The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is comprehensive federal legislation that prohibits discrimination against persons that have a disability of impairment (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). The ADA was the culmination of years of effort from disability and civil rights advocates (Concannon 90). The ADA has made great strives in combating discrimination against those with disabilities. Sharing many qualities with racial discrimination, disability discrimination is now a protected class under the ADA.
The history of the ADA has many commonalities with race discrimination. Not until approximately 60 years ago was racial discrimination completely outlawed in the landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education (Brown v. Board of Education 494-495). But declaring that African Americans were entitled to equality under the law was markedly different from them receiving equal treatment in society. To fulfill the goal of racial equality, the government needed a strong enforcement mechanism. Addressing the concern for rampant racial discrimination still taking place, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Civil Rights Act of 1964). The list of protected classes, however, did not include persons with disability. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected against racial, religious, or gender discrimination, it left a gap for disability discrimination. Therefore, there was widespread discrimination in the employment and educational contexts against persons with disabilities.
Paralleling similar arguments that led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, advocates for disability rights pushed Congress to afford protection to persons with disabilities. The suggestion to add disability to the protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was rejected due to concerns of significant broadening of the statute (LaRochelle 531). What followed shortly after the successful Civil Rights movement was, what some term it, a Disability Rights movement (Burgdorf 247).
After years of advocacy, change was brought about on a national level. The first piece of federal legislation that provided protection for persons with disabilities was the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. There were three main provisions of the Rehabilitation Act. Sections 501 and 503 prevent federal government agencies and federal contractors from discriminating against an “otherwise qualified” individual due to a disability (LaRochelle 532). But the most expansive and significant provision of the Rehabilitation Act is unquestionably section 504.
The most important part of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, section 504, prohibits any program or activity that receives federal funding from discriminating against “otherwise qualified” persons with a disability (Rehabilitation Act of 1973). What makes section 504 unique is that it requires reasonable accommodations and gives persons with disabilities who were discriminated against the ability to sue in federal court (LaRochelle 532).
The Rehabilitation Act defined a handicapped individual as any person who “(i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities, (ii) has a record of such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment” (Engh 149). The definition of who qualifies as a handicapped individual is important for purposes of determining who is protected under the statute and who can sue under.
In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide even more encompassing protection than the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for persons with disabilities. President George H. W. Bush signed the bill into law July 26, 1990. The ADA models its handicapped definition directly from the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The impact of the ADA has been far-reaching and has transformed American public life. Many buildings and other public facilities have been remodeled in order to accommodate those with disabilities (Burgdorf 252). This is because the ADA makes it illegal to construct new buildings of public accommodation in such a manner that is not readily accessible to handicapped individuals.
While both Congress and the President have expressed commitment to affording broad protection and rights to persons with disabilities, the courts have exercised judicial restraint in interpreting such rights narrowly. The reason for this is that the US Supreme Court has interpreted the definition of “disability” restrictively. In 2002, the Supreme Court expressed in the case Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky Inc. v. Williams that the definition of qualifying disability should be “interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled” (Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky Inc. v. Williams 197). The result is that persons seeking redress under the ADA are often faced with difficult evidentiary burdens of proving that they have a qualifying disability covered by the ADA without getting to the merits of the case. But despite the evidentiary hurdles, the ADA has effected real positive change in American society and has enabled persons with disabilities to participate more fully in the community and other facets of everyday life.
Works Cited
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Pub. L. 101-336. 104 Stat. 327. 26 Jan. 1990.
Web. 2 Feb. 2016.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. Supreme Court of the US. (1954). Web. 2
Feb. 2016.
Burgdorf, Robert L. “Restoring the ADA and Beyond: Disability In the 21 Century.”
Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights (2008): 241-363. Web. 2 Feb.
2016.
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pub. L. 88-352. 78 Stat. 241, 2 July 1964. Web. 2 Feb. 2016.
Concannon, James. “Mind Matters: Mental Disability and the History and Future of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.” Law and Psychology Review (2012): 89-114.
Web. 2 Feb. 2016.
Engh, Anna Phipps. “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Focusing the Definition of a
Handicapped Individual.” William and Mary Law Review (1988): 149-179. Web.
2 Feb. 2016.
LaRochelle, Lauren French. “Dollars and Sense: Designing a Reasonable
Accommodation Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.” Ohio State Law
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Pub. L. 93-112. 87 Stat. 394. 26 Sept. 1973. Web. 2 Feb.
2016.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184. Supreme Court
of the US. (2002). Web. 2 Feb, 2016.
