american disability act essay

• What is the ADA?
• ADA Anniversary
• Learn About the National Network
• Contact Your Region/ADA Center
• ADA National Network Portfolio
• ADA Success Stories
• Projects of the National Network
• Research of the National Network
• Ask ADA Questions
• View ADA Publications & Videos
• Find ADA Training
• Request ADA Training
• Search ADA Web Portal
• Federal Agencies and Resources
• Federal ADA Regulations and Standards
• Architects/Contractors
• People with Disabilities
• State and Local Government
• Emergency Preparedness
• Employment (ADA Title I)
• Facility Access
• General ADA Information
• Hospitality
• Public Accommodations (ADA Title III)
• Service Animals
• State and Local Government (ADA Title II)
• Technology (Accessible)
• Telecommunication (ADA Title IV)

Transportation

• Region 1 - New England ADA Center
• Region 2 - Northeast ADA Center
• Region 3 - Mid-Atlantic ADA Center
• Region 4 - Southeast ADA Center
• Region 5 - Great Lakes ADA Center
• Region 6 - Southwest ADA Center at ILRU
• Region 7 - Great Plains ADA Center
• Region 8 - Rocky Mountain ADA Center
• Region 9 - Pacific ADA Center
• Region 10 - Northwest ADA Center
• ADA Knowledge Translation Center
• Title III of the ADA and Readily Achievable Barrier Removal May 21, 2024
• Law Enforcement and the ADA May 23, 2024
• Self-Evaluation Part I June 13, 2024
• Self-Evaluation Part II June 14, 2024
• Engaging Kids About Disability Through Animated Cartoons July 16, 2024

You are here

An overview of the americans with disabilities act.

( Printer-friendly PDF version   | 248 KB) ( Two Page Handout PDF version | 80 KB) (Large Print PDF version   | 246 KB) ( Spanish version )

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law in 1990. The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in many areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and many public and private places that are open to the general public. The purpose of the law is to make sure that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. The ADA is divided into five titles (or sections) that relate to different areas of public life.

Title I - Employment

• Helps people with disabilities access the same employment opportunities and benefits available to people without disabilities.
• Applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
• Requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified applicants or employees. A “reasonable accommodation” is a change that accommodates employees with disabilities so they can do the job without causing the employer “undue hardship” (too much difficulty or expense).
• Defines disability, establishes guidelines for the reasonable accommodation process, and addresses medical examinations and inquiries.
• Regulated and enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission .

Title II - Public Services: State and Local Government

• Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by “public entities” such as state and local government agencies.
• Requires public entities to make their programs, services and activities accessible to individuals with disabilities.
• Outlines requirements for self-evaluation and planning; making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination; identifying architectural barriers; and communicating effectively with people with hearing, vision and speech disabilities.
• Regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice . 

Title III - Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities

• Prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Public accommodations include privately owned, leased or operated facilities like hotels, restaurants, retail merchants, doctors' offices, golf courses, private schools, day care centers, health clubs, sports stadiums, movie theaters, and so on.
• Sets the minimum standards for accessibility for alterations and new construction of commercial facilities and privately owned public accommodations. It also requires public accommodations to remove barriers in existing buildings where it is easy to do so without much difficulty or expense.
• Directs businesses to make "reasonable modifications" to their usual ways of doing things when serving people with disabilities.
• Requires that businesses take steps necessary to communicate effectively with customers with vision, hearing, and speech disabilities.
• Regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice .

Title IV - Telecommunications

• Requires telephone and Internet companies to provide a nationwide system of interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay services that allows individuals with hearing or speech disabilities to communicate over the telephone.
• Requires closed captioning of federally funded public service announcements.
• Regulated by the Federal Communication Commission . 

Title V - Miscellaneous Provisions

• Contains a variety of provisions relating to the ADA as a whole, including its relationship to other laws, state immunity, its impact on insurance providers and benefits, prohibition against retaliation and coercion, illegal use of drugs, and attorney’s fees.
• Provides a list of certain conditions that are not considered disabilities.
• Public transportation offered by a state or local government is covered by Title II of the ADA. Publicly funded transportation includes, but is not limited to, bus and passenger train (rail) service. Rail service includes subways (rapid rail), light rail, commuter rail, and Amtrak.
• If transportation is offered by a private company, it is covered by Title III. Privately funded transportation includes, but is not limited to, taxicabs, airport shuttles, intercity bus companies, such as Greyhound, and hotel-provided transportation.
• The U.S. Department of Transportation,  Federal Transit Administration releases information, guidance and regulations on transportation and the ADA. 

More information about the ADA is available from the ADA National Network

The ADA National Network provides information, guidance and training on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), tailored to meet the needs of business, government and individuals at local, regional and national levels.

ADA National Network publications include:

• ADA Questions and Answers 
• Disability Law Handbook

ADA National Network webcourses include:

• Foundations of the ADA . This is a introductory webcourse ​that explores the legal requirements and spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The course takes 2-3 hours and includes quizzes and a post-test. The Southeast ADA Center, a member of the ADA National Network, developed the course.
• ADA Employment Course . This course is a free, self-paced webcourse on the employment requirements in the ADA, including the important changes made to the ADA by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The course takes approximately 2.5 hours and includes real life scenarios, quizzes and a final exam. The New England ADA Center, a member of the ADA National Network, developed the course.
• Disability Rights Laws Overview . This course is a free, self-paced webcourse that provides an overview of federal disability rights laws. The course takes approximately 1.5 - 2 hours and includes real life scenarios, quizzes and a final exam. The New England ADA Center, a member of the ADA National Network, developed the course.

Language: 

Provide feedback on this factsheet.

1-800-949-4232

Grant Disclaimer

Accessibility

The website was last updated May, 2024

• Default Style
• Green Style
• Orange Style

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Research Paper

Introduction, why the act was introduced, difficulties during implementation, the equal employment opportunities commission.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) refers to a policy that was drafted and passed by legislators in the congress to become part and parcel of US laws in the year 1990. This policy was meant to protect individuals with disabilities from being denied equal opportunities in various areas, including employment and access to public amenities and other public places.

After the law was passed there were so many people who felt disappointed because they knew they had to embrace change which is not what they were expecting. This paper will focus on the above mentioned policy and how it defends the rights of the disabled people in the workforce with regard to corporate and employee perspectives.

The first title of this policy focuses on employment because this is one of the main areas that tend to be biased. This is because there were, and are, many cases of people who have been denied equal opportunities at their work places just because they are disabled.

Perhaps what most employers do not know is that disability is not inability since there are many people who are disabled and yet they have outstanding abilities in other areas, sometimes even much better and advanced than their counterparts who are not disabled.

Acemoglu and Angrist (2001) argue that in as much as the disabled have been given equal opportunities such as education, leaving them out of the workforce may sound and look like an insult because the skills that they posses will be wasted while they would have been put into good use.

The ADA states that employers must allow all job seekers including the disabled an equal opportunity to apply for jobs without setting limits that are based on their disabilities.

The state recognizes every one who is disabled and that is why it demands for equal treatment. According to issues raised by ADA, during the process of bringing new employees on board in any company, the person in charge of hiring should evaluate job candidates equally because their looks are not as important as the skills they have.

Before this policy came into being, employers used to judge people from their looks and thus the persons involved felt deserted because there was no one to defend them. Job seekers with disabilities were simply barred from even securing an interview because most employers dismissed them by simply referring to their disability to mean that they cannot be productive.

ADA clearly states that employees with disabilities are entitled to promotions just like the other employees in the workforce. This is because there are some employers who offer these people jobs and are not willing to upgrade their ranks even after they have worked for them for so long. Employers should gauge employees by their performance which is reflected by the results they deliver (DeLeire, 2000).

When ADA was first implemented employers especially medium sized organizations were finding it difficult to comply with it because they knew they had to restructure some of their facilities for them to warmly accommodate employees with disabilities.

