if you are aware of the Americans with disabilities Act but not fully
familiar with many of the concepts of the law, this guide is quite helpful.
it gently walks the reader through many of the areas in approaching the
law, albeit from a certain perspective. nevertheless, it provides context
and nuance that is often missing from most information about the ADA.
kelly
Published in Handbook of Human Resource Management in Government
edited by Steve Condrey; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998, pages
199-213 (chapter 10). There are wording differences in the
printed version because of the publisher's copy conventions.
Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act
David Pfeiffer
On July 26, 1990, President George Bush signed into law the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This act fulfilled a
campaign promise made in 1988. Some observers said, based upon
public polling results before and after the 1988 election, that a
sufficient number of persons with disabilities switched from
Michael Dukakis to George Bush - because of the campaign promise
- to provide the winning margin or at least a major part of it.
In the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns both parties paid
attention to the issues relevant to the community of people with
disabilities. Some persons say that people with disabilities are
today a major player in presidential politics, but whether that
is true or not the ADA is now a significant part of human
resources management.
The passage of the ADA represents the maturing of the
disability movement in the U.S. Until the end of World War II
there were disparate groups of people with disabilities and their
family members who were seeking new policies and programs. With
a number of returning war veterans who were disabled, the
disability movement took on a new image. It began to change from
seeking services to challenging society in the way in which
persons with disabilities were viewed and treated.
Disabled veterans, because they were veterans, provided more
clout to the movement. Still, however, most policies were
crafted and programs implemented by persons without disabilities.
Not until the 1970s was there a critical mass of advocates who
were themselves disabled. The White House Conference on
Handicapped Individuals in 1977 gave recognition to that fact.
The regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(containing the first civil rights provision for persons with
disabilities, Section 504) were promulgated in 1977, four years
after the passage of the statute. Political demonstrations and
the occupation of the Western regional and national offices of
the then named U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
gave evidence that the disability movement knew how to apply
pressure to the system.
During the 1980s a number of federal and state laws were
passed in order to protect the rights of people with
disabilities. In November of 1980 Massachusetts embodied the
almost exact wording of Section 504 into its constitution as
Amendment 114. With this constitutional amendment as it base,
the disability movement in Massachusetts obtained passage of a
Public Accommodations Law, a stronger Architectural Accessibility
Law, an Employment Discrimination Law, and other laws. All of
this legislation had been recommended by the White House
Conference.
On the federal level there were a number of laws passed
which were recommended by the White House Conference. The Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, revisions of
the special education laws now entitled the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, the Air Carrier Access Act, and the
Fair Housing Amendments of 1988 all embody recommendations from
the White House Conference.
One of the strongest recommendations of the White House
Conference was to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include
persons with disabilities. In the mid-1980s the National Council
on Disability (also created because of the White House
Conference) started a series of investigations which led to the
publication of reports stressing the need to protect the civil
liberties of people with disabilities. Out of this activity came
the Americans with Disabilities Act which was finally passed in
1990.
OVERVIEW OF THE ADA
Title I of the ADA
Title I of the ADA (42 USC 12101) extends the non-
discrimination provisions found in the earlier Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to the private sector. Under Section
504 (29 USC 794) any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance was prohibited from discriminating against
an otherwise qualified person on the basis of disability.
Generally, however, only public entities (states, territories,
local governments, and instrumentalities created by them) came
under Section 504. Title I extended this protection to the
private sector.
Reasons for the ADA
As just outlined, the roots of the ADA go back into the
history of the disability movement (Mayerson, 1993; Pfeiffer,
1993; Watson, 1993; West, 1993). Before the 1980s federal and
state policies consigned people with disabilities to second class
(or worse) citizenship through exclusion, segregation, and denial
of equal protection. The ADA is an attempt to change this
situation.
Although statistics depend upon definitions, it is generally
agreed that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is
at least 40% and may be as high as 80%. In terms of income some
80% of persons with disabilities are below the median income of
the country and some 60% are below the poverty level no matter
which one is used. In terms of housing and education, persons
with disabilities are worse off than non-disabled persons
(Barnartt & Christiansen, 1988; Pfeiffer, 1990, 1991; U.S. Bureau
of the Census, 1993). Persons with disabilities are viewed as
one of the disadvantaged groups in this country (Young, 1990).
