This paper will focus on The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It will address the purpose, history, and possible future implications for the act. It will also address legislation that has occurred since the enactment, consequences for employees and employers, and the opinion as to its fairness.
Several laws were passed prior to the ADA banning discrimination. Laws prohibiting employment discrimination against minorities, gender, age, and religious persuasion, had been enacted, but none had specifically addressed those with disabilities.
The ADA was first signed into law in on July 26, 1990 by President George H.W. Bush. (U.S. Department of Justice). While much of the act addresses accommodations, such as public transportation, etc., Title I is specific to employment.
Equitable compensation is guaranteed to a disabled person capable of performing the “essential functions” of a job within the same capacity as one with no disability. The General Rule of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 110-336 §1, 121 Stat 328 (1990) directs, “No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to .compensation.”
Another impact for employers is that the law can be confusing especially when it comes to definitions such as “impaired”, “disabled”, and “minority.” For instance, are individuals considered “disabled” considered a “minority” as well?
On the other hand, many disabled workers contribute to the overall success of the business. As described by John Kregel (1999), “ the ability of individuals with developmental disabilities to ‘get the job done’ and contribute to the economic life of their community remains undeniable. the vast majority of employers who have hired persons with developmental disabilities find that the presence of the worker with a disability has had a positive impact on the productivity and profitability of their business.”
But the outcome is that the employer will more than likely have hired an employee that is extremely grateful for the opportunity to earn an honest living and will feel like a productive member of the community. The employee gains a sense of self-worth, the ability to help support their family, and the ability to contribute to society, rather than depending on it to survive. As far as the future of the ADA, one must consider the use of medical marijuana when considering employment discrimination. While this does not address wages, or compensation, per se, it may have manifestations as to the interpretation of the act. Marijuana (medical or otherwise) is still unlawful on the federal level. Will those with disabilities who use medical marijuana cry “foul” when being denied employment or upon their termination after testing positive for its use?
Liana Abreu (2015), suggests that statutes should implement an “impairment threshold” which would determine the level of marijuana in one’s system that would be grounds for termination. This opens up a whole new “can of worms,” of you will: How does one prove their disability with relationship to their use of medical marijuana?
Another implication for the future of the act regards mental disabilities. The definitions are loose, and how a mental disability might compare to a physical disability when defining coverage or protection can be confusing. This is addressed by James Concannon (2012). He states, “although it is reasonable to suspect that coverage will be broader, it is unclear whether individuals with mental disabilities will experience the same increase in coverage as individuals with physical disabilities due to the lack of provisions that have disqualified individuals with mental impairments from coverage, and to the continuing stigma attached to mental disabilities.”
It will no doubt be interesting to see how the future of the act plays out, especially with the legalization of marijuana in some states and the District of Columbia. It will also be imperative for the government to further define and outline the status of the act without political or judicial bias in deciding those affected by the act.
The act, in its purity, is significant, in that it protects those with disabilities from employment and wage discrimination. Unfortunately, because some definitions and “prongs” of the act are confusing, it is difficult at times for employers to understand their responsibilities and the restrictions therein.
The act is fair. It allows those with disabilities to seek and procure gainful employment. It allows the disabled individual to provide for their family, be a productive member of society, and gain a sense of pride in the ability to be able to work alongside those without disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act can be perplexing for employers and employees alike. But it allows those with disabilities, physical or mental, the opportunity to work and earn an equitable wage in order to provide for themselves and their families. The employer gains a committed employee, the employee gains a sense of pride, and society gains a worker who is no longer depending on state or federal aid to thrive.
References
Abreau, Liana (2015). No employment protection for medical marijuana users. Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 39.2, 389-416. Retrieved from http: //connection. Ebscohost.com/.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 110-336, §1,121 Stat. 328 (1990). Retrieved from www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm
Concannon, James {2012). Mind Matters: Mental disability and the history and future of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Law and Psychology Review, 38, 89-114. Retrieved from http://connection. Ebscohost.com/.
Kregel, John (1999). Why it pays to hire workers with developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 14.3, 130-139. Retrieved from http://connection. Ebscohost.com/.
U.S. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division (2009). Introduction to the ADA. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.ada.gov/ada_intro.htm
