due to lack of accommodations by UPS;
3. UPS also lacked a system to alarm these employees as to emergencies, such as fires or chemical spills, to ensure that they would safely evacuate their facility; and
4. UPS had no policy to ensure that deaf applicants and employees actually received effective advice in the workplace.

The outcome was that UPS agreed to pay a $5.eight million award and agreed to a comprehensive accommodations program that was implemented in their facilities throughout the country.

Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. [edit]

Spector v. Norwegian Prowl Line Ltd. ^[72] was a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2005. The defendant argued that equally a vessel flying the flag of a foreign nation information technology was exempt from the requirements of the ADA. This statement was accepted by a federal court in Florida and, afterward, the Fifth Excursion Court of Appeals. However, the U.Southward. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower courts on the footing that Norwegian Cruise Lines was a business organisation headquartered in the United States whose clients were predominantly Americans and, more chiefly, operated out of port facilities throughout the United States.

Olmstead v. L.C. [edit]

Non to be dislocated with Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), a case regarding wiretapping.

Olmstead v. L.C. ^[73] was a case earlier the United States Supreme Court in 1999. The two plaintiffs, 50.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 customs setting rather than the country institution. The plaintiffs sued the state of Georgia and the institution for existence inappropriately treated and housed in the institutional setting rather than being treated in one of the state's customs-based handling facilities.

The Supreme Court decided under Championship II of the ADA that mental disease is a course of disability and therefore covered nether 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, "Confinement in an establishment 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 tin can be unjustly excluded from participation in or exist denied the benefits of services, programs or activities of any public entity.^[73]

Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America v. The University of Michigan [edit]

This was a example filed before The United States Commune Courtroom for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division on behalf of the Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America confronting Academy of Michigan – Michigan Stadium claiming that Michigan Stadium violated the Americans with Disabilities Act in its $226-million renovation past declining to add enough seats for disabled fans or adapt the needs for disabled restrooms, concessions and parking. Additionally, the distribution of the accessible seating was at issue, with almost all the seats being provided in the finish-zone areas. The U.Due south. Department of Justice assisted in the suit filed by attorney Richard Bernstein of The Police force Offices of Sam Bernstein in Farmington Hills, Michigan, which was settled in March 2008.^[74] The settlement required the stadium to add 329 wheelchair seats throughout the stadium by 2010, and an additional 135 accessible seats in clubhouses to become along with the existing 88 wheelchair seats. This instance was meaning because information technology set a precedent for the uniform distribution of accessible seating and gave the DOJ the opportunity to clarify previously unclear rules.^[75] The agreement now is a blueprint for all stadiums and other public facilities regarding accessibility.^[76]

Paralyzed Veterans of America five. Ellerbe Becket Architects and Engineers [edit]

One of the first major ADA lawsuits, Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Ellerbe Becket Architects and Engineers (PVA 1996) was focused on the wheelchair accessibility of a stadium project that was however in the pattern stage, MCI Center (now known as Capital 1 Loonshit) in Washington, D.C. Previous to this case, which was filed but five years afterward the ADA was passed, the DOJ was unable or unwilling to provide description on the distribution requirements for accessible wheelchair locations in large assembly spaces. While Department four.33.iii of ADAAG makes reference to lines of sight, no specific reference is made to seeing over standing patrons. The MCI Center, designed by Ellerbe Becket Architects & Engineers, was designed with too few wheelchair and companion seats, and the ones that were included did not provide sight lines that would enable the wheelchair user to view the playing area while the spectators in forepart of them were standing. This example^{[77] [78]} and another related example^[79] established precedent on seat distribution and sight lines issues for ADA enforcement that continues to present solar day.

Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams [edit]

Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams,^[80] was a case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the pregnant of the phrase "substantially impairs" as used in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Information technology reversed a Sixth Courtroom of Appeals decision to grant a partial summary judgment in favor of the respondent, Ella Williams, that qualified her inability to perform manual job-related tasks as a disability. The Court held that the "major life action" definition in evaluating the performance of transmission tasks focuses the research on whether Williams was unable to perform a range of tasks central to most people in carrying out the activities of daily living. The effect is not whether Williams was unable to perform her specific chore tasks. Therefore, the determination of whether an damage rises to the level of a disability is non limited to activities in the workplace solely, merely rather to transmission tasks in life in general. When the Supreme Court applied this standard, it found that the Court of Appeals had incorrectly determined the presence of a disability considering it relied solely on her inability to perform specific transmission piece of work tasks, which was insufficient in proving the presence of a inability. The Court of Appeals should accept taken into business relationship the show presented that Williams retained the ability to do personal tasks and household chores, such activities being the nature of tasks well-nigh people do in their daily lives, and placed likewise much emphasis on her chore disability. Since the evidence showed that Williams was performing normal daily tasks, it ruled that the Courtroom of Appeals erred when it found that Williams was disabled.^{[80] [81]} This ruling is now, nevertheless, no longer good police force—it was invalidated past the ADAAA. In fact, Congress explicitly cited Toyota v. Williams in the text of the ADAAA itself equally one of its driving influences for passing the ADAAA.