Prior to the implementation of this act, human resources managers were under strict instructions not to hire people with disabilities. This puzzled them because some of the job applicants were actually qualified for the positions they had applied for.

But then they had to stick to their employers’ rules lest they would also loose their jobs. Most employers think that by bringing a disabled employee on board they would be adding more liabilities, but this is not the case because these people apply for jobs that they are sure they can perform without any difficulties.

Moreover, the government of the US was spending a lot of cash on catering for the needs of the persons with disabilities.

Prior to the introduction of ADA, the government was looking for a way to minimize its expenditures on these people because investigations revealed that quite a number of them possessed some skills that would earn them a decent living if only they were given a chance to demonstrate their skills and abilities.

According to Fielder (2004), helping these people access the job market became a priority because the government felt that it could be relieved once these people were absorbed into the work force. This would leave the government with fewer people to take care of, just like the famous English saying that states that if you give a man fish you will feed him forever but if you show him how to fish he will feed himself.

Furthermore, if the government did not look for a way of helping people with disabilities to sustain themselves the situation would have become a crisis because every other day there are people who become disabled through accidents and some are born like that and their number would have accumulated so much.

It is certain that the government would not be capable of handling such huge number of people and it would have to borrow more funds in order to take care of these people while some of them can actively engage in income generating activities.

By implementing ADA the government had empowered the people with disabilities because they could now look for jobs with confidence when they knew that they would not be turned away because of their disability. In fact the act states that any employer who denies any of his or her employees equal opportunities based on their disability can be sued in a court of law.

The government itself set the best example as far as this act was concerned by designating some positions in the congress for people with special needs. In fact all government corporations and agencies including parastatals are under obligation to reserve some positions for people with special needs.

Switzer and Vaughn (2003) state this act has really helped people with special needs because more enhancements have been put in place especially with the introduction of technology which helps people with disabilities to perform their tasks just like anybody else.

For instance, there are hearing aids which are quite essential to people who have hearing problems hence such people can be involved in important issues at their work places such as decision making because they can clearly hear what the others are saying.

The only exceptional jobs that people with disabilities cannot actively engage in are manual jobs, such as in the construction sites and the military.

But then the people with disabilities have proved us wrong because of late they engage actively in sports such as basketball and athletics and that is why we have Paralympics that are meant to show case the talents of the disabled. Surely, some of them earn their daily bread from these sporting activities.

There is a commission in the US that fights for the rights of people with disabilities when it comes to employment. This commission is called Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) and it acts as the watch dog for people with special needs in the job market by ensuring that they are viewed equally competent like their counterparts.

The commission represents persons with disabilities in legal cases and negotiates for their equal treatment where it feels that its member has been offended (Acemoglu & Angrist, 2001). There have been so many cases involving employees who have been sacked by their employers just because they have developed a physical disability. The commission has won in most of these cases.

I personally advocate for equal opportunities in employment for people with disabilities. This is because I have been to many government offices and non governmental organizations and have been served by employees with disabilities and surprisingly their services were quite satisfactory and that is why I do not see the reason for denying them equal chances.

For those employers who argue that employees with disabilities may do their work with lots of errors, they should look at themselves first and figure out the number of mistakes they have made considering that they are not disabled.

This implies that we all make errors regardless of whether we are disabled or not. Furthermore, these people are our brothers and sisters and at times parents. Therefore, we should give them an opportunity to earn a living because that way we will not have to give them money to pay their bills and take care of their families.

ADA is an important law that strives to protect the rights of disabled people in the employment sector. On the other hand, it gives companies the guidelines that are to be followed in the realization of equal treatment of both disabled employees and consumers.

It is necessary for employers to incorporate disabled people in their workforces like they would expect their own children to be absorbed because one does not have to be born disabled.

Disability can come later in life and thus we should treat others the way we would want them to treat us because at the end of the day what goes round comes around. In essence, when such people do a mistake employers should not blame their disability because mistakes are not made from disabilities.

Acemoglu, D. & Angrist, D.J. (2001). Consequences of Employment Protection? The Case of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Political Economy,109, 915-957.

DeLeire, T. (2000). The Wage and Employment Effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Human Resources, 35 (4) , 693-715.

Fielder, J.F. (2004). Mental Disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act . Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Switzer, J.V. & Vaughn, J. (2003). Disabled Rights: American Disability Policy and the Fight for Equality . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 1). Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). https://ivypanda.com/essays/americans-with-disabilities-act-ada-research-paper/

"Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)." IvyPanda , 1 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/americans-with-disabilities-act-ada-research-paper/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)'. 1 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)." May 1, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/americans-with-disabilities-act-ada-research-paper/.

1. IvyPanda . "Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)." May 1, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/americans-with-disabilities-act-ada-research-paper/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)." May 1, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/americans-with-disabilities-act-ada-research-paper/.

• Disability Discrimination Laws: Workers' Compensation
• People With Disabilities: Local and a Federal Law’ Regulation
• “Between Two Empires” by Ada Holland Shissler
• What the U.S. can do to modernize its national security system to protect its citizens?
• Analysis of New York City's emergency response plan
• Does Corruption Grease or Put Sand in a System’s Cogs?
• Jurisdictional Differences: Australia, England & Wales, and the US
• Political economy in Turkey: Regulatory Agencies

Home         About the Author         Key Documents         Accessibility

• There Oughta’ Be A Law: Discriminatory Short-Circuit of Summer Job
• There Oughta’ Be a Law: The Bob Brunner Story
• A Dozen Things to Know About the ADA
• Who Really Wrote the ADA?
• Landmark Education Rights Precedent: The Gail H. Story
• Cross-Country Wheelchair Trek and Statue of Liberty Accessibility
• Tom Gilhool and Me
• Disability, Pandemic, and Discrimination: People With Disabilities Shafted Again
• Early Years with a Disability
• Family Background and the Gray Period
• Disability Rights Movement
• To the National Council
• Toward Independence and the Vision of an ADA
• Prelude to Drafting the Original ADA Bill
• Drafting and Introduction of the Original ADA Bill
• ADA 1990 & Beyond

On July 26, 1990, on the South Lawn of the White House prior to the Presidential signing ceremony of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I wandered through the crowd of nearly 3,000 joyful people, predominantly individuals with disabilities, exchanging congratulations and hugs. I ran into John Kemp, a top-notch lawyer and well-known disability rights advocate. John is also a personal friend of mine, impressive in many ways; I once joined him and some other guys on a basketball court outside a meeting in Chicago, and watched him use his arm and leg prosthetics to swish basket after basket. At the ADA signing, after he and I exchanged greetings, he said, “Bob, “I have never heard of so many people who claimed to have written a law as I have today with the ADA.” He added, “As I recall, you were actually the one who was most responsible for writing it. Isn’t that right?”

The question “Who wrote the ADA?” may sound simple and straightforward, but it requires a complicated, layered, and nuanced answer. When I began my work on what came to be the Americans with Disabilities Act, I was not thinking about getting recognition or acclaim for my efforts. I had heard President Truman’s line, frequently bandied about in D.C., “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit,” and I thought I would stay very happily in the background if I could help get comprehensive civil rights protection for persons with disabilities codified in American law.

But following enactment of the ADA, I watched as people came out of the woodwork claiming to have written all or part of the statute, to have “authored” it, or “drafted” it; to have “inspired” it, been “the architect” of it, or even “the person most responsible for the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” One list of “some of the people who contributed to the writing of the Americans with Disabilities Act” contained some 445 names. [1] A number of people played a variety of roles, some larger, some smaller. As DREDF attorney and prominent ADA activist and scholar Arlene Mayerson has aptly and eloquently written:

The ADA owes its birthright not to any one person, or any few, but to the many thousands of people who make up the disability rights movement – people who have worked for years organizing and attending protests, licking envelopes, sending out alerts, drafting legislation, speaking, testifying, negotiating, lobbying, filing lawsuits, being arrested – doing whatever they could for a cause they believed in. There are far too many people whose commitment and hard work contributed to the passage of this historic piece of disability civil rights legislation to be able to give appropriate credit by name. Without the work of so many – without the disability rights movement – there would be no ADA. [2]

No one knows how many people contributed to the ADA, but the number of people involved was certainly quite large, and there ought to be plenty of kudos to go around. But imprecise and exaggerated assertions of responsibility and involvement have engendered confusion and obscured actual accomplishments; and, in honor of the ADA’s 30 th anniversary, it’s time to set the record straight.

