Thursday, July 26, 2007
The 17th Anniversary of the Signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act
July 26th, marks the 17th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act — one of the landmark civil rights laws of the 20th century. As chief sponsor of the ADA in the Senate, I take pride in the progress we have made as a nation since 1990. We have removed most physical barriers to movement and access for the 50 million Americans with disabilities. We have required employers to provide reasonable accommodations so that people with disabilities can have equal opportunity in the workplace. And we have advanced the 4 goals of the ADA — equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.
So July 26th is a day, first and foremost, to celebrate all that has been accomplished over the last 17 years.
But despite that progress, there's a problem. In recent years, the courts have ignored Congress's clear intent as to who should be protected under the ADA. And the courts have narrowed the definition of who qualifies as an "individual with a disability." As a consequence, millions of people we intended to be protected under the ADA — including people with epilepsy, diabetes, and cancer — are not protected any more. In a ruling just this spring, the 11th Circuit Court even concluded that a person with mental retardation was not "disabled" under the ADA.
In looking back through the legislative history, Congress intended that the protections in the ADA apply to all persons without regard to mitigating circumstances, such as taking medication, or using an assistive device.
In the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee Report, Congress said:
"Whether a person has a disability should be assessed without regard to the availability of mitigating measures, such as reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids."
The House Education and Labor Committee Report says the same thing, and goes on to assert:
"For example, a person who is hard of hearing is substantially limited in the major life activity of hearing, even though the loss may be corrected through the use of a hearing aid. Likewise, persons with impairments, such as epilepsy or diabetes, which substantially limit a major life activity are covered under ... the definition of disability, even if the effects of the impairment are controlled by medication."
Nevertheless, in a series of cases, the Supreme Court ignored Congressional intent. Together, these Supreme Court cases have created an absurd and unintended Catch 22: People with serious health conditions like epilepsy or diabetes who are fortunate to find treatments that make them more capable and independent — and more able to work — may find that they are no longer protected by the ADA. If these individuals are no longer covered under the ADA, then their requests for a reasonable accommodation at work can be denied — or they can be fired. On the other hand, if they stop taking their medication, they will be considered a person with a disability under the ADA, but they'll be unable to do their job.
This is not just absurd, it is wrong. And it flies in the face of clear, unambiguous Congressional intent. When we passed the law, there was common agreement on both sides of the aisle, and on the part of President George Herbert Walker Bush and his aides, that the law was designed to protect any individual is treated less favorably because of a current, past, or perceived disability.
This situation cries out for a modest, reasonable legislative fix, and that's exactly what I am doing, today, by introducing the ADA Restoration Act of 2007.
Bear in mind that the Supreme Court in no way challenged the constitutionality of the ADA; it simply misconstrued the Congressional intent. The bill I am introducing, today, amends the definition of "disability" so that people who Congress originally intended to be protected from discrimination are covered under the ADA.
Seventeen years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Likewise, we are building a strong bicameral, bipartisan majority to support ADA Restoration. Sen. Specter is joining with me in co-sponsoring this bill. And a companion bill is being introduced in the House.
As with the ADA in 1990, it's going to take time to hold hearings and build strong majorities. But I look forward to working to restore Congress' original intent, and, once again, to ensure that Americans with disabilities are protected from discrimination.