United states of america Airways, Inc. v. Barnett [edit]

Decided by the US Supreme Courtroom in 2002, this case ^{[82] [83]} held that even requests for accommodation that might seem reasonable on their face, e.m., a transfer to a different position, can be rendered unreasonable because it would require a violation of the visitor'southward seniority system. While the court held that, in general, a violation of a seniority system renders an otherwise reasonable accommodation unreasonable, a plaintiff can present bear witness that, despite the seniority organization, the accommodation is reasonable in the specific case at manus, e.g., the plaintiff could offering evidence that the seniority arrangement is so often disregarded that some other exception wouldn't make a difference.

Importantly, the court held that the accused need not provide proof that this particular application of the seniority organization should prevail, and that, once the accused showed that the adaptation violated the seniority system, it fell to Barnett to prove it was notwithstanding reasonable.

In this case, Barnett was a US Airways employee who injured his back, rendering him physically unable to perform his cargo-handling job. Invoking seniority, he transferred to a less-demanding mailroom chore, but this position afterward became open to seniority-based bidding and was bid on by more than senior employees. Barnett requested the accommodation of being immune to stay on in the less-demanding mailroom job. US Airways denied his request, and he lost his chore.

The Supreme Courtroom conclusion invalidated both the arroyo of the district courtroom, which constitute that the mere presence and importance of the seniority system was plenty to warrant a summary judgment in favor of The states Airways, as well as the excursion court's arroyo that interpreted 'reasonable adaptation' as 'effective adaptation.'

Admission At present v. Southwest Airlines [edit]

Admission At present v. Southwest Airlines was a 2002 case where the Commune Court decided that the website of Southwest Airlines was not in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Human activity, because the ADA is concerned with things with a physical existence and thus cannot be applied to internet. Judge Patricia A. Seitz found that the "virtual ticket counter" of the website was a virtual construct, and hence not a "public place of accommodation." As such, "To expand the ADA to cover 'virtual' spaces would be to create new rights without well-divers standards."^[84]

Ouellette five. Viacom International Inc. [edit]

Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. followed in Access Now's footsteps past property that a mere online presence does not field of study a website to the ADA guidelines. Thus, in 2011, Myspace and YouTube were not liable for a dyslexic human's inability to navigate the site regardless of how impressive the "online theater" is.

[edit]

Authors Society v. HathiTrust was a case in which the District Court decided that the HathiTrust digital library was a transformative, fair employ of copyrighted works, making a large number of written text available to those with print disability.^[85]

Zamora-Quezada 5. HealthTexas Medical Group [edit]

Zamora-Quezada 5. HealthTexas Medical Group ^[86] (begun in 1998) was the first time this act was used against HMOs when a novel lawsuit^[87] was filed by Texas attorney Robert Provan against 5 HMOs for their do of revoking the contracts of doctors treating disabled patients.

Campbell five. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp. [edit]

Campbell v. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp. (2005)^[88] concerned the enforceability of a mandatory arbitration agreement, contained in a dispute resolution policy linked to an e-mailed company-wide announcement, insofar equally it applies to employment discrimination claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Tennessee v. Lane [edit]

Tennessee 5. Lane,^[89] 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. George Lane was unable to walk afterward a 1997 motorcar accident in which he was accused of driving on the incorrect side of the road. A woman was killed in the crash, and Lane faced misdemeanor charges of reckless driving. The suit was brought about because he was denied access to announced in criminal court because the courthouse had no elevator, even though the court was willing to conduct him up the stairs and then willing to move the hearing to the starting time floor. He refused, citing he wanted to be treated as whatever other denizen, and was later on charged with failure to appear, after appearing at a previous hearing where he dragged himself up the stairs.^[ninety] The court ruled that Congress did have enough evidence that the disabled were being denied those fundamental rights that are protected past the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Subpoena and had the enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It further ruled that "reasonable accommodations" mandated by the ADA were not disproportionately burdensome and disproportionate to the damage.^[91]