While I was not focused on ensuring that I was getting sufficient credit when we were fighting the tough battle to get the ADA passed, once it was enacted I became more and more surprised and dismayed by a few people claiming more credit than they deserved. Let’s give credit where credit is due, but credit only for things that people actually did, no more and no less. My purpose in this essay is, as they say in current vernacular, to “unpack” the underlying reality by summarizing my front-row perspective of who wrote/authored/drafted the ADA, and who contributed in a major way to its development, or to getting it introduced in Congress and signed into law.

No, I Did Not “Author” the ADA

One thing is very clear, no one person wrote the ADA. I think of the ADA as a tapestry that was woven out of many, many pieces of thread by a large number of specialized weavers. I wrote an article for the Washington Post that appeared in 2015 under the title “Why I Wrote the ADA,” which may cause some to wonder how I can now say that no single person wrote the law. However, like most authors of newspaper pieces, I did not choose the title – the Post’s editors, not I, chose it – after I unsuccessfully fought tenaciously to get them to change it. It was otherwise delightful to work with the editorial executives of the newspaper, who were insightful, congenial, and supportive; but they felt strongly that the “Why I Wrote” formulation made a much more dramatic, compelling headline than other options.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized me as “the drafter of the original ADA bill introduced in Congress in 1988.” While I lay claim to having written the entirety of the 1988 bill, and to playing a key role in drafting the revised version that was introduced and passed in the next Congress, I do not and would not ever claim to have single-handedly written the ADA.

Sponsors, Cosponsors, and Congressional Supporters

A difficulty in attributing authorship of a law is imprecise, misleading wording often used in ascribing credit. Members of Congress – Senators and Representatives – introduce bills; the chief, original introducer is the sponsor of the legislation, and other members who join in supporting the introduction of a bill are co-sponsors. In 1988, Senator Lowell Weicker was the Senate sponsor of the ADA in the 100 th Congress. One day after Weicker introduced his bill, Representative Tony Coelho sponsored an identical bill in the House of Representatives. In 1989, Senator Tom Harkin sponsored a revised version of the ADA bill in the Senate in the 101 st Congress; Tony Coelho was again the sponsor in the House.

The identity of the sponsors is a documented fact. Not so clear-cut are claims that a member of Congress “authored” or “wrote” a piece of legislation. Though such claims or attributions are fairly common, they are based upon a fiction that most legislation is written by members of Congress themselves. Actually, it is unusual for Senators or Representatives to write bills in whole or in substantial part. Congressional staffers (either working for an individual congress member or for a congressional committee), federal government agencies, and interest groups draft most bills. The member of Congress may suggest what type of bill she or he wants drafted or the approach to be taken, provide an outline or even suggest some language, and will usually review draft bills and direct changes to be made, but it would be a rare instance in which a Congress member would sit down at a keyboard (much less pen and paper) and write the text of a bill. The designation of “sponsor” is both technically accurate and unambiguous. But referring to the sponsor as the “author” or “writer” of a piece of legislation, though frequently done, is almost always inaccurate and obfuscates the actual roles played in developing a bill.

The sponsor is the essential figure in advancing any piece of legislation. Sponsors take the critical initial step in advancing a bill by formally placing it for consideration on the congressional agenda. If the legislation is not well-received by constituents, or is rejected by Congress, the sponsors and co-sponsors face the risk of harmful ramifications to their reputations, standing, and perhaps even their political careers. The sponsors and co-sponsors of the ADA bills deserve much acclaim for having the courage and foresight to lend their public support to this momentous, revolutionary, unprecedented, and at times controversial legislative proposal – to put it before the Congress and the general public as a potential federal law. Particulars of many of the parts they played in the enactment of the ADA are described in THE MAKING OF THE ADA webpage sections, of which only a few highlights are mentioned here.

Enormous credit obviously is due to Senators Weicker and Harkin, and Representative Coelho. Senator Weicker took the lead by standing up in the Senate and putting the first ADA bill on the congressional stage. Among numerous other contributions to advancing the legislation, he and his staff, including especially Terry Muilenberg, Staff Director of the Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped, helped tweak and fine-tune drafts of the ADA to produce the version introduced in 1988. Weicker was also instrumental in garnering early support for the bill, including enlisting the involvement of Senator Harkin and Representative Coelho. Senator Harkin not only sponsored the 1989 version of the ADA, he had Bobby Silverstein, Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped that Harkin chaired, lead negotiations with disability rights attorneys (the Legal Team) to revise the 1988 bill to produce the 1989 bill. Moreover, Harkin spearheaded strategic and political maneuvering to get the legislation passed in the Senate.

Representative Tony Coelho was an early supporter and original sponsor of the ADA; he provided strong testimony in favor of ADA bills in both the 100 th and 101 st Congresses, and played a significant role in some behind-the-scenes advocacy and arm-twisting in favor of the legislation. His strong commitment to the ADA might have led to even greater contributions to its enactment had he not resigned from Congress because of accusations of financial ethics violations in May 1989.

In addition to the sponsors, scores of members of Congress were heroes in the passage of the ADA. Among many others, very substantial contributions were made by Senators Edward Kennedy, Robert Dole (Senate Minority Leader), Paul Simon, James Jeffords, David Durenberger, and Orrin Hatch; and Representatives Steny Hoyer, Major Owens, Hamilton Fish Jr., and Silvio Conte. Although the efforts of these and many others were pivotal at various points in the congressional proceedings, the involvement of Senator Kennedy and Representative Hoyer was particularly important.

Kennedy chaired the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, the key committee to which the ADA was referred in both the 100 th and 101 st Congresses. In that role, he was a strong and consistent voice in support of the legislation. And through Carolyn Osolinik, his Chief Counsel, his office had a major positive influence on deliberations of the Legal Team (to be discussed later in this essay) to develop the revised bill introduced in 1989. When Tony Coelho left Congress, the task of shepherding the ADA through the House of Representatives devolved to Steny Hoyer, the fourth ranking Democrat in the House. Though his wife had epilepsy and he had supported various pieces of traditional civil rights legislation, to that point Hoyer had not been extensively involved with disability rights legislation. But he and his Legislative Director, Melissa Schulman, proved to be quick studies and soon mastered the intricacies of the ADA bill, enabling them to handle sensitive negotiations and successfully guide the bill through four different substantive committees and several subcommittees in the House, plus the House Rules Committee. Along the way, they helped to forge many compromises and refinements in the statutory language and to thwart attempts to weaken the bill.

Ultimately, a high percentage of members from both parties in the 100 th and 101 st Congresses could legitimately lay claim to having supported the enactment of the ADA. The votes to pass the ADA were overwhelmingly in favor of passage; all of the formal up-or-down committee votes on reporting out the ADA, and all of the floor votes on passage of the legislation, had at least a 90 percent majority in favor of the ADA bills. As far as “having contributed to the writing of the ADA,” no one really knows how many members and staffers wrote language that found its way into the bills, whether as a word or two, a new or revised subsection, or even a whole section. For example, Title II of the ADA includes extensive sections covering public transportation systems, Amtrak, and commuter authorities, and Title III includes analogous provisions regarding much private transportation by bus, rail, or any other conveyance (other than aircraft). These detailed parts of the ADA, though based on the scope of coverage in the original ADA bill, were primarily drafted in the House Committees on Public Works and Transportation, and on Energy and Commerce, with considerable input from and collaboration with the U.S. Department of Transportation. Another provision was added to Title V to spell out the accessibility requirements to be applied to federal wilderness areas; it was added to the bill by congressional staffers with the input of the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the National Council on Disability. Thus, a lot of people on Capitol Hill put their two-cents-worth, or quite a bit more, into the ADA bills as they progressed through Congress.