In passing the ADA Congress found that discrimination on the
basis of a disability to be a serious problem in most areas of
society including employment. This discrimination, Congress
found, violates the equal protection of persons with disabilities
and is unnecessarily costly in terms of tax dollars spent and
lost tax revenues. Congress, therefore, provided a clear mandate
in the ADA to eliminate this discrimination.
Definition of Disability
Disability is often defined by whether or not a person can
carry out the so-called "normal" activities of daily living.
This functional definition is partly used in the ADA, but by
itself it carries many potential problems. For example, what is
the "normal" way of moving about: by car, by public
transportation, by bicycle, by wheelchair, or by foot? What is
the "normal" way of working? There are too many people who do
not work 9 am to 5 pm or who have unusual occupations to arrive
at a statement of a "normal" way of working. To define
disability on the basis of "normal" activities only is to
perpetuate discrimination.
Because of these problems and for other reasons disability
is defined in the ADA as "(A) a physical or mental impairment
that substantially limits one or more of the major life
activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an
impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment"
(42 USC 12102). Major life activities include, but are not
limited to, being able to walk, talk, see, hear, breath, care for
one's self, learn, work, perform manual tasks, socialize, and be
active in the community. Having "a record of such an impairment"
covers individuals who have recovered from some condition or
illness or who were misclassified as disabled. The phrase "is
regarded as having such an impairment" covers individuals who are
viewed as disabled when they are not. There is no mention of
"normal" in this definition.
What Title I Says
Title I itself (at 42 USC 12112) says that no employer (of
15 or more persons in the private sector) "shall discriminate
against a qualified individual with a disability because of the
disability of such individual in regard to job application
procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees,
employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions,
and privileges of employment." Employment agencies, labor
organizations, and joint labor-management committees are also
covered by that prohibition. Exceptions are corporations owned
by an Indian tribe or a non-profit private membership club.
Although state, territorial, and local governments are primarily
covered in their services and programs by Title II, as employers
they are also covered under Title I.
A "qualified individual with a disability" is one who can
perform the essential functions of the job. It does not matter
whether or not the person requires or has a "reasonable
accommodation" (defined later in this chapter). If the person
can perform the essential functions (perhaps with a reasonable
accommodation), he or she is qualified.
Title I also prohibits discrimination against anyone on the
basis of association with a person with a disability. A person
must not experience discrimination because of a spouse, child,
family member, or friend who is disabled.
Role of the Title I Regulations
Almost all federal statutes have accompanying regulations.
These regulations are drawn up by the agency in charge of
implementing the law and usually promulgated by the cabinet
secretary or independent agency administrator in charge. They
are the way in which the law will be enforced.
The regulations are of most use to the agency, but they are
also a valuable source of information to the persons subject to
the law. For example, the ADA regulations contain such things as
examples of disabilities, examples and discussions of reasonable
accommodations, and related topics. They and other documents
which give examples serve to interpret and hopefully clarify any
ambiguity in the law. However, they must conform to the law.
They can not contradict the law, but there can be disagreement as
to whether a regulation does define or require something contrary
to the law.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which
implements and enforces Title I, published its regulations at 29
CFR 1630 with an Interpretive Guidance appendix. In the statute
the term "essential functions" is used to help define who is
otherwise qualified for a position, but it is not defined. At 29
CFR 1630.2(n) it is defined and discussed. In the Interpretive
Guidance appendix it is discussed further.
The appendix can be changed quite easily. Any change in the
regulation must be publically announced with sufficient time for
persons to make written comments. These comments must be
answered or somehow dealt with. Only then can the change become
part of the regulation and sometimes it takes a further period
for comments.
One agency can incorporate another agency's regulations into
its own. For example, the Department of Justice - which
implements and enforces Title II pertaining to public entities -
published its regulations at 28 CFR 35. In 28 CFR 35.140 the
Department of Justice says that the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission's regulations (29 CFR 1630) are to be used by public
entities in regard to employment.
And there can be joint regulations issued. The Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor's
Office of Federal Contract Compliance published joint regulations
for filing charges of discrimination against a government
contractor. It is found at 29 CFR 1641.
