Americans with Disabilities Act: Employment and Civil Rights

Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law on July 26, 1990, as Public Law 101-336. However, the law did not become effective until January 26, 1992. The ADA is federal legislation that opened up services and employment opportunities to the millions of Americans with disabilities. This law was written to help balance the reasonable accommodation of citizens' needs with the capacity of private and public entities to respond. It was put into place to eliminate illegal discrimination and level the playing field for disabled individuals.

In advocating rights for disabled people, many have worked to establish several important principles. One is that disabled individuals be considered on the basis of individual merit, not on stereotyped assumptions about their disabilities. Another is that society must make certain changes to enable the disabled to participate more easily in business and social activities — for example, by providing wheelchair access to public transportation, building entrances, and theaters. A third principle is that, to the extent appropriate for each individual, disabled people should be mainstreamed with people who do not have disabilities.

The ADA is made up of five titles that prohibit discrimination against disabled persons in the United States. Titles I and II of this legislation directly affect local government.

Components of the Legislation

Title I addresses the area of employment. It states that places of business must provide accessible facilities to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment. Changes might include restructuring jobs, altering the layout of workstations, or modifying equipment. Employment aspects covered include the application process, hiring, wages, benefits, and all other conditions of employment. Medical examinations are specific and may be monitored.

During the 1998–99 term of the United States Supreme Court, a major area of focus was on defining the ADA. The justices reviewed whether former employees could sue their former employers for violations of the Act, even though those former employees were seeking full disability benefits from the Social Security Administration. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether former employees could sue employers for alleged ADA violations even if the claimants had already sought full disability benefits under Social Security. A significant case added to the docket was Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corporation. The central question was whether workers who had filed disability claims with Social Security and collected disability payments could also pursue claims against employers under the ADA.

Carolyn Cleveland was the plaintiff in this case. She suffered a stroke and applied for Social Security benefits. When her doctor released her to return to work, she notified the Social Security Administration that she no longer needed the benefits. She returned to work but then experienced difficulty with her job responsibilities and was fired. She filed again for Social Security disability benefits, and before she received them, she sued her former employer under the ADA. A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ms. Cleveland in 1997.

Title II states that public services and commuter authorities cannot deny people with disabilities the right to participate in programs or activities that are available to people without disabilities. This includes all state and local governments. In addition, any public transportation systems — such as public transit buses — must be accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Title III defines public accommodations. New construction must be designed to be accessible for individuals with disabilities. Facilities that already exist must be remodeled so that barriers to services may be removed. Public accommodations include facilities such as restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, and retail stores, as well as privately owned transportation systems.

Title IV addresses telecommunications. Companies offering telephone service to the general public must provide telephone relay services to individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TTYs) or similar devices.

Title V covers miscellaneous provisions. It includes a clause that prohibits coercing or threatening disabled individuals. It also protects the disabled from retaliation and protects those who attempt to aid people with disabilities in asserting their rights under the ADA. Protection is extended, in limited form, to those with addiction disorders. However, many individuals with addictions are denied ADA protection because of exclusionary criteria within the ADA itself and because of increasingly restrictive interpretations of the Act in recent cases. The benefit to addicted persons, and to the larger society, is lost when unfair discriminatory practices preclude the employment of otherwise qualified, though stigmatized, individuals (Westreich, 2002).

In a landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court struck down claims that correctable eyesight and high blood pressure qualify people for protection — and financial compensation — under the 1990 ADA. The following three cases were denied in the lower courts:

Sutton et al. v. United Airlines, Inc.: Kimberly Hilton and Karen Sutton sued United Airlines, claiming that United violated the ADA by denying them the opportunity to become pilots due to their nearsightedness. United maintained that it did not hire the two women because they failed to meet its vision standard.

Kirkingburg v. Albertson's, Inc.: Hallie Kirkingburg sued Albertson's, claiming the company violated the ADA by not allowing him to drive trucks for them. Because he experienced near-blindness in one eye, he failed the Department of Transportation vision test, though the DOT granted him a waiver to drive.