See also [edit]

• ADA Compliance Kit
• ADA Signs
• American Disability rights movement
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
• Developmental inability
• Inability in the Us
• European Accessibility Act
• Individual rights advocate
• Interactive accommodation process
• Job Accommodation Network
• Listing of anti-discrimination acts
  • Inability bigotry human action
  • Title VII of the Ceremonious Rights Act of 1964
• List of disability rights activists
• Registered Accessibility Specialist
• Stigma management
• Timeline of disability rights in the United States
• United States Admission Lath
• Wheelchair ramp

References [edit]

1. ^ "Civil Rights Deed of 1964 - CRA - Championship Seven - Equal Employment Opportunities - 42 U.s.a. Code Chapter 21 | findUSlaw". finduslaw.com. Archived from the original on January 25, 2010.
2. ^ 42 The statesC. 12112(b)(5), 12182–84
3. ^ "President Bush-league Signs ADA Changes into Constabulary". HR.BLR.com. September 25, 2008. Archived from the original on Feb 5, 2009.
4. ^ From the George H.Westward. Bush Presidential Records of the George Bush Presidential Library. Folder Championship: Fact Sail on ADA [Americans of Disabilities Act]. Unrestricted.
5. ^ ^{a b} National Archives and Records Administration. Series: C. Boyden Gray's Discipline Files, i/xx/1989 - 1/20/1993. July 26, 1990. Archived from the original on July 17, 2015. Retrieved July twenty, 2015.
6. ^ EEOC. "Fact Canvas on the EEOC's Final Regulations Implementing the ADAAA". EEOC.gov. Archived from the original on September 12, 2014. Retrieved September 7, 2014.
7. ^ ^{a b} "76 FR 16977". federalregister.gov. 2011. Archived from the original on August 22, 2016. Retrieved September ane, 2014.
8. ^ Civil Rights Sectionalisation, US Department of Justice (2009). "42 U.S. Lawmaking § 12102 - Definition of disability, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Every bit Amended". ada.gov. Archived from the original on Feb 12, 2022. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
9. ^ ^{a b} EEOC (2008). "Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, PL 110-325 (S 3406)". eeoc.gov. Archived from the original on February 26, 2020. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
10. ^ Ceremonious Rights Division, US Section of Justice (2009). "42 U.S. Code § 12211 - Definitions, Americans with Disabilities Human action of 1990, As Amended". ada.gov. Archived from the original on February 12, 2022. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
11. ^ ^{a b} "Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 - ADA - 42 U.S. Lawmaking Affiliate 126". Archived from the original on December 27, 2011. Retrieved November 6, 2006.
12. ^ 42 U.s.C. § 12112(a)
13. ^ "Employee Assistance Programs and Rehab Centers". luxury.rehabs.com. Archived from the original on January 7, 2014. Retrieved March 27, 2021.
14. ^ 42 U.s.C. § 12111(2)
15. ^ EEOC (July 6, 2000). "Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations". EEOC.gov. Archived from the original on April 3, 2020. Retrieved September 6, 2014.
16. ^ EEOC (July half-dozen, 2000). "EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Inability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees Under the Americans with Disabilities Act". EEOC.gov. Archived from the original on Apr 3, 2020. Retrieved September 6, 2014.
17. ^ 42 UsaC. § 12112(b)(five)
18. ^ EEOC (Oct fifteen, 2002). "EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Nether the Americans with Disabilities Act". EEOC.gov. Archived from the original on April 4, 2020. Retrieved September half-dozen, 2014.
19. ^ 42 UsC. § 12111
20. ^ "Disability Rights in the Supreme Court". The Leadership Conference on Ceremonious and Man Rights. Archived from the original on February 1, 2002. Retrieved Jan 27, 2016.
21. ^ 'Wheelchair Securement in Public Transport', http://thequantumleap.com/faq/ Archived March two, 2017, at the Wayback Machine
22. ^ "2013 ADA Puddle Lift Compliance Borderline: Has Your Business Complied?". The National Law Review. Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. Jan 29, 2013. Archived from the original on December 17, 2013. Retrieved Feb nineteen, 2013.
23. ^ "ADA 2010 Revised Requirements: Service Animals". US Section of Justice. July 12, 2011. Archived from the original on July 11, 2011. Retrieved July ii, 2019.
24. ^ "Americans with Disabilities Act Questions and Answers: Service Animals". www.ada.gov. Archived from the original on May x, 2016. Retrieved May x, 2016.
25. ^ "Sec. 36.303 Auxiliary aids and services". US Department of Justice. June 13, 2020. Archived from the original on June ix, 2020. Retrieved June thirteen, 2020.
26. ^ "What are auxiliary aids and services? | www.adalive.org". www.adalive.org. Archived from the original on June ix, 2020. Retrieved June 13, 2020.
27. ^ "Captions For Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Viewers". NIDCD. August eighteen, 2015. Archived from the original on June thirteen, 2020. Retrieved June 13, 2020.  This commodity incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the NIDCD.