Impact of the Other Titles of the ADA
There are five parts or titles in the ADA. Title I, as
mentioned, covers employment discrimination in the private
sector. Title II covers discrimination by state, territorial,
and local governments and anything created by them such as
regional compacts and local school boards. Title II gives
special attention to public transportation authorities and
systems run by private entities to serve the public on behalf of
a public entity.
Title III covers public accommodations. A public
accommodation is anything which is open to the public such as
restaurants, stores, recreation facilities, and town halls. To
the extent an entity is open to a public, it is a public
accommodation. Probably Title III will have no distinct impact
on employment. Anything required under Title III in regard to
employment will already be required under the other two titles.
Title IV requires that every state establish a relay system
so that persons with TTYs can call a central number and be
connected with an operator who answers with a TTY. That operator
can then place a call to a hearing person and will convey the
messages back and forth. Title IV's requirement of a relay
system could have a positive impact upon employment in the sense
that an employee can use the system to place phone calls. A job
which requires extensive, direct telephone conversations - such
as telemarketing - may not benefit at all from a relay system.
Title V has a number of miscellaneous provisions. One
prohibits retaliation, interference, coercion, or intimidation of
anyone exercising a right or assisting (such as testifying) in
any proceeding under the ADA. Another provision states that a
person with a disability who is a current illegal user of drugs
is not protected when an action is based upon that illegal drug
use.
Title V also states that homosexuality and bisexuality are
not impairments and that the following conditions are not
disabilities: "(1) transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia,
exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting
from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;
(2) compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania; or (3)
psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from current
illegal use of drugs." (42 USC 12211)
The Value of Legal Counsel
Although the basic principle of nondiscrimination is quite
clear, its application in various circumstances can be
complicated. In addition, as with any nondiscrimination law, a
number of things are written so at to require judicial
interpretation when new circumstances or complex situations are
encountered. Therefore, it is essential that communications and
trust must be established with an organization's legal counsel.
Anytime a charge of discrimination is made, and especially
before any formal action is taken, legal counsel should be
informed. It may be that sufficient procedures are established
so that only after a certain level of seriousness legal counsel
will be consulted, but communications must be easily and clearly
available. The circumstances will then dictate the actions.
Questions of court procedure and rules of evidence can be
very arcane. Lawyers are trained to know and to use these
procedures and rules. It is probably wise to err on the side of
early communication with legal counsel than to wait too late.
ADA IMPLEMENTATION
State, territorial, and local governments in the US have
implemented the ADA. Although some of them had already
accomplished many of the ADA goals for other reasons, there is a
remarkable amount achieved because of the ADA.
State and Territorial Governments
Pfeiffer & Finn (1995, 1997) with a sample of 44 states and
three territories show the extent of implementation of the ADA.
They found that 63% had an ADA coordinator and that 58% had
completed the self evaluation with another 20% saying it was in
process. Although not every entity was required to do so, 76%
said that they had completed a transition plan and another 9% had
it in process.
Most states and territories had completed an access survey
of major state offices with the number varying from 76% to 96%
depending on the facility. A TTY was installed in major
facilities by the states and territories with the number ranging
from 56% to 84% depending on the facility. Sign language
interpreters were provided on request by 98% of them and 91%
provided material in alternative formats. A reasonable
accommodation had been provided by 87% of the states and
territories. ADA and disability awareness training was provided
by 75% of them.
Local Governments
Pfeiffer & Finn (1995, 1997) found that an ADA coordinator
existed in 65% of the local governments. The self evaluation was
completed by 70% and the transition plan was completed by 66%.
Again, not every local government had to complete a transition
plan. Access surveys in different major facilities were
completed ranging from 88% to 95% depending on the facility.
TTYs were installed in these major facilities by as few as 15% in
the schools and as many as 73% in police stations.
Sign language interpreters were provided by 65% of the local
governments and 36% provided materials in alternative formats. A
reasonable accommodation was provided by 39% of them.
Implications
What these statistics show (and others presented by Pfeiffer
& Finn, 1995, 1997) is that many states and a lesser percentage
of local governments are taking steps to remove discriminatory
barriers and policies. Although it will take time to identify
and remove all barriers, the ADA is having an impact upon US
society.
