Overview
According to the Legal Information Institute, individuals with disabilities are protected by disability laws against discrimination in employment, housing, education, and public services. The provisions are found in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). ADA provides that a disability comprises physical or mental destruction that limits an individual from conducting their normal activities. The impairment should be in a record and certified by medical personnel, and the person should be regarded as having a given impairment. Reasonable recommendations are made towards such individuals that they may receive equal treatment and opportunities. ADA is implemented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice. The topic seeks to explore the various applications of ADA in the U.S. through different statutes and court cases.
Factors that support the topic
The principle of participatory and distributive justice
Individuals with disability laws provided under ADA have different goals that embrace participatory justice. In the “Findings and Purpose” sector, ADA provides that the nations’ objectives towards people with disabilities are to guarantee equal opportunities, participation, autonomous living, as well as economic self-sufficiency (ADA). Therefore, the law provides equality, especially in employment, mandating employers to consider qualified candidates with disabilities in their workplaces. Additionally, ADA is guided by the principle of distributive justice. Achieving independent living through self-sufficiency requires provision for equal social opportunities by equal redistribution of resources and, more so, compensating people with disabilities for their limitations. In this regard, the law calls for managers to give rational adjustments to people with disabilities to aid their performance in the positions they hold (Hoffman, 2013).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The principle of corrective justice
ADA emphasizes on corrective justice through fighting against existing prejudice on individuals with certain impairments as well as providing a remedy to those suffering consistent discrimination due to their disabilities (Hoffman, 2013). The provision is not merely granting opportunities for individual with limitations, but it counteracts historical forms of discrimination. As such, ADA’s language considers people with disabilities as a distinct and minorities with limitations who experience certain restrictions plus limitations and are continuously subjected to unequal treatment. These individuals are relegated to social, political, and economic powerlessness in the community. The principle provides a clear purpose of ADA that can grant desired equality if applied equality. Thus, people who should benefit from participatory and distributive justice are those besieged by discrimination and those in need of statutory benefits. Since collective justice provides a basis for all other anti-discriminatory laws to provide remedies to those experiencing discrimination, it can help ADA eliminate suffering among people with disabilities.
Factors that Oppose the Topic
The ambiguity in the definition of “disability” and its application
The definition of the word ‘disability’ by the law limited the real achievement of equality that the law aimed at since the word remained ambiguous and often contradictory to the real approach of disability and discrimination. The act received overwhelming support in its promising effect in granting people with disability equal opportunities, but it has largely proved inadequate. ADA is a term of limitation, and it cannot be compared to other forms of equality, such as race and gender, as everyone is identified by a given race or gender, but not everyone has a disability (Befort, 2013). As such, ADA conflicts with Title VII, which provides that no employer should discriminate against an employee based on specific characteristics provided in the statute. The law provided that “an employer should provide equal opportunities to equally competent persons with disability due to their disability if the person can equally perform the functions of the given position unless such an act would lead to undue hardships to the employer (ADA). The provision is more complicated than Title VII for two reasons. First, ADA protects only individuals with a ‘qualified’ disability, meaning that some forms of disabilities are considered as qualified while others are not. Second, in applying its provisions, ADA borrowed the definition of disability from the Rehabilitation Act definition by assuming people with disability as “handicapped individuals.” As such, unless a person is handicapped, any other form of disability is considered unqualified.
Raising the threshold of defining disability reduces the scope of protection to people with disabilities. Thus, unless ADA provides a holistic definition of disability, there will continue to be an increase in court cases against employers who discriminate against people with disabilities. Employers understand the scope provided by the law, but employees don’t. The overwhelming caseloads made the Supreme Court narrow the scope of ‘disabled’ employees for the purposes of the law. For instance, in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc ., the Court ruled that control measures, like medication plus prosthetic measures, should be considered when evaluating a person’s disability as applicable to ADA. The judge added that the employer was not protected by ADA simply by being recognized as disabled since the employer did not perceive the plaintiff as disabled and that the disability would interfere with main activities. In a similar case, Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kuntucky Inc. v. Williams , the Court overruled the decision of the Sixth Circuit that had decided that an employee with carpal tunnel syndrome was incapacitated to do their repetitive work. The ruling proved that disability had restricted requirements, which can only be determined by a proper inquiry to evaluate if the condition substantially restricts the employee from carrying out their duties. Thus, this means that the provisions of ADA in “substantial limits” as well as “major life activity” are the qualifying and disqualifying factors in determining if the person is disabled or not. These ambiguities provide a lack of clarity in the law, leaving many loopholes that are exploited by employers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, individuals with disabilities are protected by law through the ADA’s provisions. ADA has adopted principles of corrective, participatory, and redistributive justice to provide a holistic approach in ensuring that individuals with disabilities are self-sufficient. However, the laws have ambiguities in defining the scope of ‘disability’ and its application, leading to continuous exploitation of the disabilities by their employers as they deem fit. As a result, the Supreme Court has decided to limit the scope of disability to reduce the caseloads, while increasing the possibility of continuous discriminatory practices towards people with disabilities.
The two explorations provide an understanding of the attractive provisions that give hope to people with disabilities and the challenges they experience when they face any form of discrimination. Thus, I believe that the laws can be more open to adopting the holistic definition of ‘disability’ to include all forms of discrimination, not necessarily those that render an individual incapacitated. After all, an incapacitated individual cannot hold any position in employment. Thus, the Supreme Court should ensure that it bridges the loopholes in ADA by declaring any form of evident disability as covered by ADA, thereby increasing the scope of ADA’s provisions.
References
ADA. 42 U.S. Code Chapter 126—Equal Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities. Legal Information Institute . https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-126 .
Befort, S. (2013). An Empirical Analysis of Case Outcomes under the ADA Amendments Act, 70 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 2027. 2027-2071. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/114 .
Hoffman, S. (2013). Corrective Justice and Title I of the ADA. Faculty Publications, Case Western Reserve University. 1213-1289. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/243
Legal Information Institute. Disability Law . https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disability_law .
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. (97-1943) 527 U.S. 471 (1999). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1943.ZS.html .
Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. V. Williams (00-1089) 534 U.S. 184 (2002). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1089.ZS.html .