28. ^ ^{a b} 42 U.Southward.C. § 12187
29. ^ Fleischer, Doris Zames; Zames, Frieda (2001). The Disability Rights Movement: from Clemency to Confrontation . Temple University Press. pp. 93–95.
30. ^ "George H.W. Bush-league Library Centre". www.bush41.org. Archived from the original on February 6, 2019. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
31. ^ "ADA - Findings, Purpose, and History". ADAanniversary.org. Archived from the original on March seven, 2020. Retrieved March 7, 2020.
32. ^ "The Americans with Disabilities Act Exhibit". The Presidential Timeline. The Presidential Libraries of the National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on Dec 6, 2015.
33. ^ "Disability History Timeline". Rehabilitation Research & Training Center on Independent Living Direction. Temple University. 2002. Archived from the original on December twenty, 2013.
34. ^ "Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund - Patrisha A. Wright". dredf.org. June 28, 2021. Archived from the original on Apr 13, 2022. Retrieved June 28, 2021.
35. ^ "Texas Medical Center NEWS". tmc.edu. Archived from the original on August 20, 2008. Retrieved January 21, 2015.
36. ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (Dec v, 2021). "Bob Dole, Former Soldier and Stalwart of the Senate, Dies at 98". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on December 27, 2021. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
37. ^ Pamela Babcock (Oct 21, 2010). "Targeted Development for Managers with Disabilities". Society for Human Resource Management. Archived from the original on Baronial x, 2010. Retrieved July 23, 2010.
38. ^ ^{a b} Lawton, K.A. Christianity Today, x/8/ninety, Vol. 34 Result 14, p. 71
39. ^ "Should the Senate Approve the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989?" Congressional Digest Dec (1989): 297
40. ^ "Should the Senate Corroborate the Americans with Disabilities Deed of 1989?" Congressional Assimilate Dec (1989): 297.
41. ^ "Should the Senate Corroborate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989?" Congressional Assimilate Dec (1989): 208.
42. ^ Mandel, Susan. "Disabling the GOP", The National Review November 6, 1990, Vol. 42 Effect xi, pp. 23–24
43. ^ Doherty, Brian. Reason, Aug–Sep 95, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p. 18
44. ^ Eaton, William J. (March xiii, 1990). "Disabled Persons Rally, Crawl Upward Capitol Steps: Congress: Scores protest delays in passage of rights legislation. The logjam in the House is expected to interruption shortly". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on Dec 8, 2015. Retrieved September 4, 2015.
45. ^ Esshaki, Tiffany (July 21, 2015). "Remembering the 'Capitol Crawl'". C&1000 News. Archived from the original on March five, 2016. Retrieved January fifteen, 2016. The event, known as the 'Capitol Crawl', was an image that legislators couldn't ignore, Bauer said. She had fought since the 1960s to legally protect the rights of people with disabilities, and with that heroic display, she said, lawmakers simply couldn't go dorsum to their constituents without action.
46. ^ Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Delivers Flooring Speech communication in American Sign Linguistic communication. C-Span. July 13, 1990. Retrieved January 14, 2015.
47. ^ "The Americans with Disabilities Act: July 26, 1990". U.South. House of Representatives. Archived from the original on January 4, 2013. Retrieved July 27, 2020.
48. ^ "The U.Due south. Equal Employment Opportunity Committee". Archived from the original on Apr 19, 2006.
49. ^ "Fact Sheet on the EEOC'south Final Regulations Implementing the ADAAA". U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved September 4, 2015.
50. ^ ^{a b c} "ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA)—What Employers Need to Know". HR.BLR.com. 2008. Archived from the original on October 24, 2008. Retrieved Oct 10, 2008.
51. ^ United States of America Congressional Tape Proceedings and Debates of the 110th Congress 2d Session Book 154-Function 10. Washington, D. C.: Authorities Printing Part. 2008. p. 13769. ISBN9786131199639. Archived from the original on October 20, 2021. Retrieved September iv, 2015.
52. ^ "Supreme Court allows bullheaded people to sue retailers if their websites are not accessible". Los Angeles Times. October 7, 2019. Archived from the original on December 14, 2019. Retrieved Jan 29, 2020.
53. ^ G. Peacock; L.I. Iezzoni; T.R. Harkin (September 3, 2015). "Wellness Treat Americans with Disabilities — 25 Years after the ADA". N. Engl. J. Med. 373 (x): 892–893. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1508854. PMC4617620. PMID 26225616.
54. ^ ^{a b} DeLeire, Thomas (2000). "The Unintended Consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Human action" (PDF). Regulation. 23 (1): 21–24. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 13, 2013. Retrieved July 11, 2013.
55. ^ Picker, Les. "Did the ADA Reduce Employment of the Disabled?". nber.org. Archived from the original on February 28, 2018. Retrieved March 9, 2018.
