The America with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.Ã, Ã,§Ã, 12101) is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. It provides the same protection against discrimination against Americans with disabilities as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which discriminates on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, and other illegal characteristics. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, ADA also requires closed entrepreneurs to provide decent accommodation for employees with disabilities, and impose accessibility requirements on public accommodation.
In 1986, the National Council for Disability had recommended the enactment of an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and drafted the first version of the bill 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 HW Bush. It was later amended in 2008 and signed by President George W. Bush with effective changes on January 1, 2009.
Video Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Disabilities include
The ADA's inability includes both mental and physical medical conditions. A condition need not be heavy or permanent to become disabled. The Regulation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provides a list of conditions that should be easily summed up as defects: deafness, blindness, intellectual disability (formerly called mental retardation), partial or complete loss of limb or mobility impairment requiring wheelchair use, autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia. Other mental or physical health conditions may also be defective, depending on what individual symptoms will be in the absence of "mitigation measures" (medications, therapies, auxiliaries, or other means to restore function), during an "active episode" of the condition (if the condition episodic).
Certain specific conditions that are widely considered anti-social, or tend to produce illegal activities, such as kleptomania, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, etc. Excluded under the definition of "defect" to prevent abuse of statutory purposes. In addition, other specific conditions, such as gender identity disorder, are also excluded by the definition of "defects".
Maps Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Title
Title I - job
See also US labor law and 42 U.S.C.Ã,§Ã,§Ã, 12111-12117.
ADA states that "closed entity" will not discriminate against "qualified individuals with disabilities". This applies to job application procedures, hiring, promotion and exemption of employees, job training, and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment. "Closed companies" include employers with 15 or more employees, as well as employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint work management committees. There are strict limits on when closed entities can ask job applicants or questions related to the inability of employees or require them to undergo medical examinations, and all medical information should be kept confidential.
Prohibited discrimination may include, inter alia, dismissal or refusal to employ a person on the basis of apparent or perceived disability, segregation and harassment based on disability. Closed companies are also required to provide reasonable accommodation for job applicants and employees with disabilities. Reasonable accommodation is a change in things that are usually done by people in need because of disability, and may include, among other things, specialized equipment that allows the person to do the work, schedule changes, and change how it works. tasks selected or communicated. An employer is not required to provide accommodation that would involve undue difficulties (significant difficulties or costs), and the individual receiving the accommodation must keep performing important functions of the job and meeting normal performance requirements. Employees or applicants who are currently engaged in the use of illegal drugs are not considered eligible when closed entities take adverse action on the basis of such use.
There are many ways to discriminate people on the basis of disability, including psychological ones. Anyone who is known to have a history of mental illness may be considered a defect. Employers with more than 15 employees should be careful to treat all employees fairly and with all accommodation needs. Even when an employee does a very good job, he or she is no longer not disabled; employers should continue to follow all policies for the disabled.
Part of the Title I was found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court as it relates to states in the case of the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett as a violation of sovereign immunity from several states. as determined by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The court ruled that state employees could not sue their employers for violating ADA rules. State employees may, however, file a complaint in the Department of Justice or the Commission for Cooperation Opportunities, which may prosecute on their behalf.
Title II - public entities (and public transport)
Title II prohibits discrimination of disability by all public entities at the local level, for example. , school district, city, city, or district, and at the state level. Public entities must comply with Title II rules by the US Department of Justice. This rule covers access to all programs and services offered by the entity. Access includes the physical access described in the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and programmatic access that may be hampered by the discriminatory policies or procedures of that entity.
Title II applies to public transport provided by public entities through regulations by the US Department of Transport. These include the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), along with all other commuter authorities. This section requires the provision of paratransit services by public entities providing fixed route services. ADA also sets minimum requirements for spatial planning to facilitate the convenience of wheelchairs on public transport.
Title II also applies to all state and local public housing, housing assistance, and housing referrals. The same Fair Housing Office and Opportunities are charged by enforcing this provision.
Title III - general accommodation (and commercial facilities)
Under Title III, no individual may be subject to discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities or accommodation of any place of common accommodation by anyone owning, renting, or operating a public accommodation venue. Public accommodations include most lodging (such as lodging and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and meals, along with shops, care providers, and public venues.
Under Title III of the ADA, all new construction (construction, modification or amendments) after the effective date of ADA (approximately July 1992) must be fully compliant with the American Accountability Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) found in the Federal Code of Regulation at 28 CFR, Section 36, Attachment A .
