ADA: A call for a change in language
But, if the Restoration act is passed, if a case comes up against the same Supreme Court, wouldn’t it interpret the provisions of the act just as narrowly?
the wording here doesn’t seem different enough to me to make a difference.
The critical element being corrected focuses on the issue of discrimination, rather than on the disability itself. The current terminology of “against an individual with a disability” would be replaced with “on the basis of a disability.” The revised language would then mirror the language of the ADA with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights laws that base discrimination “on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex.” The new language would presume an individual is a member of the protected class if he or she is disabled, contrary to the current provisions.
bridgett said,
December 7, 2006 at 9:05 am
As I understand it, this is a somewhat significant change. Right now, each person with a disability is considered as an individual — you know, requiring an individual accomodation so each time the party in question has to negotiate as an individual, bear the cost of the suit as an individual, etc. This is punitive, especially given the economic realities of disabled America. The change in law (help me out, people who are more versed in law than I am) converts all these individuals into a CLASS of people with common rights, a shared history/pattern of discrimination, and commonly held paths to remedy. I think it starts to shift the burden from each individual onto the state to protect the interests of this class of people. Whether people who are deaf (and thus are perhaps better thought of as a subculture rather than disabled), people who are mobility-impaired, people who are born without limbs, people who experience mental illnesses, etc are going to be happy being thought of as a “class” is a different and important matter. I am guessing, however, that this is a way to give a little more muscle to ADA as a vehicle for remedying discrimination. The harm is in the discrimination, which is an insight that the courts sometimes lose focus on while endlessly parsing whether this or that “counts” as a disability.
Altogether, I’d say that this is a success for those who have advocated for a “disability rights” movement (there’s a normative human body and there are many of us whose bodily and mental functioning do not correspond with these norms) and a setback for people who want to move towards a broad-spectrum acceptance of bodily/ability difference as normatively human. I guess whether you think this is a good thing depends on your philosophy about disability.
bridgett said,
December 7, 2006 at 9:05 am
As I understand it, this is a somewhat significant change. Right now, each person with a disability is considered as an individual — you know, requiring an individual accomodation so each time the party in question has to negotiate as an individual, bear the cost of the suit as an individual, etc. This is punitive, especially given the economic realities of disabled America. The change in law (help me out, people who are more versed in law than I am) converts all these individuals into a CLASS of people with common rights, a shared history/pattern of discrimination, and commonly held paths to remedy. I think it starts to shift the burden from each individual onto the state to protect the interests of this class of people. Whether people who are deaf (and thus are perhaps better thought of as a subculture rather than disabled), people who are mobility-impaired, people who are born without limbs, people who experience mental illnesses, etc are going to be happy being thought of as a “class” is a different and important matter. I am guessing, however, that this is a way to give a little more muscle to ADA as a vehicle for remedying discrimination. The harm is in the discrimination, which is an insight that the courts sometimes lose focus on while endlessly parsing whether this or that “counts” as a disability.
Altogether, I’d say that this is a success for those who have advocated for a “disability rights” movement (there’s a normative human body and there are many of us whose bodily and mental functioning do not correspond with these norms) and a setback for people who want to move towards a broad-spectrum acceptance of bodily/ability difference as normatively human. I guess whether you think this is a good thing depends on your philosophy about disability.
imfunnytoo said,
December 7, 2006 at 12:43 pm
I’m such a cynic…I read this language and I don’t see hope. I see an increase in what’s already occuring “desk jobs” with the phrase “must be able to lift 50 lbs” written into them. I see a court no longer able to “de-classify” individuals with impairments expanding the range of what is an “undue” hardship on a business.
They’ll just push against pieces of the language that haven’t been altered.
imfunnytoo said,
December 7, 2006 at 12:43 pm
I’m such a cynic…I read this language and I don’t see hope. I see an increase in what’s already occuring “desk jobs” with the phrase “must be able to lift 50 lbs” written into them. I see a court no longer able to “de-classify” individuals with impairments expanding the range of what is an “undue” hardship on a business.
They’ll just push against pieces of the language that haven’t been altered.