56. ^ (see Schall, 1998)
57. ^ (see Schwochau & Blanck for counter-arguments)
58. ^ Acemoglu, Daron; Angrist, Joshua D. (Oct 1, 2001). "Consequences of Employment Protection? The Example of the Americans with Disabilities Act". Journal of Political Economy. 109 (5): 915–957. CiteSeerXten.one.ane.321.1338. doi:10.1086/322836. hdl:1721.1/63433. S2CID 15460395. Archived from the original on May 22, 2013. Retrieved July 11, 2013.
59. ^ Douglas Kruse and Lisa Schur, 'Employment of People with Disabilities Post-obit the ADA' (2003) 42(ane) Industrial Relations 31 Archived August 28, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
60. ^ "U.s. Census 2012" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 25, 2017. Retrieved December 9, 2017.
61. ^ ^{a b} Stateman, Alison (December 29, 2008). "Lawsuits by the Disabled: Corruption of the Organisation?". Time. Archived from the original on March 15, 2021. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
62. ^ Parr v. 50 & Fifty Drive-Inn Eating place (D. Hawaii 2000) 96 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1082, citing and quoting, Committee Impress, Vol. II, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., at 1481–82 (1990); 42 The statesC. § 12101(b)(ii); S.Rep. No. 101-116, at fifteen (1989).
63. ^ Molski 5. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F.3d 1047, 1062; D'Lil 5. All-time Western Encina Lodge & Suites (9th Cir. 2008) 538 F.3d 1031, 1040.
64. ^ Smith v. Hotels.com Archived November 22, 2011, at the Wayback Machine at Disability Rights Advocates
65. ^ Green five. State of California , 452 F.Supp.2d 946 (North.D. Cal. 2007).
66. ^ "David Greenberg". ADA. Archived from the original on January 17, 2021. Retrieved Jan 21, 2021.
67. ^ National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. , 452 F.Supp.2nd 946 (Northward.D. Cal. 2006).
68. ^ National Federation for the Bullheaded v. Target Archived July 5, 2007, at the Wayback Machine at Inability Rights Advocates
69. ^ Board of Trustees of the Academy of Alabama 5. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001)
70. ^ "Barden v. Sacramento". Inability Rights Advocates. Archived from the original on July 17, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
71. ^ "BARDEN v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit". Findlaw. June 12, 2002. Archived from the original on July 17, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
72. ^ Spector five. Norwegian Prowl Line Ltd., 545 U.Southward. 119 (2005).
73. ^ ^{a b} Olmstead 5. Fifty.C., 527 U.Due south. 581 (1999).
74. ^ Erb, Robin. "U-One thousand fans rave nigh new seats for disabled", Detroit Costless Printing. September 9, 2008.
75. ^ Wolffe, Jerry. "New wheelchair seats will exist full at U-Yard's Large Firm." The Oakland Press. September 14, 2008.
76. ^ Wolffe, Jerry. "New wheelchair seats will be full at U-M's Big Business firm", The Oakland Press. September 14, 2008. /
77. ^ "Paralyzed Veterans, America 5. D.C. Arena, 117 F.3d 579 | Casetext". casetext.com. Archived from the original on July 14, 2019. Retrieved July 14, 2019.
78. ^ "Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Ellerbe Becket Architects United States' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant'due south Motion to Dismiss (7/10/96)" (PDF). ADA. Archived (PDF) from the original on October sixteen, 2020. Retrieved July 14, 2019.
79. ^ "U.S. 5. Ellerbe Becket, Inc, 976 F. Supp. 1262 | Casetext". casetext.com. Archived from the original on July fourteen, 2019. Retrieved July 14, 2019.
80. ^ ^{a b} Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).
81. ^ Worth, Richard (Nov 15, 2007). Workers' Rights. ISBN978-0-7614-2574-8. Archived from the original on October 20, 2021. Retrieved October vii, 2009.
82. ^ U.s.a. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002).
83. ^ "US AIRWAYS, INC. V. BARNETT". Cornell Academy Law School, Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on Feb 6, 2017. Retrieved September 20, 2016.
84. ^ "Social club Granting Accused'due south Motion to Dismiss". Tech Constabulary Journal. Archived from the original on June 13, 2011. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
85. ^ 17 U.Due south.C. § 501(b)
86. ^ Zamora-Quezada 5. HealthTexas Medical Group , 34 F. Supp. 2d 433 (W.D. Tex. 1998).
87. ^ Geyelin, Milo (January 26, 2000). "A Disabled Attorney's Novel Strategy Puts A Civil-Rights Spin on HMO Litigation". The Wall Street Journal. Wsj.com. Archived from the original on June two, 2016. Retrieved May 2, 2016.
88. ^ Campbell v. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp. , 407 F.3d 546 (1st Cir. 2005).
89. ^ Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.Due south. 509 (2004).
90. ^ Mears, Beak. "CNN.com - Court debates disabled admission liability - Jan. 13, 2004". world wide web.cnn.com. Archived from the original on August iv, 2020. Retrieved Jan 7, 2020.
91. ^ Mears, Nib. "CNN.com - Disabled win victory in ruling over access to government buildings - May 17, 2004". www.cnn.com. Archived from the original on August x, 2020. Retrieved Jan 7, 2020.