Some commentators say that since the unemployment rate of
persons with disabilities remains at a high level, the ADA must
not be working. However, a decade after the enactment of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 the unemployment rate of African
Americans remained high. This fact was taken to mean that
discriminatory attitudes remained. Today the high unemployment
rate of people with disabilities must be viewed in the same way.
Attitudinal barriers are just as common as architectural and
sensory barriers.
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
One of the ways in which an employer can avoid the legal
penalties of discrimination under the ADA is to work out an
accommodation with the employee with a disability. There are
generally three considerations: it must be reasonable, it must
not present an undue hardship to the employer, and both sides
must agree on it.
What Is a Reasonable Accommodation
The term "reasonable accommodation" originated in EEOC
regulations concerning religious holidays, but - for reasons not
relevant here - those parts of the regulations were struck down
by the courts (Burgdorf, 1995). Regulations regarding the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 used the term, but only gave examples
and not a definition. Case law and administrative decisions over
the last two decades developed an interpretation of what the term
means.
Based on this interpretation the EEOC regulations (29 CFR
1630.2(2)(o)) define a reasonable accommodation as: (1) any
modification to the process of applying for a job which allows
the person with a disability to be considered for the job; (2)
any change in the work environment including the manner in which
a job is usually done that allows a person with a disability to
carry out the essential functions of the job; or (3) any
adjustment of benefits provided which allows a person with a
disability to utilize them as any other employee would. It could
be a change to the work schedule, a restructuring of the job such
as having other persons carry out the non-essential functions,
reassignment to another position, providing an auxiliary aid or
service, or physical modification to the work place.
Cost of Accommodations
One of the concerns of an employer is whether the
accommodation will cost more than the employee is worth in terms
of productivity. If available studies are correct, most
employees with disabilities will require no accommodation at all.
If an accommodation is requested, a high percentage will result
in no cost or little cost. The expenditure will usually be part
of the normal cost of doing business.
For example, in an in-depth study of Sears, Roebuck and Co.,
Blanck (1996) found that between January 1, 1978, and December
31, 1992, an end date shortly after Sears became subject to the
ADA, 69% of the accommodations for employees with disabilities
entailed no cost and another 28% cost less than $1,000. The
average cost was $121. If the 3% which cost over $1,000 is
removed, the average cost drops to $36. After Sears became
subject to the ADA Blanck (1996) found that from January 1, 1993,
to December 31, 1995, 72% of the accommodations required no cost
and another 17% cost less that $100. The average cost was $45.
In addition there are tax credits available for barrier removal.
The ADA provides that an accommodation is not reasonable
when it presents an undue hardship to the employer. An
accommodation causes an undue hardship when it entails a
significant cost or difficulty taking into account the financial
resources of the facility where the job is carried out and the
financial resources and size of the employer. Other factors to
be considered regarding an undue hardship is the type of business
and the impact on the company.
Although not an employment case, Roberts v. KinderCare
Learning Centers (8 NDLR 147, 8th Circuit, 1996), illustrates
what an undue burden could be. A day care center was asked to
provide a full time personal care attendant for a child. It
refused to do so and the parents sued in federal district court.
The district court found that it would be too expensive to
provide a full time attendant for the child given the resources
of the day care center and thus it was an undue burden. It
accepted the day care center's figures that a full time attendant
would cost over $200 a week plus benefits and the tuition
received would be only $105 a week. The decision was upheld by
the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In any event, the employer must know that the employee has a
disability before a reasonable accommodation is possible. In
many cases, the accommodation might be granted without such an
identification, but to charge that an employer refused to provide
a reasonable accommodation the employee with a disability must
self-identify. The person with a disability must identify at a
reasonable time before an accommodation is requested.
Neither the employer nor the employee has a veto of what is
reasonable. Neither one has to accept the suggested
accommodation. In such a case negotiation about the
accommodation should occur. However, if the accommodation is
rejected by either side and the case goes to court both sides run
the risk of even higher costs than anticipated. Title V of the
ADA suggests alternative means of dispute resolution where
appropriate and authorized by law. A dispute over the suggested
accommodation might be a candidate for an alternative means of
dispute resolution.
