This research examines changing public human resources obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). During the first 12 years after ADA implementation, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several rulings that narrowly construed who qualified as disabled (Albertson's v. Kirkingburg; Murphy v. United Parcel Services; Sutton v. United Airlines; Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams). In 2008, Congress responded to these judicial interpretations by specifically rejecting the Supreme Court's analysis and unequivocally stating the intent to expand the scope of protection under the ADA. This interbranch dialog over ADA interpretation challenges public employers to predict responsibilities under shifting ADA requirements. Furthermore, analysis suggests that both the original statute and the 2008 Amendments Act suffer from a lack of clarity regarding who qualifies as disabled. Public human resource managers must evaluate how best to meet their ADA obligations in this climate of legal ambiguity and fiscal uncertainty. Legal Briefat WEST VIRGINA UNIV on April 12, 2015 rop.sagepub.com Downloaded from of 1990. Congress mandated employer responsibilities in the ADA, the Supreme Court then narrowed the scope of ADA protection in several key cases, and Congress recently responded with amendments that specifically rejected the High Court's interpretation. While the judicial and legislative branches debate the extent of the ADA's protections, public human resource managers may be left questioning how to avoid disobeying the ADA's requirements for EEO.The recent amendments to obligations under the ADA suggest a key question: What are the most significant human resource implications of the changes to the ADA? This analysis considers the recent judicial interpretation and legislative revisions that influence requirements under Title I of the ADA to consider how public employers can best respond to changing ADA obligations.The ADA provides expansive protection against discrimination based on disability in public services, public accommodation, communications, and employment. Consequently, the scope of the ADA's impact on public employers' operations is very broad. Title I of the ADA protects persons with disabilities from workplace discrimination and during the period between 1999 and 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several landmark decisions that interpreted the scope of coverage under Title I narrowly (Albertson's v.

This article reports the results of a survey designed to assess the extent to which public administrators are knowledgeable of federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) law. Findings suggest that there is significant variation among county administrators and department heads in their levels of knowledge, and that they are more familiar with Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 than they are with other laws examined. Those who have had employment law training, who hold a Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree, and who serve as human resources directors are more knowledgeable than others. Female administrators are more knowledgeable in some aspects of the law than their male counterparts.

We argue that the proliferation of governance in the public sector has raised questions regarding individual constitutional rights. While some proclaim cost savings and entrepreneurial solutions to vexing social ills, others suspect that these benefits donʼt outweigh the risk of diminished accountability and the loss of constitutional protection over public service production. We propose a new model to examine the relationships between direct government, governance, public value, and public law value. We apply this model to analyze two landmark Supreme Court cases and one contemporary federal appellate court case to explore the ongoing tension between the governance model and public service production. Our findings suggest that enforcible contract language and public-private entwinement can be used as tools to protect constitutional rights in the face of increasing pressure of governance approaches.

No abstract

No abstract