National Council on Disability

As the Senate passed the ADA in September 1989, Senator Robert Dole, the Senate minority leader, noted that the “bill originated with an initiative of the National Council on Disability, an independent federal body composed of 15 members appointed by President Reagan and charged with reviewing all laws, programs, and policies of the Federal Government affecting individuals with disabilities.” [3]  The path to introduction of the original ADA bill was highly unusual. Even if bills are written by an interest group or a federal agency, they normally surface in the public arena only when the sponsor introduces them in Congress. The ADA bill that Senator Weicker and Representative Coelho introduced, however, was a complete bill developed by the National Council on Disability.

When in the Spring of 1987 the Council, in the face of congressional inaction on its ADA concept, decided it wanted to produce its own bill, it called upon me, as the Council’s only lawyer, to do the drafting. In fact, I had previously penned, with my good friend and former Civil Rights Commission colleague Chris Bell, a “ Statutory Blueprint ” for a comprehensive disability civil rights law, and while working at the Council, I had developed recommendations in the Toward Independence report prescribing key elements of such a law, and already had produced a rough draft of what such a bill could look like.

After having previously shared an outline and portions of a draft ADA bill with Executive Director Lex Frieden and the officers and staff of the National Council, in October of 1987 I had a full draft ready for consideration by all the members of the Council. Over the next several months, at quarterly meetings of the Council and, in between, the members reviewed numerous drafts of the bill, pored over them line-by-line, raised concerns, asked questions, suggested changes, argued about them, and ultimately reached consensus on most issues.

NCD Staff – L to R standing: Kathy Roy Johnson, Robert Burgdorf, Andrea Farbman, Ethel Briggs, D. Ray Fuller, Jr.; seated: LaVerne Chase

While few of the members had legal or legislative experience, I was highly impressed with their commitment to improving the lives of people with disabilities, and their unflagging conviction that enactment of the ADA was essential. I was also gratified by how much they trusted me and listened to my explanations, and, as they made valid objections or offered useful additions, I was pleased to take their ideas and translate them into proper legal language consistent with the thrust and form of the legislation and relevant legal precedents. They put their best efforts into making the bill as good as possible before giving it their stamp of approval.

On January 29, 1988, the Council published its then current draft bill in its report  On the Threshold of Independence , which generated much more public attention to and support for the proposal. Disability groups entered into further negotiations with the Council over proposed changes to the On the Threshold version of the bill, and we continued to consider and make other refinements of our own. On March 11, Lex Frieden and I sent out to the Council a “Proposed Final Draft” of the ADA bill I had prepared, including revisions the Council had approved, with a mail ballot for the members’ approval or disapproval. With unanimous approval of the draft by the Council, on March 18, I removed the words “proposed final” and designated the document simply “The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Draft Bill.”

On April 28, 1988, on the floor of the United States Senate, Senator Weicker proceeded to introduce the Council’s March 18 ADA bill. The 15 members of the Council, led by Chairperson Sandra Parrino and Justin Dart, were the towering force behind the inception and development of the bill. The Council members’ goals and decisions regarding the legislation were ably executed and implemented by the Council staff, directed by Lex Frieden, who was a key broker of the legislation between disparate factions inside and outside the Council throughout the course of the development of the ADA, with crucial involvement of staff members Andi Farbman, Kathy Roy, and Ethel Briggs, who made many valuable contributions. Together, the Council members and staff all featured prominently in the achievement of this milestone in disability rights history and in the history of our country.

Legal Team Plus

A crucial influence on the revision of the 1988 ADA bill leading to the version of the bill enacted in 1990 was a group of top-flight lawyers who represented the disability community in preparation for and during ADA consideration in the 101 st Congress – a group that disability rights advocate and ADA honcho Pat Wright assembled and christened the “Legal Team.” The membership and roles seemed to vary somewhat depending largely upon Pat’s sense of what was needed at a particular time, but the core group usually consisted of Arlene Mayerson of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), David Capozzi of the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), Bonnie Milstein of the Mental Health Law Project, Tim Cook of the National Disability Action Center, Jim Weisman of the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of America (EPVA), Karen Peltz-Strauss of the National Center for Law and the Deaf (NCLD), Ralph Neas of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), Liz Savage of the Epilepsy Foundation, Chai Feldblum of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and me. I tended to think of a slightly larger group that I called the “Legal Team Plus,” because I included Pat Wright who was almost always present, her DREDF colleagues, including Marilyn Golden, who were often available for consultation by phone, and Senate staffers Bobby Silverstein and Carolyn Osolinik, who, though they were meeting with us to get our input, actually worked collaboratively with us as part of the team on enhancing the ADA bill. The Legal Team met frequently, though not on a regular schedule, to review potential changes, draft new language, discuss problems with particular provisions, and argue about issues and approaches, including deciding which provisions were so critical that we would “fall on our swords for” rather than concede them. The Team oversaw a restructuring of the sections of the bill, and various modifications to the language of the 1988 bill, to produce the bill introduced in the 101 st Congress in 1989. Whenever possible, I tried to be the one who translated what we had agreed to into new statutory language. Overall, the Legal Team served a vital function in shaping revisions to the 1988 bill and in maintaining the integrity of the proposed ADA.

Other Contributors

In addition to the previously mentioned Department of Transportation, Forest Service, and National Park Service, a number of other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Access Board, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Justice, weighed in at various times during congressional consideration of the ADA – making comments, identifying concerns, and suggesting alternative approaches and language. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh was pivotal in supporting the legislation and testifying in favor of it. And the ADA’s road to passage would have been much rockier or even impossible were it not for the strong support of President George H.W. Bush, whose support of the ADA dated from when he was Vice President.

Many interest groups, constituents, and miscellaneous individuals made suggestions to members of Congress, congressional staffers, or the Legal Team about the content and wording of the pending legislation; some fraction of these suggestions may have been incorporated into the legislation or proposed amendments, and a small subset may have survived in the ADA as enacted. Thus, in addition to folks in the legislative branch, any number of people and entities, both inside and outside the government, contributed to or helped with the writing of various portions of the ADA.

In addition to those who had some impact, to a greater or lesser degree, on the content of the ADA, another crucial category was those who supported the ADA – by lobbying for it, participating in demonstrations and marches, contacting their members of Congress, writing op-ed pieces and letters to the editor, pushing their organizations to back it, courting positive media coverage of the legislation, and engaging in countless other kinds of actions, from the grassroots level to the halls of power in Washington, to promote and advance the cause of the ADA.

A small army of lobbyists under the leadership of Liz Savage filled the halls of Congress, educating members of Congress and wooing their votes, explaining and defending the legislation, anticipating and answering concerns and questions, and stressing the political and humanitarian merits of the ADA. People with disabilities and their organizations undertook numerous direct action activities, including marches on and picketing at the White House, a sit-in in the Rotunda of the Capitol, cramming the halls of Congress and streets around the White House with people with disabilities, and protesters getting out of their wheelchairs and crawling up the steps of the Capitol. Such demonstrations, many of which were organized by ADAPT (Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit at the time) or the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL), and other actions in the same period, including the marches and rallies associated with the “Deaf President Now” protests at Gallaudet University in March 1988, confirmed the passion and commitment of persons with disabilities for having their rights recognized and respected, underscored the need for the ADA, and dramatically increased visibility of the ADA legislation.