Examples of a Reasonable Accommodation
Reasonable accommodations vary from employer to employer and
from employee to employee. Examples of successful reasonable
accommodations can be found in many places. Spechler (1996)
provides a number of examples.
For example, a man who is quadriplegic applied for a
position in the chief financial officer's department at AT&T.
Two virtually cost-less accommodations were provided during the
interview process. A table was raised so the motorized chair
could fit underneath and the man could take the standard
employment tests. He was also given additional time to complete
the tests because he was a slow writer.
Before he began work a local job accommodation specialist
was brought in for a one hour session with his new co-workers.
It turned into a four hour question and answer session which made
everyone more comfortable. His co-workers were more willing to
help when asked to do little things like taking medication out of
his shirt pocket.
After he was hired a second set of hand splints were
purchased by AT&T so he would not have to carry them back and
forth between his home and the office. Although the splints
enabled him to use the computer, they were cumbersome while out
of the office. He also relied (when necessary) on personnel in
the medical facility at his work location for personal care
needs. After it was closed for budget reasons, an alternative
was worked out.
BankAmerica Corporation, another example from Spechler
(1996), not only provided reasonable accommodations for employees
with disabilities, they also developed guides and a training
curriculum on the ADA. Since banks are places of public
accommodation, they quickly produced a training video for all
employees who directly served customers. They provided training
seminars for their human resources specialists. Spechler (1996)
provides a considerable amount of details about their training
and awareness activities.
Another example discussed by Spechler (1996), the Florida
Power & Light Company, provided a number of reasonable
accommodations over a broad spectrum of disabilities. An
engineer began to lose peripheral vision so the company purchased
software and hardware which magnified the computer screen. A
person who began to use a wheelchair due to a spinal cord injury
required only the raising of the height of a desk to return to
work. Hearing impaired employees in the customer service
department were provided with amplified phones.
The Job Accommodation Network (n.d.) provides a number of
examples of actual solutions they assisted in developing. For
example, an employee with a eye disorder became fatigued because
of glare on the computer screen. For $39 an antiglare screen was
purchased and it greatly reduced the employee's fatigue. Another
employee developed a condition which limited the use of her
hands. She could not reach across her desk to a set of files.
For $85 a "lazy susan" file holder was purchased which made it
possible for her to keep her job. A police officer with dyslexia
spent a great amount of time at the end of his shift filling out
forms. For $69 a tape recorder was purchased. A secretary typed
the other police offices forms from handwritten copy and this
officer's forms from the tape.
Another accommodation mentioned by the Job Accommodation
Network was a $35 one-handed can opener for a cook who only had
one hand. A costless schedule change for a person who developed
a condition which necessitated a two hour rest period during the
day was to have her come in earlier and leave later. She still
worked the same number of hours, but she had her break in the
middle.
An overview of AIDS in the workplace is presented by
Spechler (1996) and in publications available from the Job
Accommodation Network. In both the public and the private
sectors this disability raises unique and emotionally charged
questions resulting in reasonable accommodation. In another
chapter Spechler (1996) gives a discussion of how technology can
facilitate reasonable accommodations. Access technology is both
a useful and a little known subject.
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY TITLE II
Except for actions required of public transportation
authorities which are not relevant here, the statutory language
of Title II does not require anything other than non-
discrimination. The statutory language of Title I requires non-
discrimination and the posting of a notice in an accessible
format describing the provisions of the ADA. Since public
entities are employers, they must post such a notice. However,
the regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Justice for
Title II (28 CFR 35) do require that public entities undertake a
number of things in order to comply with the ADA.
Any public entity with fifty or more employees must
designate an employee to coordinate the responsibility of
complying with the ADA and it must establish a grievance
procedure to resolve complaints under Titles I and II. The
coordinator investigates any complaints about non-compliance.
Public entities with less than fifty employees still must comply
with the ADA so the appointment of a coordinator and
establishment of a grievance procedure would be useful to them.
All public entities must make available in accessible
formats information about the rights and protections found in
Title II. This information must be made available to job
applicants, program participants, beneficiaries, and "other
interested persons." (28 CFR 35.106) The last phrase is taken to
mean the general public, but it is not specified.
