Amending the Americans with Disabilities Act

Abstract

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.

Accessibility and digital media: exploring economic and social opportunities for inclusive design

“…2015 marks a celebratory anniversary for two important accessibility legislations; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which came into effect in 1990, as well as the tenth anniversary of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) (Rush, 2012;Ross, 2013;Flaherty & Roussy, 2014). The joint milestone anniversary in combination with the Pan-American and Para Pan-American games, which took place in Toronto this summer, have put accessibility at the forefront of discussion.…”

“…One minority group was notably missing from any mentioning in those legislations, that of people with disabilities, leading to the eventual enactment of the ADA in 1990 (Karger & Rose, 2010). The ADA consists of five main titles; employment, public services, public accommodations, telecommunications services, and miscellaneous provisions, respectively (Karger & Rose, 2010;Rush, 2012). The ADA is enforced through specialized federal agencies, and though generally considered vigorous in nature, it allows for some flexibility, specifically within the parameters of the first and second titles (Karger & Rose, 2010).…”

“…A recurring criticism of the ADA is in relation to the definition of 'disability' and the criterion upon which individuals are assessed on whether they qualify for protection under the ADA (Cox, 2012;Rush, 2012). An amendment to the ADA came in 2008 as a response to the courts' focus on the medical model, and thus the definition of 'disability' as a physical or mental impairment (Cox, 2012).…”

“…An amendment to the ADA came in 2008 as a response to the courts' focus on the medical model, and thus the definition of 'disability' as a physical or mental impairment (Cox, 2012). The amendment included more explicit terms for ADA beneficiary qualifications; these include relaxation of the severity threshold for ADA beneficiaries, elimination of durational requirements for ADA coverage, and the coverage of work limitations such as pregnancy (Cox, 2012;Rush, 2012). Recent census data shows that the ADA has not been successful in making a dramatic improvement to the economic well being and overall quality of life for those individuals living with a disability (Karger & Rose, 2010).…”