There are about 54 million Americans or one-fifth of the total population of the U.S.A is living with some form of disability. Hence, to safeguard the interests of these vulnerable sectors, American Disability Act was introduced in 1992. The main intention of the Act is that civilians receiving benefits or services through the measures of local and state governments may not be differentiated on the fundamentals of the individual’s physical disabilities. This Act has prevented showing discrimination against disabled individuals in employment and offered enhanced access to public facilities.
The main objective of the Americans Disability Act, 1992 [ADA] is to thwart showing discrimination against persons with disabilities. The Act is not as clear as it has not explained different varieties of disabilities that fall under this statute. Congress has not defined the varied types of disabilities but whether or not a specific physical incapacity rises to the extent of a disability is being determined on a case by case basis.
A disability has been defined under ADA as “mental or physical mutilation that significantly restricts one or many of the major life functions of such persons. ADA coverage is wide and it covers local, state governments, and the private sector also.
ADA also safeguards the civil rights of those with physical or mental disabilities and such rights cannot be refused to them under the Civil Rights Act. In the illustrious judgment namely Tennessee v. Lane, the court held that if a court was unreachable to a handicapped individual, that individual was permitted to sue even the courts for denying such rights. Under ADA, employers are required to transform the workplace to accommodate those with impairment.
The present ADA has fallen short of some perceived aims and especially, discrimination in employment remains a major cause of concern. Among the scores of litigations filed with the Employment Opportunity Commission over the last two decades, about 60% of such litigations were unsuccessful since the authority could not seek “reasonable cause “to make a decision in favor of employees. In the first 10 years of the introduction of ADA, about 83% of ADA complainants failed in their appeals in federal courts to get relief. Respondents were able to be successful in these cases due to the fact that the court’s narrow interpretations of ADA. Hence, the U.S. government has introduced the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 [ADAAA] to address these issues and its passage is still pending. [Meneghello et al 22].
American Disabilities Act Amendment Act is making some transformation in the definition of disability due to the recent Supreme Court verdict in Sutton v.United Airlines thereby denying the mitigating steps which will reject many disabled persons legitimate claims under the safeguard offered by ADA. Further, the proposed amendment also limits the limited interpretation of “substantiality limits “used in Toyota Motor Mfg. case. [Grossman n.d]
Moreover, under the present ADA, many legal cases have lost their stand on the interpretation of the ‘disability ‘stage itself and this has negated the genuine claims of discrimination interpreted on merits.
Supreme Court was of the view in Toyota’s case that the act has to be construed by interpreting with “a changing scenario or demanding standard” for its coverage.
Some critics have argued that under ADA, the disabled earn less and work far less than they were entitled prior to the introduction of ADA. According to Daron Acemoglu, an economist, since 1997, employers have witnessed more than 40,000 legal suits per annum under the ADA and they spent about $ 1, 70,000 on average to protect their interest. It is to be observed that labor markets are intricate in nature and it is undesirable to intervene in them to generate specific results.
U.S business communities are arguing that the ADAAA will empower individuals with negligent or phony medical conditions to claim benefits from employers thereby not only troubling the business community and but also minimizing the employment opportunities for disabled people. However, this is untrue as ADAAA permits benefits to those disabled persons which limit their major life activities. Further, the education community is of the opinion that the enlargement of the “disability “definition will compromise academic standards and this is also untrue as courts have offered reverence in deciding whether a proposed accommodation is matching with academic standards or not. [Bagenstos n.d].
The insertion of new Subsection 5[A] in the ADAAA will be helping to construe the definition of “disability” in a broad manner rather than in a narrower perspective as laid down in Sutton and Toyota cases. Thus, this will serve as a tool to find a solution when there is equivocalness rather than employed to beget one.
Further, there is an ambiguity in defining the substantially in the present ADA and courts have used this vagueness to inflict on the ADA the minutest possible elucidation of the term. By incorporating Section 3[2] in the ADA, ADAAA is offering a solution to this narrower interpretation hitherto followed by courts.
Thus, ADAAA is the right step towards this end and will address the major issues created by the limited judicial decisions on the interpretation of “disability.”
Works Cited
Andrew Grossman, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, and Heritage Foundation. “Americans with Disabilities Act.” FDCH Congressional Testimony (n.d.). Master FILE Premier. Web.
Bagenstos, Samuel R. “Americans with Disabilities Act “FDCH Congressional Testimony. Master FILE Premier. Web.
Meneghello, Richard, and Helen Russon. “Creating a Movement: The First 18 Years of the ADA.” Momentum (19403410) 1.4 (Fall2008 2008): 21-25. Master FILE Premier. Web.