Title III also has applications for existing facilities. One definition of "discrimination" under Title III of the ADA is the "failure to eliminate" architectural barriers in existing facilities. See 42 U.S.C.Ã,§Ã, 12182 (b) (2) (A) (iv) . This means that even facilities that have not been modified or altered in any way after the ADA are passed still have an obligation. The default is whether "removing barriers" (usually defined as bringing conditions into compliance with ADAAG) is "easily achieved", defined as "... easily achieved without much difficulty or cost".
The statutory definition of "ready-to-reach" calls for a balance test between the proposed cost of "fixing" and by way of business and/or business owners. Thus, what may be "readily achievable" for sophisticated and financially capable companies may not be easily attainable for small or local businesses.
There are exceptions to this title; many private clubs and religious organizations are not bound by Title III. With respect to historic properties (listed or eligible properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or property designated as historic under state or local law), such facilities shall continue to comply with the provisions of Title III of the ADA to " to the maximum extent possible "but if following the usual standard would" threaten to destroy the historical significance of building features "then alternative standards can be used.
In 2010, revisions to the Justice Department's regulations, newly constructed or altered swimming pools, wading pools and spas should have accessible and accessible access to the pool for people with disabilities. However, the requirement is conditioned on whether providing access through a fixed elevator is "easy to achieve". Other requirements exist, based on pool size, including providing a number of accessible and accessible means of entry, described in Section 242 of the standard. However, businesses are free to consider the difference in the application of rules depending on whether the pool is new or changed, or whether the pool was there before the effective date of the new rule. Full compliance may not be required for existing facilities; Sections 242 and 1009 of the Standard 2010 describe such exceptions.
Animal service
ADA provides explicit coverage for animal services. Guidelines have been developed not only to protect persons with disabilities, but also to compensate businesses for damages related to granting access to animal services in their premises. Businesses are allowed to ask whether the animal is a service animal and ask what tasks are trained to do, but they are not allowed to ask the service animals to perform the task or ask for a special ID from the animal. They can not ask what is meant by a person's disability. A person with a disability can not be removed from a place unless one of two things happens: the animal is out of control and the owner can not control it (eg an uncontrollable barking dog in a restaurant), or the animal is a direct threat to the health and safety of the community. Allergies and fears about animals will not be considered a threat to human health and safety, so that would not be a legitimate reason to deny access to people with servant animals. Businesses that prepare or serve food should allow animals and service owners in place even if state or local health laws prohibit animals in place. In this case, a business that prepares or serves food is not required to provide care or food for animal servicing, nor does it have to provide a designated area for service animals to use the bathroom. Lastly, people who need service dogs are not subject to additional fees for their service dogs or are treated unfairly, for example, isolated from people in restaurants. Persons with disabilities can not be considered "less than" other customers. However, if a business normally charges a person for damage caused by the person to the property, a customer with a disability will be charged for damage to his property to the property.
Title IV - telecom
Title IV of the ADA amended the Major Communications Act of 1934 primarily by adding a section 47 USC Ã,§ 225. This section requires all telecommunications companies in the US to take steps to ensure functional services equivalent to consumers with disabilities, especially those the deaf or deaf and those with speech disorders. When Title IV took effect in the early 1990s, it caused the installation of public teletypewriter machines (TTY) and other TDD (telecommunications equipment for the hearing impaired). The title IV also leads to the creation, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, from what came to be called a two-party relay service and is now known as Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), such as the STS relay. Currently, many TRS mediation calls are made over the Internet by consumers using broadband connections. Some are Video Relay Service calls (VRS), while others are text calls. In any variation, the communication assistant translates between signed or typed words from consumers and words spoken by others. In 2006, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), VRS calls an average of two million minutes a month.
Title V - other provisions
Title V includes technical provisions. This discusses, for example, the fact that nothing in the ADA alters, overrides or invalidates anything in Section 504. Additionally, Title V includes provisions of anti-revenge or coercion. The Manual Technical Assistance for ADA describes this provision:
"III-3.6000 Retaliation or coercion Individuals exercising their rights under the ADA, or assisting others in exercising their rights, are protected against retaliation The prohibition against retaliation or coercion applies to any individual or entity that seeks to prevent a person from exercising his/her rights or retaliate against him for exercising such rights... Any form of retaliation or coercion, including threats, intimidation, or harassment, is prohibited if intended to intervene. "
History
ADA has its roots in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Drafting
The idea of ​​a federal law that increased and expanded civil rights law for millions of disabled Americans received bipartisan support in late 1988 and early 1989. In early 1989 both Congress and the newly inaugurated White House Bush worked separately, then together, to write legislation capable of expanding civil rights without imposing undue damage or costs on those already in compliance with existing rules and laws.