All public entities must undertake a self-evaluation of its
services, policies, and practices to determine if they violate
Title II. All services, policies, and practices must be in
compliance. Interested persons including people with
disabilities and organizations representing people with
disabilities must be provided an opportunity to participate. If
a self-evaluation was carried out in compliance with Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, then only policies and
practices not included earlier are reviewed.
Although all public entities must comply with Title II, any
public entity with fifty or more employees which determines that
structural changes in facilities are necessary must also prepare
a transition plan. This plan shall identify the physical
barriers, how they will be modified to make the facility
accessible, and a schedule for their modifications.
Adaptive Environments Center (1996) offers four principles
for successful compliance with these requirements. (1) There
must be commitment to the ADA from the top leadership during the
entire process. (2) The compliance activities must be
coordinated. (3) Knowledgeable people with disabilities must be
involved in the process, but being disabled does not guarantee
knowledge. (4) Compliance must become institutionalized.
Spechler (1996) presents a ten step process for implementing
the ADA within organizations. These steps revolve around the
four principles set forth by the Adaptive Environments Center.
If these four principles and ten steps are followed, success is
very probable.
CAUTIONS ABOUT THE ADA
The ADA is in its beginning stages and case law is still
developing. There are many questions which remain to be answered
although the main requirements are clear. Discrimination on the
basis of a disability is prohibited. Whether certain acts are
discriminatory or whether an individual is a qualified person
with a disability or whether an accommodation is reasonable all
have to be answered in the context in which they happen. Future
developments may make more complex or more simple discrimination
and the ADA. Many answers to questions - especially questions
not yet asked - remain in the future.
In any event, the context in which the ADA is relevant is a
volatile one. Being hired or fired, being promoted or paid more,
and perceptions of any type of discrimination are issues of great
importance to the person with a disability. Cost considerations
are of great importance to employers and to public entities.
Accusations of discrimination are always unsettling. Human
resource managers must approach ADA compliance and complaints
carefully, but they must deal with them.
Finally, employers, public entities, and people with
disabilities should emulate the announced strategy of the
Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. This strategy is to educate and negotiate first. If
there is no success, only then litigate. It is contended by many
disability rights advocates that a large number of ADA complaints
are resolved by education and negotiation. There is no need to
litigate if a successful resolution is achieved.
CONCLUSION: THE BENEFITS OF THE ADA TO EVERYONE
The ADA provides benefits to everyone. As Pfeiffer (1996)
shows, people with disabilities are empowered by the ADA. They
feel good about having rights and they now have greater
expectations about themselves and their place in society. In
addition, the implementation of the ADA opened up employment to
many persons with disabilities. The education of private sector
employers, public officials, and the public in general benefited
all of society.
There is support for the ADA among private sector employers.
In part it is a new source for workers which they can tap. There
is similar support by public officials because it is important
that citizens be able to obtain services to which they are
entitled. There is general support in society for the ADA.
There are tax savings when people with disabilities who
previously had received tax monies in order to live, now are self
supporting. There is revenue enhancement when previously
unemployed people with disabilities pay income and other taxes.
There is a general feeling of enhanced self worth from being self
supporting.
Understanding the ADA means knowing what is required by it.
It also means knowing the role the ADA is playing in the lives of
people with disabilities and in society.
RESOURCES
Besides the publications cited there are a number of other
resources. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
can be contacted at 202-663-4900. The Disability Rights Section
of the Department of Justice can be contacted at 800-514-0301.
Both agencies have manuals and other publications on the ADA.
However, their representatives caution that persons telephoning
them directly will often encounter busy signals. Each federal
region in the country has a Disability and Business Technical
Assistance Center (DBTAC) which can provide the EEOC and DOJ
publications and other ones. The telephone number is the same
for all regions: 800-949-4232 for both voice and TTY. Dialing
that number will reach the DBTAC in your federal region. Many
persons say it is easier to remember a form of the DBTAC number
which is 800-9494-ADA.
The President's Committee on Employment of People with
Disabilities can be reached at 202-376-6200. The President's
Committee funds the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) which is an
important source for information about accommodations. JAN can
be reached at 800-ADA-WORK (800-232-9675 both voice and TTY).
The workbook published by the Adaptive Environments Center
(1996) is specifically targeted for public entities. It provides
step by step advice on compliance matters for human resource
managers (and others) in the public sector. It is also useful
for private sector employers. The Center can be reached at 617-
695-1225.
