124
reinforcing federal intent: The ada amendments ACT of 2008 Story by charles Dervarics
W
hile the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was a watershed moment in American politics, it did not signify the end of the battle for civil rights among people with disabilities. In fact, the years after the landmark law brought considerable frustration, as ADA’s implementation and subsequent court challenges left many advocates on the defensive and seeking additional action to enforce the legislation’s original intent. From employment to public accommodations, “It was as if individuals had to constantly prove that they had a disability,” said John Kemp, president of The Viscardi Center, a New York-based nonprofit that provides services to educate and empower individuals with disabilities. In the process, a once-vaunted civil rights law became one of only limited assistance. Due to successful court challenges to the ADA, the law was interpreted in a way that was inconsistent with the intent of the people who wrote the law. Over time, however, these developments spurred round two of the fight for equal rights. This work culminated in 2008 when advocates for the disability and the business communities sought common
ground in reinforcing the ADA’s original intent. The end result was the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, approved by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in September 2008. In a rare show of cooperation, overwhelming bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats had paved the way for final passage. The Case for Reforms The ADA of 1990 prohibited discrimination based on disability, similar to the way previous civil rights laws provided the same protection based on race, religion, and gender. But as with all new laws, this federal statute was subject to implementation on the ground and in the courts. In this case, advocates for people with disabilities said that federal regulations and, particularly, court rulings, subverted the law’s original intent. “Attorneys had exploited loopholes in the law to weaken its civil rights protections,” said Bobby Silverstein, a Washington, D.C., attorney who knows the issue well. As a senior aide to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, one of the architects of ADA, Silverstein played a major role in writing the details of the 1990 law. While advocates voiced some unhappiness with
federal regulations for the ADA, they were particularly challenged by court rulings, including those from the U.S. Supreme Court. In one case, Sutton v. United Airlines Inc., a pair of sisters who flew cargo planes wanted to fly passenger jets for United. But they failed to meet a company policy requiring uncorrected 20/20 vision, even though they could achieve that level of vision with corrective lenses. The sisters took the company to court, arguing that United’s vision requirement was not job-related and consistent with business necessity. But the Supreme Court never reached the issue of whether the vision requirement was OK under the ADA because the Court ruled 7-2 that the sisters were not disabled enough to qualify for civil rights protections under the ADA. In another case, Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, Toyota employee Ella Williams sought an accommodation because of carpal tunnel syndrome. She had initial success suing Toyota for failing to provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA, but the U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled unanimously that her health issue was not a “disability” and did not limit any major life activity.
