This paper examines the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), signed into law in 1990, focusing on its role in extending civil rights protections to individuals with physical and mental disabilities. The paper discusses the ADA's bipartisan origins, its core employment protections, and the controversies surrounding vague provisions regarding "reasonable accommodations." It then analyzes two significant EEOC enforcement cases — Eric Baker v. Waffle House and the Dollar General/Bobst settlement — to illustrate how the ADA operates in practice, what legal precedents have emerged, and why the law remains an essential safeguard for disabled Americans seeking equal employment opportunities.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law on July 26, 1990. As a bill, the ADA enjoyed strong support from then-President George Bush. It was overwhelmingly approved by both houses of Congress, garnering only six nay votes in the Senate and only 28 in the House of Representatives (Hudgins 1997).
Part of the reason the ADA enjoyed strong bipartisan support was its focus on individual civil rights. While previous laws had made it unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, gender, or religion, the ADA made it illegal to discriminate against people based on their disability. Under the new law, a person's disability — whether physical or mental — cannot serve as a basis for decisions regarding employment. Furthermore, people with disabilities must also be allowed access to public places, such as schools, theaters, and shopping malls ("Disability and the Americans with Disabilities Act" 2000).
The goal of this law is to ensure that people with disabilities retain access to equal rights and opportunities. Thus, individuals with disabilities — including blindness, deafness, physical deformity, paralysis, limb loss, and muscular disorders — should not be barred from pursuing a fulfilling life ("Disability and the Americans with Disabilities Act" 2000).
The first freedom safeguarded by the ADA is the right of all individuals — including the disabled and handicapped — to seek employment opportunities. Prospective employers are banned from considering a person's disability when making decisions about hiring, promotion, or compensation. Furthermore, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for the needs of disabled employees when planning workspaces (Hudgins 1997). This includes modifications such as widening aisles and building ramps for wheelchair-bound employees.
Critics have charged that the vagueness of ADA provisions regarding disability and "reasonable accommodations" has given rise to frivolous lawsuits. They argue that such lawsuits increase the cost of insurance, creating hardships for small businesses. Many also worry that the ADA may foster employer hostility, making it more difficult for disabled people to find work. Critics point out that large employers like McDonald's already go out of their way to employ workers with physical and mental disabilities. For many employers, the challenge lies in finding a balance between "reasonable accommodations" and sound business practices ("High Court's ADA Ruling Leaves Some Accommodations Questions Unanswered" 2004).
However, many lawsuits filed under the ADA are decidedly not frivolous. Victims of employer discrimination can file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC then takes ADA cases to court on the plaintiff's behalf. Since the ADA took effect, the EEOC has filed numerous lawsuits on behalf of employees who have been treated unfairly because of their disability.
In 1994, Eric Baker of West Columbia, South Carolina filed suit after his employer, the Waffle House, fired him from his position as a grill operator following a seizure. According to Waffle House representatives, Baker was fired because of his epilepsy. The company determined that "for Baker's safety and the Waffle House, it would be best he not work anymore" (Wade 2002).
Baker's suit charged that his termination violated the ADA. The lawsuit took eight years and eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of Baker and the EEOC. Baker was awarded compensation, back pay, and compensatory damages. In addition, the Waffle House was ordered to pay punitive damages for its "malicious and reckless conduct" (Wade 2002).
Many cases filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act stem from unlawful termination of employment. Another example involves the firing of an employee with mild mental retardation, in which the principles of the ADA again applied.
"Discrimination suit involving employee with mental retardation"
In conclusion, the ADA continues to protect the American tradition of civil rights by extending anti-discrimination protections to the disabled and handicapped. Far from a handout for those with disabilities, this legislation protects the rights of disabled people to find employment and to support themselves. It also provides disabled individuals who have experienced discrimination with meaningful opportunities to seek redress.
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.