If there is a law that mirrors true American idealism and altruistic spirit, the American Disabilities Act or ADA would certainly be one of them. The ADA, which was signed into law by then President George W. Bush, sought to bring heaven on earth by compelling Americans, particularly employers, to embrace the most underprivileged of their brethren through an integration mandate that punishes those who would exclude disabled Americans from employment. The law even extends the concept of disability to the mentally ill, even the seriously mentally ill, according to Burnim (2015), as was illustrated in the ADA case of Olmstead v. L.C. 527 U.S. 581 (1999). In that case, the court took a critical view of institutionalization of the mentally sick. I do not know if the court was really in a position to determine whether a person with mental problems does not need to be institutionalized or not, but the decision made a substantial impact as there was a subsequent rush to consolidate the case through regulatory guidance.
Certainly the ADA has very notable intentions, but reading some of the articles available would seem to point out that it has not really achieved that much despite the rah-rah attitude about it by some quarters. On the contrary, it seemed that the law had an opposite effect because instead of increasing the number of disabled persons in the employment sector, their number had apparently waned. This was pointed out in the article of Maroto and Pettinicchio (2014). Thus, while the percentage of disabled persons employed prior to the passage of the act was 30%, this decreased to 23% in 2008, and then to just 18% in 2012. Moreover, those persons with disabilities that are employed are found to be earning considerably less than those with no disabilities. What could be the possible implication of this? That many employers do not exactly share the same sentiments of the country’s policymakers? Maybe or maybe not or perhaps there is something in the law that makes employers more apprehensive in employing disabled persons than before.
Maroto and Pettinicchio (2014) blamed the failure of the law to meet its goal of making the lives of persons with disabilities to the unintended harm of the law and judicial resistance. The unintended harm of the law refers, according to the authors, to the disincentives it created when it mandates employers to make reasonable accommodation to such persons. This really makes sense. Why would an employee hire a person he has to spend money for additional workplace structural works when he can hire one who can work without any impediment and requires no such additional expenses? Policymakers should take this seriously into account by perhaps turning this disincentive into an incentive or finding an incentive that can overcome the disincentive. Judicial restraint, according to the authors, is the difficulty that plaintiffs face in proving their cases before the courts because of the lack of clarity and the broadness of the law itself. Yet, as was illustrated in the Olmstead case, the courts can sometimes act as the catalyst for the law to be more revolutionary and more responsive to situations. Perhaps the law should be made clearer so that there is no room for the courts to make their own interpretation.
The ADA case illustrates, however, that although Americans can be idealistic and altruistic, they are really more independent in nature than anything else. Unlike other cultures where kinship and affinity reign, the American way of life steers towards self-determination. We get out of our homes at the first opportunity we can find to establish our identities in life severing links from our parents and families. Perhaps this is also why ADA has failed to soar. Employers see themselves as business people who must tend to their business first rather than act as the government’s tool for its welfaristic pretensions. The law cannot teach people to feel a certain way towards specific type of people. It can only compel under threat of sanction.
References
Burnim, I. (2015). The Promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act for People with Mental Illness. JAMA, vol. 313, no. 22.
Maroto, M. and Pettinicchio, D. (2014). The Limitations of Disability Antidiscrimination Legislation: Policymaking and the Economic Well-being of People with Disabilities. Law and Policy, vol. 36, no. 4, pp370-407.
Whyte, A. (2015). Americans with Disabilities Act at 25. Workforce. Retrieved from http://www.workforce.com/articles/21501-americans-with-disabilities-act-turns-25- challenges-met-challenges-remain
