Peter Blanck is university professor and chairman of the Burton Blatt Institute of Syracuse University. He was involved in the process of drafting and passing the Americans with Disabilities Act, he has testified on the issue before the U.S. Congress, and he has pled legal cases related to this issue before the Supreme Court of the United States. He has written and lectured extensively on the subject.

In the United States, the understanding, legal definitions, and attitudes regarding disabilities and persons with disabilities have changed over the years. Traditionally, a disability was seen as a defect that prevented someone from participating in "normal" life activities. It could be a physical or mental problem and could have been life-long or one that resulted from an accident or illness later in life. Attitudes ranged from the desire to protect the person to concern that the person's abilities, and therefore value, were diminished to shame and blame toward the individual and the family. In many cases, the person was closeted away, at home or in an institution, and had little interaction with general society; and in most cases, the disability was regarded as permanent and debilitating, certainly not something that could be improved through treatment or mitigated through accommodation.

In the United States, an early legal definition of disabilities resulted from the large number of injured soldiers returning from the Civil War (1861-1865). According to the Civil War pension laws, disabled Union Army (northern) veterans were awarded pensions based on their "incapacity to perform manual labor." This model essentially defined disability as an infirmity that precluded equal participation in society (and the ability to earn an independent living). Not all disabilities were regarded equally, however; certain stigmatized disorders, mental disorders, and infectious diseases were sometimes deemed unworthy of assistance, and persons with these disabilities were discriminated against.

A hundred years later, in the 1960s, the Social Security entitlement program sought to provide support for a much broader group of people living in poverty and those with disabilities. But these programs continued the traditional approach of looking at a person's ability to adjust to a world designed for those without disabilities and of segregating people who were not able to participate in normal activities, and they continued to carry value judgments about people who received benefits or services.

Changes in Attitude

Just a few years later, in the 1970s, people with disabilities began to be viewed as a minority group within society—a group with civil rights to be protected similar to the other minority groups that were asking for equality. This rights model provided a new framework for looking at disabilities, a framework grounded in inclusion, empowerment, and economic independence. Proponents of this new view soon realized there needed to be new laws addressing the rights and concerns of this group. This new model fostered the passage of laws guaranteeing accessibility to voting, to air travel, and to independence in education and housing, and it culminated in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA has both reflected the changes in attitude and helped promote them, as it became the legal language for discussing the issues and cases.

With the advent of the ADA, people began to look not only at making buildings accessible, but also for ways to help those with disabilities integrate with others and participate fully in all aspects of life. Widespread in its influence, the ADA has implications for schools, businesses, communities, and public facilities; for all branches of government; and for health and social services. Among the practices reflected by this new consciousness are a number of changes in terminology: for instance, referring to an individual as a person with a disability, rather than as a disabled person; discussing different abilities rather than one standard for normal; and talking about students with learning differences, rather than learning disabilities. At the same time, there has been a conscious effort to expand our definition of disability to include differences in learning or processing information, physical limitations, and other conditions that prohibit someone from participating in a major life activity.

Many groups and individuals worked for several years to draft the law and get it passed. The preface of the ADA sets the nation's goals regarding individuals with disabilities as assuring "equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency." When President George H. W. Bush signed the law in July 1990, he called the legislation a "dramatic renewal not only for those with disabilities but for all of us, because along with the precious privilege of being an American comes a sacred duty to ensure that every other American's rights are also guaranteed."

The text of the law is divided into subcategories called titles. Each title is numbered and deals with a certain issue or audience and the protections or entitlements associated with that group.

The ADA at Work

ADA Title I makes it illegal for most private employers to discriminate against an individual with a disability in any aspect of hiring or employment. Title II covers discrimination by state or local governments. Title III prohibits discrimination in public accommodations—hotels, restaurants, shopping malls, and so forth. Title IV requires providers of telecommunications to make their services accessible to people with disabilities. I have been fortunate to advocate with individuals at the forefront of the disability rights movement. The stories I share next are about individuals who fought to be equal participants in society.

I met Don P. and his family in 1999 in a sheltered workshop in Wisconsin. A sheltered workshop provides a supportive environment for persons with physical and mental disabilities to learn job skills and gain work experience. Don is a person in his early fifties with mental retardation. Don had worked at a restaurant as a janitor. His job performance was excellent and his coworkers enjoyed working with him. One day the regional manager visited the restaurant and seeing Don working, criticized the local supervisor for hiring one of "those people." After returning to the restaurant, the regional manager fired Don when the local supervisor refused to do so. The local supervisor and restaurant staff quit in protest.

At trial on ADA Title I grounds, the defense argued that Don was not qualified for the job, and the company did not discriminate against him. In my testimony for Don, I spoke about the stigma facing persons like Don in employment. There was nothing deficient about Don's work; instead, the fault lay with the management's attitudes. The jury found the restaurant had violated the ADA and awarded Don $70,000 in back pay and compensatory damages. To make its point that disability discrimination would not be tolerated, the jury awarded him an additional $13 million in punitive damages, to that time the largest monetary award from a jury in an ADA employment case.

ADA Title II requires that the services of state and local governments be available to people with disabilities. One element of Title II is that public entities administer programs in integrated settings. In Olmstead v. Zimring (1999), the Supreme Court considered the reach of this integration mandate. Two women with mental retardation sued under Title II, claiming the state of Georgia discriminated against them by serving them in institutionalized rather than community settings. The state's professionals determined community placement (treatment at a local facility rather than a distant institution requiring the women to be removed from their home, family, and community) was appropriate for their specific conditions, but none was available. The Supreme Court held this to be discrimination under the ADA and required the state to provide the services locally.

In the early 1990s, like many others, I was involved in litigation to improve conditions in state facilities for persons with disabilities and, where appropriate, to provide residents the opportunity to live in the community. I met Sara K. in 1991 when she was a resident of the health care unit of the Wyoming State Training School. Sara had spent most of her young life in the hospital unit at the training school. She was a smart and bright-eyed 10-year-old who had spina bifida and other serious health conditions. The settlement of the case mandated that Sara would be among the first to move to community settings. Understandably, Sara's parents were concerned, but they agreed she could leave the hospital facility to live at home. The rest was an amazing story. Sara adapted to her home life and flourished in mainstreamed classrooms. Not many years before, Sara would have spent her life at the training school in a hospital bed in a remote part of Wyoming. As a result of the change, she was carrying on a more normal life, engaged with her family, schoolmates, and community, and able to move toward a more promising future.

In January 2001, Sara passed away. She was 15 years old. The director of Wyoming's community programs, Bob Clabby, wrote to me: "I have a solid belief that the amount of time we spend on this earth is less important than what we do with the time we have; and Sara inspired many people—not least, I think, you and me."

The Future

The ADA disability rights model is succeeding. Indeed, it is uniting countries around the world in the pursuit of policies to improve the lives of persons with disabilities. During the summer of 2006, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, an international treaty on the human rights of persons with disabilities around the world, was adopted.

In the United States, the ADA is helping to reduce discrimination and encourage employers to make workplace accommodations. The 2004 N.O.D. (National Organization on Disability)/Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities showed the percentage of people with disabilities who report discrimination in the workplace had declined significantly in the previous four years. The economic benefits to companies employing and accommodating workers with disabilities are documented.

ADA Title II's integration mandate has reached thousands of individuals. In Tennessee v. Lane (2004), George Lane, who has a physical disability, was a defendant in a traffic case. He had to crawl up two flights of steps to attend his court hearing in a building that lacked an elevator. For a subsequent hearing, he refused to crawl again. He sued to vindicate his right to access. In a judgment in his favor, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that Title II requires states not to discriminate against people with disabilities in their right of access to the courts.

ADA Title III's premise is straightforward—shopping centers and malls, professional offices, and businesses such as hotels may not discriminate against people with disabilities. Increasingly, places of public accommodation are accessible. One current issue with far-reaching implications is using Title III to ensure the Internet is accessible; for example, that Web sites work with screen reader software used by blind persons. Web sites offered by public entities for public audiences have a set of standards they must meet to qualify as accessible.

I have highlighted Americans with disabilities and their quest for civil rights—past, present, and future. Some attitudes die hard, and today individuals continue to battle stigma about disability, not only from business and government, but also among associates and even family members.

I was co-counsel in a custody proceeding between the parents of two young boys, Mike and Sam. Mike was diagnosed with autism and attended classes to address his educational and social needs. At a court hearing related to the parents' divorce, the father told the court he believed Mike's autism had been holding back Sam's development. He requested custody of Sam. The judge granted the request, and the children were separated. The court's decision to separate the brothers was based on an unsupported assumption of the negative impact of having a child with autism in the family. The court did not fault the mother's parenting but discounted the brothers' right to live together.

We appealed the judge's ruling, and the California Court of Appeals agreed with our position. The sub-sequent reuniting of brothers Mike and Sam reminds us that disability rights continue to have as much to do with battling prejudice faced by persons living with disabilities as they have to do with overcoming physical barriers in the world. I am optimistic we will achieve the ADA's aspirations. How we address these issues will shape the lives of the next generation of children with disabilities. Unlike any before them, our children will not know a world without the ADA, a world without its vision for equality. [http://bbi.syr.edu]

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government.