Burgdorf (1995) is a legal treatise on disability based
discrimination in employment covering the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Sections 501, 503, and 504) and the ADA as well as other
related law. It is a very readable work and very complete.
There is a biweekly publication entitled Disability
Compliance Bulletin which carries news articles on court cases
and agency actions pertaining to the ADA and related laws. It is
published by LRP Publications which can be reached at 215-784-
0860. They also publish the National Disability Law Reporter
which contains the court decisions on which the Bulletin articles
are based.
Finally, there are a number of other publications which can
be consulted. They are: Fersh and Thomas (1993), Gutman (1993),
Morrissey (1991), Robinson (1993), and West (1996). The complete
citations are listed in the references.
References
Adaptive Environments Center. ADA Title II Action Guide for
State and Local Governments and Supplement on Employment. Boston:
Adaptive Environments Center, 1996.
Barnartt, S.N., and Christiansen, J.B. "The Socioeconomic
Status of Deaf Workers: A Minority Group Perspective." The
Social Science Journal, 1985, 22, 19-32.
Blanck, P.D. "Transcending Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act: A Case Report on Sears, Roebuck and Co." Mental
and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 1996, 20(2), 279-86.
Burgdorf, R.L. Disability Discrimination in Employment Law.
Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1995.
Fersh, D., and Thomas, P.W. Complying with the Americans
with Disabilities Act: A Guidebook for Management and People with
Disabilities. Westport: Quorum Books, 1993.
Gutman, A. EEO Law and Personnel Practices. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications, 1993.
Job Accommodation Network. Job Accommodation Ideas: Job
Accommodation Problems with Proposed Low-Cost Solutions.
Washington, D.C.: The President's Committee on Employment of
People with Disabilities, n.d.
Mayerson, A. "The History of the ADA: A Movement
Perspective." In L.O. Gostin and H.A. Beyer (eds.), Implementing
the Americans with Disabilities Act: Rights and Responsibilities
of All Americans. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.,
1993.
Morrissey, P.A. A Primer for Corporate America on Civil
Rights for the Disabled. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications, 1991.
Pfeiffer, D. "Disabled People, Local Government, and
Affirmative Action." In S.C. Hey, G. Kiger, B. Altman, and J.
Scheer (eds.), The Social Exploration of Disability. Salem,
Oregon: The Society for Disability Studies and Willamette
University, 1990.
Pfeiffer, D. "The Influence of the Socio-Economic
Characteristics of Disabled People on Their Employment Status and
Income." Disability, Handicap & Society, 1991, 6(2), 103-14.
Pfeiffer, D. "Overview of the Disability Movement: History,
Legislative Record and Policy Implications." Policy Studies
Journal, 1993, 21(4), 724-34.
Pfeiffer, D. "`We Won't Go Back': The ADA on the Grass Roots
Level." Disability & Society, 1996, 11(2), 271-84.
Pfeiffer, D., and Finn, J. "Survey Shows State, Territorial,
Local Public Officials Implementing the ADA." Mental and
Physical Disability Law Reporter, 1995, 19(4), 537-40.
Pfeiffer, D., and Finn, J. "The Americans with Disabilities
Act: An Examination of Compliance by State, Territorial, and
Local Governments in the USA." Disability & Society, 12(5), 553-
773.
Robinson, K. Model Plan for Implementation of Title I of
the Americans with Disabilities Act: The Human Resource
Perspective. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications, 1993.
Spechler, J.W. Reasonable Accommodation: Profitable
Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Delray
Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press, 1996.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Americans with Disabilities:
1991-92. Current Population Reports No. P70-33. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1993.
Watson, S.D. "A Study in Legislative Strategy." In L.O.
Gostin and H.A. Beyer (eds.), Implementing the Americans with
Disabilities Act: Rights and Responsibilities of All Americans.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 1993.
West, J. "The Evolution of Disability Rights." In L.O.
Gostin and H.A. Beyer (eds.), Implementing the Americans with
Disabilities Act: Rights and Responsibilities of All Americans.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 1993.
West, J. (ed.) Implementing the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 1996.
Young, I.M. Justice and the Politics of Difference.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
----------
End of Document
|