Lobby
Over the years, key activists and supporters have played an important role in lobbying US Congressmen to develop and forward the ADA, including Justin Whitlock Dart, Jr., Patrisha Wright, and others.
Ms. Wright is known as "General" for her work in coordinating campaigns to enforce ADA. He is widely regarded as the main force behind the lobbying campaign for the ADA.
Support and conflict
Support
On the importance of creating inclusive job opportunities, Shirley Davis, director of global diversity and inclusion in the Society for Human Resource Management, said: "Disabled people are a collection of underserved and underutilized critical talents."
Opposition from religious group
The debate about America with Disabilities Act causes some religious groups to take an opposite position. The International Christian School Association, opposed to the ADA in its original form. especially since the ADA is labeled a "public accommodation" religious institution, and thus will require the church to make costly structural changes to ensure access to all. The cost arguments put forward by ACSI and others apply in keeping religious institutions from being labeled "public accommodations".
Church groups such as the National Association of Evangelicals testify against the provisions of the ADA Title employment on the grounds of religious freedom. NAE believes that the organization's internal work arrangements are "... improper interference from the federal government."
Opposition of business interests
Many members of the business community oppose America with Disabilities Act. Testifying before Congress, Greyhound Bus Lines declared that the action has the potential to "rob millions of people of affordable inter-city public transport and thousands of rural communities from their sole contact to the outside world." The US Chamber of Commerce believes that the cost of the ADA will be "enormous" and has "adverse impact on many small businesses that are struggling to survive." The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that lobbied for small businesses, called the ADA "a disaster for small businesses." Pro-business conservative commentators joined the opposition, writing that America's Disabilities Act is "an expensive headache for millions" that does not always improve the lives of people with disabilities.
"Capitol Crawl"
Shortly before the action was passed, disability rights activists physically merged in front of the Capitol Building, unleashed crutches, wheelchairs, electric chairs, and other auxiliary equipment, and immediately began to crawl and pull their bodies over 100 steps ahead of the Capitol, without warning. When activists do so, many of them shout "ADA now", and "Choose, Now". Some activists who remained at the bottom of the stairs held signs and shouted words of encouragement in "Capitol Crawlers". Jennifer Keelan, a second-grade student with cerebral palsy, recorded as she pulled herself up the stairs, using most of her hands and arms, saying, "I'll spend the night if I have to." This direct action is reported to have some "uncomfortable" senators and has prompted them to approve the action. Although there are people who do not attribute much to this overall action, the 1990 "Capitol Crawl" is seen by some of the current disability activists in the United States as the primary action to push the ADA into law.
Last section
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) wrote what became his final bill and became his main sponsor in the Senate. Harkin delivered part of his preliminary speech in sign language, saying it so that his relatives could understand.
When signing the act, George H. W. Bush said:
I know there are concerns that the ADA may be too vague or too expensive, or it may cause litigation without interruption. But I want to assure you now that my government and the United States Congress have carefully compiled this Law. We are all determined to ensure that it provides flexibility, especially in terms of implementation schedule; and we have committed to bear the costs that may be incurred.... Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally collapse.
ADA Amendment Act, 2008
ADA defines the disability covered as a physical or mental disorder that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a history of having such interference, or is deemed to have such a disorder. The Commission for Cooperation Opportunities (EEOC) is accused of interpreting the 1990 law relating to discrimination in employment. EEOC developed a regulation that limits individual damage to one that "severely or severely limits" major life activities. ADAAA directs EEOC to amend its rules and replace "very or significantly" with a "substantial limit", a softer standard.