Another powerful way in which tens of thousands of people with disabilities contributed to congressional consideration and passage of the ADA was by testifying – attending hearings, forums, and other official gatherings to tell their personal stories of disability and discrimination, and putting a human face on the unjust treatment accorded those with physical or mental impairments. On May 2, 1988, Representative Major Owens, Chair of the House Subcommittee on Select Education, established the Congressional Taskforce on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities to collect information and make recommendations to assist Congress in its consideration of the ADA. Justin Dart, esteemed disability activist and former National Council on Disability member, chaired the Task Force and Elizabeth Boggs, a disability rights pioneer, and authority on intellectual disability, and a nuclear physicist, was co-chair. Its 38 members and officers constituted a veritable Who’s Who of disability organization leadership in the United States. [4] The Task Force heard from “more than 10,000 persons with disabilities and their advocates attending 63 Task Force forums and eight congressional hearings in 50 states,” and reported that the ADA was supported by over 99% of those who testified. [5] Between 1988 and 1990 Justin Dart, personally chaired 63 forums in each of the fifty states, plus Guam and Puerto Rico, attended by more than 7,000 people; in the process he also collected more than 5,000 documents in support of the ADA bill. And Congress held 18 formal hearings to consider the ADA. All the people who attended and testified in favor of the legislation at these forums and hearings played an integral part in moving the ADA forward.

The foregoing examples, though but a drop in the bucket, serve to illustrate that many, many people had an enormous impact on enactment of the ADA other than by writing its provisions.

False and Exaggerated Claims

The main purpose of this essay is to chronicle positive things that people did to further the ADA, not to list things that people were inaccurately said to have done. A few attributions, however, have been so distorted as to warrant discussion. One exaggerated narrative was associated with the 1997 movie, Music Within , about the life of Richard Pimentel, a motivational speaker with a hearing impairment. It describes two men with disabilities whose encounters with discrimination caused them to become militant disability rights advocates. The film offers dramatic insights into disability discrimination and prejudice, but, toward its end, and especially in its promotion, the movie ascribes to Richard Pimentel an outsized role in the origin and enactment of the ADA. In promoting its use as a teaching tool, the website of Teach with Movies (Teachwithmovies.org/music) declared, “Richard Pimentel is one of the people most responsible for the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990” and further “The film is a biography of Richard Pimentel (1947 -), one of the people most responsible for the movement to recognize the disabled as full-fledged human beings. His advocacy was a major factor in passage of the ADA.” The Village Voice said that Music Within “tells the true life tale of Richard Pimentel, the man more or less behind the Americans with Disabilities Act” (Robert Wilonsky, “ Music Within ,” October 16, 2007, Villagevoice.com).

As a person who has spent the best part of five decades of my professional career in the disability rights movement and has been intimately involved with the ADA from its inception to the present, I had never heard of Richard Pimentel until the movie came out. I am unaware of anything of any major significance that he contributed to the movement; he may have made motivational speeches in favor of disability rights and in support of the ADA, but in my opinion he was not a prominent figure. Shortly after the film hit theaters, movie review icon Roger Ebert decided to set the record straight. In a review he wrote:

[A]lthough the movie doesn’t quite say so, he [Pementel] must have been the driving force behind the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), because no one else is mentioned.

The national disability rights movement had many parents. Such men as Robert Burgdorf, Justin Whitlock Dart Jr. and Sen. Bob Dole were instrumental. … Here in Chicago, my friend Marca Bristo founded Access Living to support the disabled who wanted to live independently. … She was appointed chair of the National Council on Disability. No, she didn’t create the Americans with Disabilities Act. But Google both her and Pimentel, and decide for yourself who played a larger role in the movement.

Richard Pimentel was more of a beneficiary of the disability rights movement than a pioneer. … Just remember that [the movie’s] hero stands for countless others.

Roger Ebert, Music Within (2007), at http://rogerebert.suntimes.com

Equally apocryphal are claims of prior conceptualizations or versions of the ADA. In the days leading up to the 25 th anniversary of the ADA’s enactment, several museums were tweeting and blogging about the history of the law as part of #DisabilityStories. At 11:54 a.m. on July 15, 2015, the George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) Presidential Library and Museum tweeted a copy of the first two pages of a document titled “Working Outline, Draft One, Disabled Americans Act, 11/26/80.” About an hour later, the Library tweeted the other two pages with the caption “Pages 3, 4 from the first draft of the Disabled Americans Act that would become the ADA ” (emphasis added). Spreading such inaccurate information about the origin of the ADA, especially by a Presidential Library, is a serious lapse. Upon examination, it turned out that the document was not a disability civil rights legislative proposal at all and contained nothing faintly resembling the ADA. Its first provision declared its purpose to be “establishment of local and state area agencies for disabled individuals re need for coordination, linkage programs to address gaps in service, wholistic [sic] approach.” It certainly was not a step toward a comprehensive law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability – it did not even mention discrimination. Its objective was to recast federal disability service programs as state and local programs.

An even more unusual claim was the assertion by one man that in 1968, when he was 16 years old, he “co-conceived” the ADA with then U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and that Ramsey coined the law’s name. Research did not disclose any affirmation or verification by the former A.G. of these assertions, and I know for a fact that no such preconception of an ADA was known or somehow played a role in the development and naming of the ADA. A problem with claims that, before the ADA was drafted and introduced, someone had previously conceived, thought of, envisioned, etc., an ADA, is that the supposed pre-ADA concept or idea of an ADA is very general and fuzzy. Simply suggesting that there should be a law protecting people with disabilities from discrimination is not a proposal or conceptualization of the ADA. Drafting something with the words equal rights, or disability rights, or discrimination is not the same as writing a version of the ADA. Ideas or documents that do not look like the ADA, did not have any influence on the original bill introduced in 1988 nor on the legislation that finally passed, were not part of the legislative drafting that culminated in the ADA, and were unknown to the actual drafters of the ADA, cannot be considered as early renditions of the ADA.

From its inception in the Toward Independence report, through to its enactment, the essence of the ADA proposal was to enact “a comprehensive law … with broad coverage and setting clear, consistent, and enforceable standards prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap.” Anything less was not a conception, version, or forerunner of the ADA.

My Contributions to the ADA

In this section, I seek to present an honest self-assessment of the part(s) I played in the development of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I grew up in the Midwest, where the culture commonly favors Midwestern understatement – “shucks ma’am, tweren’t nothing,” and “don’t get too big for your britches” – over anything that even faintly suggests self-aggrandizement or boasting. Swimming against that tide, I want to straightforwardly recount my contributions to the ADA, without false humility or selling myself short.

When I joined the staff of the National Council on Disability in 1985, a renowned member of the Council was Dr. Henry Viscardi, who had been born without legs and became a leader in rehabilitation and disability activism. It was an honor to work with Dr. Viscardi. In mid-1960s, he and Abilities, Inc., which he founded, had modified “An American’s Creed” penned by Dean Alfange in the early fifties, to produce a “Credo” of people with disabilities, which ends, “[I]t is my heritage to stand erect, proud, and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and face the world boldly and say, ‘ This I have done . ’ For our disabled millions, for you and me, all this is what it means to be an American.” I would like to borrow from Viscardi’s wisdom and say. “This I have done,” in relation to the ADA.

During the first decade of my career, I gained a wealth of first-hand experience with disability rights law in America, through extensive involvement in litigation, research, and writing (including the first law school casebook on the subject) at the National Center for Law and the Handicapped and the Developmental Disabilities Law Project. After joining the General Counsel’s Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1982, I had the opportunity to devote some three additional years to concentrated study of disability and disability rights. Drawing upon all of this groundwork, in 1984, Chris Bell, my friend and colleague at the Commission, and I concluded that better federal legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability was desperately needed.

In our Statutory Blueprint article , we suggested elements that should be included in “any new legislative proposals addressing [disability] discrimination”; these included (1) a definition of discrimination on the basis of disability; (2) a reasonable accommodation requirement and a definition of that term; (3) standards governing the extent to which costs and other factors should limit the duty to make reasonable accommodations; (4) a prohibition of qualifications, selection, and eligibility criteria used to limit opportunities without regard to an individual’s actual ability; (5) a requirement of architectural, transportation, and communication accessibility; (6) clear and effective enforcement mechanisms; and, critically, (7) broader coverage. Regarding the last of these, we noted that coverage of existing disability nondiscrimination laws was significantly narrower than other civil rights laws, in large part because they did not make use of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. By the time I drafted the “Equal Opportunity Laws” section of the National Council on Disability’s Toward Independence report in 1986, I had refined my thinking to the point that I formulated the first recommendation in the report as follows: “Congress should enact a comprehensive law requiring equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities, with broad coverage and setting clear, consistent, and enforceable standards prohibiting discrimination of the basis of handicap.” The second recommendation I drafted identified nine categories of entities that the nondiscrimination law should cover.