Further reading [edit]

• Acemoglu, Daron & Angrist, Joshua D. (2001). "Consequences of Employment Protection? The Case of the Americans with Disabilities Act". Journal of Political Economy. 109 (5): 915–957. CiteSeerX10.1.ane.510.623. doi:10.1086/322836. hdl:1721.1/63433. S2CID 15460395. {{cite periodical}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Bush, George H. Westward., Remarks of President George Bush-league at the Signing of the Americans with Disabilities Human activity. Available online at Equal Employment Opportunity Committee.
• Davis, Lennard J. Enabling Acts. The Subconscious Story of How the Americans with Disabilities Act Gave the Largest Us Minority Its Rights. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2015.
• DeLeire Thomas (2000). "The Wage and Employment Effects of the Americans with Disabilities Human action". Journal of Human Resources. 35 (4): 693–715. doi:ten.2307/146368. JSTOR 146368.
• Fielder, J. F. Mental Disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 2004.
• Hamilton Krieger, Linda, ed., Backfire Against the ADA: Reinterpreting Disability Rights Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003.
• Johnson, Mary. (2000). Make Them Get Away: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve & the Case Confronting Inability Rights. Louisville, KY: The Advocado Press.
• Mayer, Arlene. (1992). The History of the Americans with Disabilities Act: A Movement Perspective. Available online at the Disability Rights Pedagogy & Defense force Fund website
• O'Brien, Ruth, ed. Voices from the Edge: Narratives virtually the Americans with Disabilities Human activity. New York: Oxford, 2004. ISBN 0-19-515687-0
• Pletcher, David and Ashlee Russeau-Pletcher. History of the Civil Rights Movement for the Physically Disabled
• Schall, Carol K. (Jun 1998). The Americans with Disabilities Act—Are Nosotros Keeping Our Promise? An Analysis of the Effect of the ADA on the Employment of Persons with Disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, v10 n3 pp. 191–203.
• Schwochau, Susan & Blanck, Peter David. The Economics of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Part Three: Does the ADA Disable the Disabled? Berkeley Periodical of Employment & Labor Law [Vol. 21:271]
• Switzer, Jacqueline Vaughn. Disabled Rights: American Inability Policy and the Fight for Equality. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2003.
• Weber, Mark C. Disability Harassment. New York: NYU Press, 2007.

External links [edit]

This sound file was created from a revision of this article dated 9 April 2009 (2009-04-09), and does not reflect subsequent edits.

• Official website
• Department of Labor ADA page
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ADA page
• Navigable text of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 – 42 U.South. Code Affiliate 126
• Family unit Network on Disabilities FNDUSA.ORG—Florida Parent Training and Information Heart funded by DOED Offices of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

Share this post