On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the ADA Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAAA) into law. This amendment expands the definition of "disability", thereby extending the protection of ADA to more people. The ADAAA is also added to the ADA example of "major life events" including, but not limited to, "taking care of yourself, performing manual tasks, seeing, listening, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, talking, , learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working "as well as the operation of some of the major body functions . The law annulled a 1999 US Supreme Court case stating that an employee is not disabled if the disorder can be corrected by mitigation measures; it specifically states that such interference shall be determined without regard to such ameliorative action. It also void the court's restriction that a reduction that substantially limits one major life activity must also limit others to be considered disabled. In 2008, the United States Committee on Education and Labor stated that the amendment "makes it very clear that the ADA is intended to provide broad coverage to protect anyone facing discrimination on the basis of disability." Thus ADAAA causes a wider scope of employees who are disrupted.
25th_anniversary.2C_2015 "> 25th birthday, 2015
By 2015 ADA has increased access to public services, built environment (eg crossings with cutting sidewalks and pedestrian signals accessible), an understanding of disabled abilities, establishing the right to equal access to public services and has demonstrated the contribution that can be made by persons with disabilities to the economy. Gaps remain in employment, incomes gained, Internet access, transportation, housing, and educational attainment and disability continue to be disadvantaged with respect to health and health care.
Reaction
Criticism
Jobs
The ADA has been criticized on the grounds that it reduces the employment rate for people with disabilities and increases the cost of doing business for entrepreneurs, largely because of additional legal risks, avoided by employers by secretly avoiding employing people with disabilities. Some researchers believe that the law has been ineffective. Between 1991 (after the introduction of ADA) and 1995, the level of employment of men with disabilities decreased by 7.8% regardless of age, level of education, or type of disability, with the most affected being young men, less educated and mentally disabled. Despite many criticisms, the causal relationship between ADA and the decline in employment of persons with disabilities during much of the 1990s has not been identified with certainty.
In 2001, for men of all working and women aged under 40 years, Current Population Survey data showed a sharp decline in the work of disabled workers, which caused at least two economists to link causes to the Act. In contrast, a 2003 study found that although the Act may have caused short-term reactions by employers, in the long run, there were positive or neutral consequences for wages and employment. In 2005 the employment rate among the disabled increased to 45% of the disabled population.
"Plaintiffs professional"
Since law enforcement began in July 1992, it has quickly become a major component of labor law. ADA allows private plaintiffs to receive only compensation (a court order requiring public accommodation to fix a breach of accessibility rules) and attorney fees, and not to reward money to private plaintiffs demanding non-compliant businesses. Unless state law, such as the California Civil Rights Act, provides monetary damages to private plaintiffs, persons with disabilities do not get direct financial benefit from suing businesses that violate the ADA.
The provision of attorney's fees from Title III does provide an incentive for lawyers to specialize and engage in serial ADA litigation, but the disabled plaintiff does not receive financial rewards from attorneys' fees unless they act as their own attorneys, or as mentioned above, a plaintiff are in a state that provides minimum compensation and court costs in lawsuits. In addition, there may be benefits to "private public prosecutors" who identify and force the correction of illegal conditions: they can increase the amount of public accommodation accessible to persons with disabilities. "Civil rights law relies heavily on private enforcement, and inclusion of punishment and damages is a driving force that facilitates voluntary compliance with the ADA." The court noted:
As a result, most of the ADA clothes are carried by a small number of private plaintiffs who see themselves as champions for the disabled. In order for ADA to provide its promise of equal access for persons with disabilities, it may be necessary and desirable for individuals committed to bringing serial litigation that advances the time when public accommodation will conform to the ADA. "
However, in states that have enacted laws that allow private individuals to win monetary awards from non-compliant businesses (in 2008, these included California, Florida, Hawaii, and Illinois), "professional plaintiffs" are usually found. At least one of the plaintiffs in California has been banned by the court from filing a lawsuit unless he receives prior court clearance. By the end of the fiscal year 1998, 86% of 106,988 ADAs filed and settled by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission were dropped or investigated and dismissed by the EEOC but not without burdening the opportunity and legal costs of the employer.
Case law
There are several important cases concerning ADA. For example, two big hotel room marketers (Expedia.com and Hotels.com) with their business presence on the Internet are sued because of their disabled customers can not book a hotel room, through their website without the great extra effort that people without disabilities not required to do. It represents the main potential expansion of the ADA in this case, and other similar clothing (known as "brick vs. clicks"), seeks to extend the ADA's authority to the virtual world, where the entity may not have the actual physical facilities necessary to comply.
National Federation Blind v. Target Corporation
National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation is a case where a large retailer, Target Corp., is sued for their web designer failing to design his website to allow people with low or no vision to use it.