Some individuals and disability organizations had previously recognized a need for a disability rights law coextensive in scope of coverage with existing civil rights laws, to be accomplished by adding the word “disability” to the types of discrimination prohibited under those laws. I was more ambitious in advocating a comprehensive law going beyond the scope of those statutes and one that would establish what elements a disability discrimination law should include. This approach was reflected in the draft ADA bill I wrote for the National Council, which was published in the Council’s report On the Threshold of Independence and was introduced in Congress in 1988. As the long title of that bill, I wrote “To establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of handicap,” a formulation that was echoed by the first provision in the “Purposes” subsection: “to provide a clear and comprehensive National mandate for the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities.” That long title and primary purpose were retained in the ADA as enacted in 1990, framing the body of the law and its substantive provisions.

At the time that I was formulating a comprehensive bill, I was pretty much on my own, as no other organizations or individuals were advancing such a legislative proposal. Indeed, the prevalent view in Washington was that under the Reagan administration, the disability community was barely holding onto existing disability rights provisions, and there was no hope of moving forward to expand on current rights. Accordingly, I believe that pushing for and drafting a comprehensive disability civil rights law at that time, often in the face of zealous opposition, was at the top of my contributions to the ADA.

After having drafted the original bill, I was heavily involved in the development of ADA language, and negotiations and revisions that produced the final legislation. From the writing of all the Findings and Purposes of the law; to formulating the expansive scope of its coverage (which, although it was restructured in the 1989 bill, shaped the breadth of coverage in the final enacted version); to fighting for and defending broad coverage of public accommodations, to coining the term “readily achievable” and writing its definition; to conceiving the “donut approach” to covering a periphery of activities around a nucleus of federal and federally funded activities already covered by sections 501 to 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; to putting pre-employment inquiries provisions in the statutory text – my fingerprints are all over the final ADA.

Even in regard to some issues on which I lost in the legislative negotiations – including prohibiting discrimination by insurance providers; organizing the body of the bill to match the format of the Civil Rights Act; providing a clear definition of reasonable accommodation; focusing on discrimination “on the basis of disability” with a more inclusive, less technical definition of “disability”; the need to set a deadline in the future after which full accessibility would be required in all government facilities and public accommodations; and setting “fundamental alteration” instead of “undue financial and administrative burdens” as a limit on the requirement not to engage in discriminatory actions – I came away, despite regrets and frustrations, with a conviction that I had “fought the good fight” over matters on which I had been battling for many years and continue to feel were well worth fighting for.

I’m also proud of the scores (maybe hundreds) of bill drafts, memos, outlines, summaries, talking points, charts, side-by-side analyses, congressional testimony, and a variety of other documents I produced that proved critical to moving forward toward introduction and enactment of the ADA. I was gratified at getting the chance to testify as a technical expert at hearings on the ADA in both the Senate and the House. It was also a proud accomplishment to participate with the impressive and passionate members of the Legal Team Plus to hammer out ideas and compromises. Another highlight for me was working in partnership with Marilyn Golden of DREDF to negotiate, with representatives of the business community, regulatory standards spelling out what percentage of spending on renovation projects by public accommodations was required to be spent on accessibility improvements.

Sections on this website on the web page headed “ THE MAKING OF THE ADA ” spell out in much greater detail my description of who did what in the development and enactment of the ADA. It took many people doing various great things to make the ADA a reality. I feel incredibly fortunate to have worked with so many wonderful human beings on such a remarkable and worthwhile undertaking. Insofar as I have been able to occupy a prominent place in that historic effort, and to have been a preeminent writer of the ADA, I am pleased and proud to say, à la Henry Viscardi, “This I have done.”

[1] The full list appeared in the Able newspaper. July 2010 issue; portions were reprinted, with the names interspersed at the tops and bottoms of pages in the July 2015 issue, found at

http://ablenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ADA-pages-for-website.pdf and

http://ablenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/JULY-2015-LI-1.pdf

[2] Arlene Mayerson, “The History of the Americans with Disabilities Act: A Movement Perspective,” (1992) at https://dredf.org/about-us/publications/the-history-of-the-ada/

[3] 135 Cong. Rec S10790 (daily ed. Sept. 7, 1989).

[4] A list of the Task Force members is found at http://dolearchivecollections.ku.edu/collections/ada /files/s-leg_761_006_all.pdf. Details about the creation and members of the Task Force are found at https://mn.gov/mnddc/ada-legacy/ada-legacy-moment22.html#:~:text=To%20gather%20and %20present%20on,Empowerment%20of%20Americans %20with%20Disabilities.&text=Dart%20was%20a %20leader%20of,a%20renowned%20human%20 rights%20activist.

[5] Report of the Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities – Executive Summary of findings and recommendations, August 20, 1989, http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb /awarchive?type=file&item=418356

Sitemap | About this Website | About the Author | Key Documents | Latest News & Updates | Contact

Stories & Essays |  My Roots & Disability |  Disability Rights Movement |  The Making of the ADA |  ADA 1990 & Beyond

• Our Latest Updates
• Family Background and the Gray Period – Part 1
• About the Author
• About this Website
• Key Documents
• Accessibility
• Acknowledgments

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

It’s Time to Rethink the Americans With Disabilities Act

By Evelyn Clark

Ms. Clark is a lawyer in Washington, D.C.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a case that could shape the future of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The case originated when Deborah Laufer, who has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, filed a lawsuit in 2020 claiming that the Coast Village Inn and Cottages in Maine violated her rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Her case states that the hotel didn’t fulfill its legal obligations to provide information about the accessibility of its accommodations. That, the lawsuit argues, put the hotel out of compliance with the A.D.A.’s Reservations Rule, which requires hotels to post information about accessibility features, like the availability of larger bathrooms to accommodate a wheelchair, on their website.

The company that owned the hotel argues that Ms. Laufer, who lives in Florida, had no right to sue because she never intended to visit the hotel. She describes herself as an A.D.A. “tester,” and her lawsuit against the Coast Village Inn and Cottages is one of hundreds of such lawsuits she has filed against businesses, citing the act.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether Ms. Laufer has standing to bring this lawsuit. The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights organizations argue that she suffered discrimination that caused “dignitary harm.” Those groups point to a long history of “tester” plaintiffs defending civil rights, including Black plaintiffs who sued over racially discriminatory housing. On the other side, groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argue that the A.D.A. requires more direct harm and that testers like Ms. Laufer disproportionately hurt small businesses through expensive lawsuits.

I am a lawyer. I also use a wheelchair after suffering a spinal cord injury eight years ago. Although I do not practice disability rights law, I have an intimate (and complicated) relationship with the A.D.A., and I remain conflicted, personally and professionally, in this case. On the one hand, standing requires a concrete injury, something I’m not entirely convinced Ms. Laufer has suffered. On the other, private lawsuits are currently necessary for people with disabilities to achieve equal access to businesses, public spaces and places of employment.

Too many U.S. media reports have vilified people who use the A.D.A. to enforce accessibility or to recover settlements, referring to them as “crybabies” and calling their lawyers “unethical,” but the law is largely meant to be enforced by people with disabilities. The Justice Department itself says that private suits “are an essential complement” to the federal government’s enforcement of the A.D.A.

Society owes a great deal to disability rights advocates who fought for the enactment of the A.D.A., which opened up America’s public spaces and infrastructure to a swath of the population that had long been denied access.

But more than 30 years later, my hope is that today’s hearing will provide an opportunity to revisit the law for the sake of benefiting the disability community and businesses alike. Too much of the burden of compliance is placed on disabled citizens filing lawsuits to gain access to businesses. This could be a moment to rethink the A.D.A.’s framework. The Justice Department could take a larger role in enforcing the law, and Congress could amend the statute to give businesses a window to correct violations.

Six months after I graduated from college, an accident left me largely paralyzed from the chest down. There is currently no cure for my injury — no amount of determination, willpower or physical therapy will fix it.

I do not view my wheelchair as a defining trait, although society reminds me of its presence daily. I became disabled later in life after 22 years of able-bodied naïveté — 22 years of not needing to consider whether a restaurant had stairs or if shopping aisles would be wide enough for me to wheel through.

Even at higher-end hotels, I often arrive a day early, knowing that despite booking an “accessible” room online, I may not get one or I may get a room meant for those with hearing impairments — where flashing lights provide a visual notification that someone is at the door but there’s no guarantee of a bathroom door wide enough for me to enter with my wheelchair.

The disability community deserves better. And yet I’m concerned that litigants filing repeat lawsuits have started to have the opposite effect, provoking ire from businesses and the broader society against those whom they view as money hungry and litigious. Even federal judges have chastised A.D.A. testers, with lines such as the plaintiff’s “m.o. is clear: sue, settle and move on to the next suit” and “the current A.D.A. lawsuit binge is, therefore, essentially driven by economics — that is, the economics of attorney’s fees.”

Ad hoc enforcement of such an important federal law by private citizens against potentially endless technical violations leaves business owners uncertain of what they can be sued over. While the A.D.A., a federal law, does not allow plaintiffs to recover monetary damages, some states have enacted their own versions of the law that do allow for financial damages. A disproportionate share of A.D.A. lawsuits are filed in states, like California, that allow for such damages.

Some businesses have said that after paying the fees for a plaintiff’s attorney or settlement costs, they don’t have enough cash to fix the violations in their establishments.

So, how do we encourage A.D.A. compliance without burdening the disability community with the unenviable task of litigation?

Right now, federal enforcement is rare, for understandable reasons: Often, someone who has lived with a disability better understands the difference between an actual barrier and an inconvenience. But the Justice Department could work with A.D.A. consultants and people with disabilities to improve its own enforcement of the law.

I also think it is worth considering another, admittedly disputed, step. Instead of allowing people to sue upon encountering a violation, the A.D.A. could be modified to allow a “notice-and-cure” period, meaning someone affected by a violation would need to notify the business of the issue and give them an opportunity to fix it before filing a lawsuit. For years, disability rights organizations have lobbied against this, arguing that no other civil rights law permits businesses to discriminate without consequences until the victims provide notice. The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund argues that such a reform encourages businesses to adopt, “a ‘wait and see’ attitude, doing nothing until they receive notice.”

But businesses are already adopting a wait-and-see approach. I can tell you that practically any business I visit will have a violation, whether big or small. I personally would be more willing to file notices to businesses than to commit the time and capacity needed to file multiple lawsuits, and I’m a lawyer who understands the ins and outs of litigation.

Yes, the A.D.A. has been around for decades and businesses should theoretically know their responsibilities, but we must acknowledge that compliance is difficult, and smaller businesses with fewer resources should have a fair chance to remedy their errors. Although I do not have all the answers regarding how a notice-and-cure period might work, if the Justice Department helped to provide a strong hand for enforcement after notice of noncompliance, I believe many businesses would rather fix their barriers than pay exorbitant attorney fees.

People with disabilities are already burdened enough. We are burdened with the task of enforcing a federal statute that requires lengthy and expensive lawsuits without guarantee of remedy. We are burdened by the stigma of these lawsuits and the societal narrative that people with disabilities are always looking for a handout, despite the good work that some of these tester lawsuits may do.

Adding a notice-and-cure period to the A.D.A. and robust federal enforcement of the law would go a long way toward combating those burdens. We deserve the right of equal access without the stigma.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

• M, W, F: 9:30am - 12pm and 3pm - 5:30pm ET
• Tu: 12:30pm - 5:30pm ET, Th: 2:30pm - 5:30pm ET

Title II Web and Mobile App Accessibility Final Rule Published in the Federal Register

Learn about the rule's requirements

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects people with disabilities from discrimination.

Disability rights are civil rights. From voting to parking, the ADA is a law that protects people with disabilities in many areas of public life.

What's on ADA.gov

From answers to common questions to official legal documents , ADA.gov has everything you need to understand your rights and responsibilities under the ADA.

These overviews are a basic starting point for understanding areas the ADA covers.

Service Animals

• Mobility Devices

Get more detailed guidance on some ADA topics.

• Fact Sheet: New Rule on the Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Apps Provided by State and Local Governments
• Fact Sheet: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Accessibility of Medical Diagnostic Equipment
• Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, and Disability Discrimination in Hiring

Laws & Regulations

Find legal documents that are enforceable under the ADA in a court of law.

• State and Local Government Services (Title II)
• Public Accommodations (Title III)
• ADA Standards for Accessible Design

Service Animals and the ADA

Understand how the ADA defines a service animal and what your rights are under the law.

• Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals
• ADA Requirements: Service Animals

Information for people with disabilities, state and local governments, and businesses

Introduction to the ADA

How the ADA is structured, and how it protects the rights of people with disabilities

The definition of a service animal, where they can go, and how they assist people with disabilities

Find out how the ADA requires businesses, non-profits, and state/local governments to provide accessible parking spaces.

Effective Communication

People with certain disabilities might communicate in different ways.

How to Report a Disability Rights Violation

If you believe that you or someone else experienced unlawful discrimination, you can report a disability rights violation.

Report using our online form.

By completing the online form, you can provide the details we need to understand what happened. You will receive a confirmation number and your report is immediately sent to our staff for review.

We review your report.

Teams that specialize in handling your type of issue will review it. If it needs to be forwarded to another team or agency, we will try to connect your complaint to the right group.

We determine next steps and get back to you.

Possible outcomes include: following up for more information, starting a mediation or investigation, directing you to another organization for further help, or informing you that we cannot help.

Think you or someone you know has experienced a disability rights violation?

Subscribe to our newsletter for ada updates, you are now leaving a department of justice website.

You will be automatically redirected to a:

The Department of Justice does not endorse the organizations or views represented by this site and takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over, the accuracy, accessibility, copyright or trademark compliance or legality of the material contained on this site.

Advertisement

Department of Health bars disability discrimination

Copy the code below to embed the wbur audio player on your site.

<iframe width="100%" height="124" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://player.wbur.org/hereandnow/2024/05/16/disability-discrimination-ban"></iframe>

In a win for disability rights advocates, the Department of Health and Human Services barred disability discrimination in health care.

But many people ask why this ruling was necessary when discrimination against those with a disability was already protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Michelle Diament , co-founder of the news site Disability Scoop, joins host Deepa Fernandes to unpack the new rule and also discuss concerns about medical education around disabilities.

This segment aired on May 16, 2024.

More from Here & Now

Case: Disability Discrimination/Failure to Accommodate (N.D. Ill.)

An Illinois federal district court granted summary judgment to Paul Reilly Co. on the claims of a service technician with osteoarthritis that he wasn’t appropriately accommodated for a disability and was discharged, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law, ruling that while he was considered disabled as a result of the osteoarthritis, he didn’t qualify for protection under the law because he wasn’t able to perform his job with or without an accommodation.

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.

Parents of disabled children sue Indiana over Medicaid changes addressing $1 billion shortfall

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Parents of two children with disabilities are suing an Indiana agency in federal court over changes to attendant care services they say violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and federal Medicaid laws.

A state agency overseeing Medicaid has reimbursed parents, guardians and spouses for home care for years.

Starting July 1, the state will no longer reimburse family members or guardians. The changes were proposed as a part of a cost-savings plan after the agency — the Family and Social Services Administration or FSSA — underestimated its Medicaid expenditures through July 2025 by nearly $1 billion.

Families of children who require constant medical attention in particular say the transition is mismanaged. The lawsuit alleges children’s health and well being is at risk and asks the court to order the state to continue reimbursing parents and guardians.

“This is a legally complex case about medically complex children,” the complaint filed Friday said.

A spokesperson for the FSSA did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. The state has said the attendant care services are where the Medicaid program is “most acutely seeing an unanticipated growth in spending.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and Indiana Disability Rights are representing the families and the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission in the lawsuit.

Families of children with a variety of complex medical needs have spoken out against the changes since they were first proposed in January. The complaint says the Medicaid payments help rural families who are far from facilities with trained personnel and are a financial necessity for parents unable to work while caring for their children.

Parents must provide constant care including feedings through a gastronomy tube, operating a ventilator, monitoring seizure activity and administering medications, the complaint says.

The FSSA has said it will work with families to find alternate care options, but the lawsuit alleges the new reimbursements rates are not sufficient.

The complaint said the changes could result in some children who need constant medical attention being placed in an “institutional environment,” especially if their parent must return to work to pay for the care. The lawsuit says parents of children with such disabilities often prefer to care directly for their child to suit their individual needs.

The mothers named in the suit care for a 6-year-old boy with rare genetic disorder called cri-du-chat syndrome and a 10-year-old who has hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, a type of brain damage.

According to the lawsuit, both children experience routine seizures that require constant monitoring on top of other assistance. The 10-year-old was placed for a period of time in a pediatric nursing home but had a “horrendous experience.”

The lawsuit says the risk of being placed in institutions violates the Americans with Disabilities Act requirement that state and local governments offer services in people’s homes and communities.

Most Read Local Stories

• Funder of proposed play area at Seattle nude beach revealed, city plan draws ire
• WA trooper shoots, kills man on I-5 in Everett
• Residents of Seattle low-income high-rise go a week without elevators
• WWU 'ghost course' whistleblower wins nearly $3M in lawsuit
• UW encampment to come down after a deal with administrators

How to Know If Your Dog Is a Service Animal or Not

D o you have a dog that helps you with your disability? If so, you may wonder if your dog qualifies as a service animal under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA is a federal law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in various areas of public life, such as employment, education, transportation, and access to public and private places. The ADA also requires public entities and private businesses to allow service animals to accompany their handlers in all areas where the public is normally allowed to go.

But what exactly is a service animal? And how can you tell if your dog is one or not? Here are some facts and tips to help you understand the ADA service animal rules and your rights as a person with a disability.

– A service animal is a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability. The work or tasks must be directly related to the individual’s disability. For example, a service dog may assist a person who is blind with navigation, alert a person who is deaf to sounds, pull a wheelchair, or prevent a person with a psychiatric disorder from harming themselves.

– The ADA does not recognize emotional support dogs as service animals. Emotional support dogs are dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support to their owners. They do not have to be trained to do any specific tasks related to a disability. Therefore, they are not covered by the ADA and do not have the same rights and privileges as service animals.

– The ADA does not require service animals to wear any specific identification, such as a vest, tag, or harness. However, some states and localities may have their own laws or regulations that require service animals to be identified in some way. You should check with your local authorities before traveling with your service animal to avoid any potential problems or conflicts.

– The ADA allows covered entities to ask only two questions to determine if a dog is a service animal: (1) Is the dog required because of a disability? and (2) What work or task has the dog been trained to perform? They cannot ask about the nature or extent of the person’s disability, request proof of training or certification, or ask the dog to demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

– The ADA requires service animals to be harnessed, leashed, or tethered, unless these devices interfere with the service animal’s work or the individual’s disability prevents using them. In that case, the individual must maintain control of the animal through voice, signal, or other effective means. Service animals must also be well-behaved and housebroken. They cannot pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, damage property, or disrupt the normal operations of the covered entity.

If you have a service animal, you have the right to be accompanied by your dog in any place that is open to the public or provides goods or services to the public. However, you also have the responsibility to ensure that your dog is properly trained, controlled, and cared for. If you encounter any discrimination or denial of access because of your service animal, you can file a complaint with the Department of Justice or seek legal assistance from a disability rights organization. Remember, your service animal is not just a pet, but a partner that helps you live a more independent and fulfilling life.

Relevant articles:

– ADA Requirements: Service Animals, ADA.gov, February 28, 2020

– Service Animals and the ADA: What You Need to Know, The National Law Review, November 15, 2023

– Service Animals in Schools: What Educators Need to Know, Education Week, November 16, 2023

– Service Animals on Campus: A Guide for Higher Education Institutions, Disability Compliance for Higher Education, November 17, 2023

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Here & Now Anytime

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Birds are migrating north. Here's how you can help them

The Supreme Court ruled that a map that draws a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana can be used in this year's elections. Law professor Spencer Overton explains its impact.

And, patients in Gaza with conditions such as epilepsy, Parkinson's and cerebral palsy are uniquely challenged by the ongoing violence. Dr. Jomana Al-Hinti talks about the need for neurologists in Gaza.

Then, the Department of Health and Human Services has barred disability discrimination in health care. Disability Scoop's Michelle Diament breaks down the new rule and how it relates to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Finally, this week is peak time for bird migration in the northern part of the U.S. But lights and windows can make their journey tougher. Scientist Andrew Farnsworth explains how people can help.

Connect with us:

Find more stories from today's show here .

Follow us on Facebook , Instagram and TikTok .

Subscribe to our podcast here .

Email the show at [email protected]

Parents of disabled children sue Indiana over Medicaid changes addressing $1 billion shortfall

Mothers of two children with disabilities are suing an Indiana agency in federal court over changes to Medicaid attendant care services they say violate the Americans with Disabilities Act

INDIANAPOLIS -- Parents of two children with disabilities are suing an Indiana agency in federal court over changes to attendant care services they say violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and federal Medicaid laws.

A state agency overseeing Medicaid has reimbursed parents, guardians and spouses for home care for years.

Starting July 1, the state will no longer reimburse family members or guardians. The changes were proposed as a part of a cost-savings plan after the agency — the Family and Social Services Administration or FSSA — underestimated its Medicaid expenditures through July 2025 by nearly $1 billion.

Families of children who require constant medical attention in particular say the transition is mismanaged. The lawsuit alleges children’s health and well being is at risk and asks the court to order the state to continue reimbursing parents and guardians.

“This is a legally complex case about medically complex children,” the complaint filed Friday said.

A spokesperson for the FSSA did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. The state has said the attendant care services are where the Medicaid program is “most acutely seeing an unanticipated growth in spending.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and Indiana Disability Rights are representing the families and the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission in the lawsuit.

Families of children with a variety of complex medical needs have spoken out against the changes since they were first proposed in January. The complaint says the Medicaid payments help rural families who are far from facilities with trained personnel and are a financial necessity for parents unable to work while caring for their children.

Parents must provide constant care including feedings through a gastronomy tube, operating a ventilator, monitoring seizure activity and administering medications, the complaint says.

The FSSA has said it will work with families to find alternate care options, but the lawsuit alleges the new reimbursements rates are not sufficient.

The complaint said the changes could result in some children who need constant medical attention being placed in an “institutional environment ," especially if their parent must return to work to pay for the care. The lawsuit says parents of children with such disabilities often prefer to care directly for their child to suit their individual needs.

The mothers named in the suit care for a 6-year-old boy with rare genetic disorder called cri-du-chat syndrome and a 10-year-old who has hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, a type of brain damage.

According to the lawsuit, both children experience routine seizures that require constant monitoring on top of other assistance. The 10-year-old was placed for a period of time in a pediatric nursing home but had a “horrendous experience."

The lawsuit says the risk of being placed in institutions violates the Americans with Disabilities Act requirement that state and local governments offer services in people’s homes and communities.

Trending Reader Picks

Johnson disappointed with chaotic House meeting

• May 17, 3:34 PM

Top-ranked golfer Scottie Scheffler arrested

• May 18, 1:46 PM

4 day care workers put melatonin on kids' food

• May 17, 2:50 AM

Biden asserts privilege over Hur interview audio

• May 16, 11:24 PM

Teen graduates with doctoral degree

• May 14, 12:07 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events