Murphy v. United Parcel Service: Vaughn Murphy sued United Parcel Service, claiming UPS violated the ADA by firing him due to his hypertension (Carelli, 1999).

Employment of the Disabled in the State of Florida

The passage of this legislation opened doors for many disabled Americans who were mentally fit and, with proper training, capable of completing the duties assigned by an employer. Table 1 contains annual estimates of earnings and the value of selected welfare benefits for the United States population aged 21 to 64. It illustrates the significant impact disability status has on both earnings and welfare. Overall, individuals aged 21 to 64 had $3.6 trillion in earnings and received $14.6 billion in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) payments, $17.6 billion in Social Security payments, $13.3 billion in food stamps, and $50.7 billion in Medicaid benefits. Individuals with a severe disability received 2.9 percent of aggregate earnings, 34.2 percent of TANF benefits, 100 percent of Social Security benefits, 33.1 percent of food stamps, and 66.9 percent of Medicaid benefits. There is a significant financial benefit when a disabled person is properly trained for employment. While some modifications may be needed at the workplace, providing jobs for the disabled not only helps the individual but also benefits the broader economy by reducing the need for complete government financial assistance.

Table 1. Distribution of Earnings and Benefits Received by Individuals 21 to 64 Years Old by Disability Status (United States Census Bureau, 1997)

All disability statuses: Earnings $3,630.5B | TANF $14.6B | Social Security $17.6B | Food Stamps $13.3B | Medicaid $50.7B
With a severe disability: Earnings $103.8B | TANF $5.0B | Social Security $17.6B | Food Stamps $4.4B | Medicaid $33.9B
With a nonsevere disability: Earnings $227.5B | TANF $1.5B | Social Security * | Food Stamps $1.0B | Medicaid $2.0B
No disability: Earnings $3,299.2B | TANF $8.1B | Social Security * | Food Stamps $7.8B | Medicaid $14.8B

Much progress has been made in the state of Florida regarding the employment of the disabled. The state's vision statement reads: "Floridians with disabilities will be provided the tools necessary to make informed choices and decisions to achieve equality of opportunity, full inclusion and integration in society, employment, independent living, and economic and social self-sufficiency" (Florida State Disability Plan, 2002).

The state of Florida has worked to develop goals and objectives to meet the needs of its disabled citizens. The Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) educates and trains employers on the advantages of hiring disabled Floridians. Florida has also written a comprehensive state plan to address the needs and rights of disabled individuals who have the capacity to work. The Florida Rehabilitation Council (FRC) is composed of representatives from many backgrounds, including business, industry and labor, the Statewide Independent Living Council, the Client Assistance Program, service providers, Workforce Investment Boards, VR Counselors, consumers, consumer advocates, and parents of consumers from throughout the state.

The FRC has worked to develop a strategy for identifying the needs of Floridians with disabilities. Public meetings were held, and the 2001–02 State Plan submission included input from many sectors. Florida reviews the plan on an ongoing basis, with FRC representatives serving as members of the Agency's Policy Team. The development and review of policies and procedures for the provision of services to individuals with disabilities is continuous, and the Agency continues to identify opportunities to further strengthen its collaborative relationship with the FRC (Florida State Rehabilitation Plan, 2002).

The agency provides and coordinates training regarding the employment aspects of the ADA while assisting employers in identifying and providing needed job accommodations for workers with disabilities. It also advises employers on how to modify work areas to become barrier-free facilities. As part of the training process, the Florida DVR helps improve communication between workers and supervisors, leading to increased worker productivity through greater understanding and cooperation regarding the special needs of Americans with disabilities. With increased awareness, employers gain a greater understanding of the advantages of employing persons with disabilities, and hiring practices improve to allow more opportunities for applicants with disabilities to enter the workforce.