Alabama University Board of Trustees v. Garrett
Alabama University Board of Trustees v. Garrett is the case of the United States Supreme Court on the strength of congressional enforcement under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. It was decided that Title I of America with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed private citizens to sue the state for damages of money.
Barden v. Sacramento City
Barden v. Sacramento City , filed in March 1999, claimed that Sacramento City failed to comply with the ADA when, when making public road improvements, it did not make the sidewalks compliant with the ADA. Certain issues are resolved in the Federal Court. One problem, whether the sidewalk is covered by the ADA, is submitted to the Circuit Court of Appeals 9, which decides that the sidewalks are "programs" under the ADA and should be accessible to persons with disabilities. The ruling was later filed with the US Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case, allowing the decision of the Circuit Court 9.
Bates v. UPS
Bates v. UPS (started in 1999) is the first opportunity equivalent to a working class act committed on behalf of deaf and hard to hear (d/deaf/HoH) workers across the country with discrimination at work. This sets a legal precedent for Deaf/HoH Employees/Customers and Customers to be fully protected by ADA. Key findings include
- UPS fails to overcome communication barriers and to ensure equal conditions and opportunities for deaf employed;
- Deaf employees are routinely exempted from workplace information, deny opportunities for promotion, and are exposed to unsafe conditions due to lack of accommodation by UPS;
- The UPS also has no system to alert these employees of emergencies, such as fires or chemical spills, to ensure that they will safely evacuate their facilities; and
- The UPS does not have a policy to ensure that the deaf applicant and the employee actually receive effective communication in the workplace.
The result is that UPS agreed to pay a $ 5.8 million award and approved a comprehensive accommodation program implemented at their facilities across the country.
Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.
Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2005. The defendant believes that as a ship flying the flag of a foreign country is exempt from the requirements of the ADA. This argument was received by a federal court in Florida and, later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the US Supreme Court overturned lower court rulings on the grounds that the Norwegian Cruise Lines is a business headquartered in the United States whose clients are predominantly Americans and, more importantly, operate outside port facilities throughout the United States. Olmstead v. L.C.
Olmstead v. L.C. was the case before the United States Supreme Court in 1999. The two plaintiffs L.C. and E.W. instituted in Georgia for the diagnosis of mental retardation and schizophrenia. The clinical judgment by the state determines that the plaintiff can be treated appropriately in a community setting rather than a state institution. The plaintiffs are suing the state of Georgia and the agency for being mistreated and placed in institutional arrangements rather than being treated in one of the nation's community-based care facilities.
The Supreme Court ruled by Title II of the ADA that mental illness is a form of disability and is therefore included in the ADA, and that the unreasonable institutional isolation of a person with disability is a form of discrimination because "... perpetuates the unwarranted assumption that such an isolated person incompetent or unfit to participate in community life. "The court added," Confinement at an institution greatly reduces the daily activities of the individual life, including family relations, social contact, employment choice, economic independence, educational progress, and cultural enrichment. "
Therefore, under Title II, no person with a disability may be unfairly exempted from participation in or denied the benefit of any service, program or activity of any public entity.
Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America v. University of Michigan
This is a case filed before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan's Southern Division on behalf of the American Michigan Lame Veteran against the University of Michigan - Michigan Stadium claimed that the Michigan Stadium violated the Americans with Disabilities Act at $ 226-million renovations by not adding enough seats for fans who are handicapped or accommodate the need for disabled toilets, concessions and parking. In addition, affordable seating distribution becomes a problem, with almost all seats reserved in the final zone area. The US Justice Department assists in a lawsuit filed by lawyer Richard Bernstein of The Law Offices of Sam Bernstein in Farmington Hills, Michigan, completed in March 2008. The settlement requires the stadium to add 329 wheelchair chairs throughout the stadium in 2010, and additional 135 seats are accessible at the clubhouse to go along with the existing 88 wheelchair seats. This case is important because it sets a precedent for the uniform distribution of the accessible seats and gives the DOJ an opportunity to clarify previously obscure rules. The deal now is a blueprint for all stadiums and other public facilities on accessibility.
Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Ellerbe Becket Architects and Engineers
One of the first major ADA lawsuits, Paralyzed Veterans of America (or "PVA") v. Ellerbe Becket Architects and Engineers (1996) focuses on wheelchair access from stadium projects that are still in the design phase, MCI Center (now known as Capital One Arena) in Washington, DC Earlier in this case, only five years after ADA is authorized, DOJ can not or will not provide clarification on the distribution requirements for wheelchair accessible locations in large assembly rooms. While Section 4.33.3 of ADAAG refers to the line of sight, no specific reference is made to see more of the standing patrons. MCI Center, designed by Ellerbe Becket Architects & amp; Engineers, designed with too few wheelchairs and chairs, and the people inserted did not provide a line of sight that would allow wheelchair users to see the play area while the audience in front of them stood up. This and other related cases set precedents in the distribution of seats and the problem of sight lines for ADA enforcement that continues to this day.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams , is a case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the phrase "substantially destructive" as used in America with Disabilities Act. This reverses the decision of the Sixth Court of Appeal to provide a partial summary assessment in favor of respondent, Ella Williams, who qualifies her inability to do work-related work as a person with a disability. The Court held that the definition of "primary life activity" in evaluating the performance of manual tasks focused on whether Williams could not perform many important tasks for most people in carrying out daily life activities. The problem is not whether Williams can not do specific job tasks. Therefore, the determination of whether the damage rises to the level of disability is not limited to workplace activity, but rather to manual tasks in life in general. When the Supreme Court adopted this standard, it was found that the Court of Appeals had wrongly determined the existence of a person with a disability for relying solely on his inability to perform certain manual labor tasks, which were insufficient in proving the existence of a person with a disability. The Court of Appeal should consider the evidence presented that Williams retained the ability to perform personal and domestic chores, the activity being the nature of the tasks most people do in their daily lives, and putting too much emphasis on the disability of their work. Since the evidence shows that Williams was performing normal daily chores, it was decided that the Court of Appeal was mistaken when it discovered that Williams was disabled. This verdict now, however, is no longer a good law - it is not valid by ADAAA. In fact, Congress explicitly quotes Toyota v. Williams in the text of ADAAA itself as one of the driving influence to divert ADAAA.
US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett
Decided by the US Supreme Court in 2002, the case states that even accommodation requests that may seem reasonable on their face, for example, transfer to different positions can be rendered absurd because it would require a violation of the company's seniority system. While the court stated that, in general, a violation of the seniority system makes reasonable accommodation unreasonable, the plaintiff may provide evidence that, regardless of the seniority system, the accommodation is reasonable in the specific case, for example, the plaintiff may offer evidence that the seniority is so often ignored that other exceptions will not make a difference.
Importantly, the court stated that the defendant did not need to provide evidence that the specific application of this seniority system would apply, and that, after the accused indicated that the accommodation violated the seniority system, it fell to Barnett to show that it made sense.
In this case, Barnett was a US Airways employee who injured his back, making him physically unable to do cargo handling work. Borrowing seniority, he was transferred to less demanding mailroom work, but this position then became open to seniority-based offerings and was bidded by more senior employees. Barnett asked for accommodation to be allowed to remain in the less demanding mailroom work. US Airways rejected his request, and he lost his job.
The Supreme Court ruling abolished the two approaches of the district courts, which found that the existence and importance of the seniority system alone was sufficient to ensure the conclusion of a decision in favor of US Airways, as well as a circuit court approach that interpreted 'reasonable accommodation' as' effective accommodation. '
Access Now v. Southwest Airlines
Access Now v. Southwest Airlines is a case in which the District Court ruled that the Southwest Airlines website did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, because ADA cares about things in physical existence and thus can not be applied to cyberspace. Judge Patricia A. Seitz found that the "virtual ticket counter" of the website was a virtual construction, and therefore not a "public place of accommodation." Thus, "To expand the ADA to cover the 'virtual' space is to create new rights without a well-defined standard."
Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.
Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. follow in the footsteps of Access Now by stating that only online presence is not subject to the website for ADA guidance. Thus Myspace and YouTube are not responsible for the inability of a dyslexia to navigate the site regardless of how impressive the "online theater" is.
Author Guild v. HathiTrust
Author Guild v. HathiTrust is a case in which the District Court ruled that HathiTrust's digital library was, the fair use of a transformative copyrighted work, made a large number of written texts available to those who have a printing disability.
Zamora-Quezada v. HealthTexas Medical Group
Zamora-Quezada v. HealthTexas Medical Group (started in 1998) was the first time this action was used against HMO when a new lawsuit filed by Texas lawyer Robert Provan against five HMOs for their practice of lifting a doctor's contract treating disabled patients.
Campbell v. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments