This article is part of the Arthritis Archives.
Dateline: May 22, 1998
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the purpose of ensuring disabled Americans an equal opportunity to succeed. The law prohibits discrimination against the disabled in employment, and requires that government buildings, transportation systems, public services, and commercial facilities offer equal access. The purpose, however, is not congruent with the reality.
The Reality
The reality is that from 1991 to 1994 the employment rate of disabled Americans increased only three-tenths of one percent. The reality is that the ADA has ignited senseless lawsuits and fraud. Statistical evidence indicates that of nearly 91,000 ADA charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from 1992 to 1997, complaints from people with bad backs and psychological, emotional or neurological problems occurred at a rate of three-to-one over those filed by people with impaired:
- limbs
- hearing
- vision
The agency investigators determined "reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred" in only 3.1 percent of the cases. A mere 13.6 percent of cases were settled "with outcomes favorable to charging parties". The law is said to have produced "spectacular injustice and irrationality".
What's Gone Wrong With ADA?
The problems are arising from confusion (whether intentional or unintentional) over the definition of "disability". The ADA within its good intentions expanded the definition of disability beyond the blind, deaf, and wheelchair-bound to include:
- asthma
- arthritis
- heart disease
- AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome)
- Other hidden illnesses
It is the confusion over what is considered a disability that has lead to excessive lawsuits. The year before the ADA became effective employees filed 8140 federal lawsuits against employers. By 1996, the number of such lawsuits escalated to 23,152.
Extraordinary Examples
At Iowa State Penitentiary, a 76-year old inmate is serving a life sentence for arson which killed his mother-in-law and stepchildren. The inmate suffers from asthma, heart trouble, bad lungs, and a hernia. In 1995, the inmate filed a suit charging that he was being kept from his right to watch cable TV because younger, more muscular inmates always "got their way" when it was determined what shows would be viewed. The inmate won the right to have cable TV installed in his cell because nobody can be denied "the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity". The state fought back in court and the decision was eventually reversed.
Other lawsuits have been filed based on:
- myopia
- body odor / hyperhidrosis
- morning sickness
- chronic fatigue syndrome / multiple chemical sensitivity
- infertility
- obesity
- attention deficit disorder
- anxiety (brought on by an admonishment from a supervisor)
There have been situations also when employers felt pressured into hiring a person for a particular job because they feared claims of discrimination, even though it was apparent that an unsafe work environment was therefore created.
What Can Be Done?
Congress has been hesitant to tamper with the ADA in spite of its unintended consequences. To correct the imperfections, experts have suggested:
- the definition of disability be narrowed to discourage borderline claims
- it should be realized that not all disabilities are the same and their differences should be considered
- no employer should ever compromise safety
- all employers become aware of their rights and limitations
Source: A Good Law Gone Bad, by Trevor Armbrister, Reader's Digest, May 1998
First published: 05/22/1998
