The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990
Signing of the ADA |
![Signing of the ADA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090509042741im_/http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/35th/photos/adasigning-thumb.jpg) |
President Bush's Remarks in
RealAudio |
Audio | Transcript |
Passed by Congress in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) is the nation's first comprehensive civil rights law
addressing the needs of people with disabilities, prohibiting
discrimination in employment, public services, public
accommodations, and telecommunications. EEOC was given enforcement
authority for Title I of the Act, the employment discrimination
provisions. Congress provided that Title I would not take effect
for two years in order to allow the Commission time to develop
regulations and technical assistance, time to conduct comprehensive
public education programs on the new disability law, and time for
employers to adjust to the new requirements.
EEOC met this new challenge well in advance of the law's
effective date. The Commission conducted 62 public meetings around
the country with representatives from disability rights and
employer organizations to receive their input in developing
regulations for the ADA. Comprehensive regulations and an
interpretive appendix were issued in July l991, one year before the
effective date of the Act's employment discrimination provisions;
between 1991 and 1992, the Commission issued a Technical Assistance
Manual which provided practical guidance for employers and persons
with disabilities, and developed an intensive ADA training program
for EEOC staff.
The complexity of issues arising under the ADA required
developing a series of policy guidances designed to clarify and
interpret the provisions of the law. Between 1993 and 1999, EEOC
issued eight enforcement guidances which have provided
interpretations on key ADA issues, including pre-employment
inquiries and medical examinations, workers' compensation benefits,
psychiatric conditions, the meaning of the term "qualified," and
the requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodations.
In 1995, a comprehensive chapter of EEOC's Compliance Manual
provided a definition of the term "disability."
As always, litigation also became an important vehicle for the
Commission to establish its policy positions on the provisions of
the ADA. From the Act's effective date through July 2, 2000, the
Commission has filed 375 ADA lawsuits, successfully resolving more
than 91 percent of the lawsuits filed in district court either by
settlement or jury verdict. The Commission also has participated as
amicus curiae in 87 cases on issues arising from or connected to
the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act (an act that protects federal
employees and others connected with the Federal Government from
workplace discrimination and which was the precursor of the ADA),
or other state disability laws.
Some of the Commission's ADA litigation demonstrate the
widespread, and oftentimes overt, discrimination faced by
individuals with disabilities. Examples of Commission initiated ADA
litigation include:
- A 1993 consent decree resolving a claim alleging
disability-based distinctions in a union's health insurance plan
which limited lifetime benefits for AIDS to $50,000, while
providing benefits up to $500,000 for other catastrophic
conditions. In this case, the defendant company and union agreed to
pay $100,000 for medical expenses and damages, and to remove the
limit on AIDS coverage retroactive to the ADA's effective
date.
- A 1993 jury verdict finding a security firm had discharged its
executive director because he had terminal brain cancer, although
he had continued to perform the essential functions of his job. On
behalf of the charging party, EEOC secured $220,000 in back pay,
compensatory relief, and punitive damages.
- A 1997 jury verdict finding that Wal-Mart had discriminated by
refusing to hire an individual who used a wheelchair because of his
disability. As part of its evidence, EEOC introduced a videotape
showing the charging party performing many physically challenging
activities during his daily life. The jury awarded $8,399 in back
pay, $75,000 in compensatory damages, and $3.5 million in punitive
damages (later reduced to $225,000 because of the statutory cap on
punitive damages).
- A 1999 jury verdict against Chuck E. Cheese pizza chain, where
the Commission alleged that the defendant discriminatorily
discharged an employee because of his mental retardation. Although
the employee was able to work productively with the aid of a job
coach, and the local manager and staff supported his retention, the
employee was fired by a regional manager who stated that the
company did not employ "those kind of people." Ultimately, EEOC won
a jury award of $10,000 in back pay, $70,000 in compensatory
damages for emotional distress, and a record $13 million in
punitive damages (later reduced to $230,000 because of the
statutory cap on punitive damages).
Next: Combating New
Forms of Age Discrimination
|