Search

The Supreme Court's 1998 decision in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, paved the way for Title 11 Of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act's (collectively "disability law") to regulate the carceral system. Contrastingly, these past few decades the Court has cut back the rights and available remedies derived from constitutional criminal procedure. As constitutional criminal procedure collapses, anti-carceral advocates must find an alternative pathway. Advocates should begin by defining criminal procedure so they might determine what tools can fulfill its function. This Note argues that criminal procedure is defined as a system of liability rules for actors in the carceral system enforceable through litigation. Comparing recent litigation involving disability law failure-to-modify cases with Fourth Amendment excessive force and Eighth Amendment prison conditions cases reveals that disability law is criminal procedure. Modern constitution-based criminal procedure's anti-discrimination origins help explain why disability law functions as criminal procedure. Developed in the mid-20'h century, modern constitution-based criminal procedure was created to target political process defects that resulted in large racial disparities in the carceral system. The same defects have created large disability-based disparities in the carceral system, thus allowing disability law to function similarly to modern criminal procedure. This Note contends that because disability law more precisely targets these political process defects and has several unique legal benefits, such as its statutory nature and broad enforcement and remedial mechanisms, disability law can fill the void created by the collapse of constitutional criminal procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is helpful to think about the needs of patients with moderate to severe brain injury through the lens of disability law. However, there are limitations to current disability law that contribute to ongoing segregation and marginalization of individuals with severe brain injury. Indeed, one of the paradoxes of American jurisprudence is that more clear constitutional protections accrue to those who have definitively immutable conditions. Thus, as neuroscience brings new therapies to those with brain injury, they may become less protected by the constitutional elements of disability law because their conditions have changed and become mutable. This is the clinical progress that brain injury professionals all seek to achieve, but ironically these advances could potentially degrade the legal protections of patients who benefit from emerging treatments. In this paper, we will critically examine this paradox at the interface of medicine and the law and suggest that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) could be nicely complemented by legislation we have named the Americans with Abilities Act (AWAA). Instead of focusing on disabilities that need protection, the AWAA seeks to sustain and foster newfound abilities made possible by the fruits of medicine and neuroscience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Demographic data projections for the United States indicate a significant increase in the population of older persons with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates community access for individuals with disabilities, including older individuals who are aging with or aging into disabilities. However, there is limited research regarding the knowledge and the use of the ADA among this population specific to their perceptions and experiences regarding barriers and facilitators to community access and participation as mandated under the Act. The purpose of this qualitative focus group study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of a sample of older adults with disabilities regarding their community access, and their knowledge and utilization of the provisions of the ADA to facilitate community participation. Analysis of results identified three predominant themes within this sample of older adults: experiences with structural and attitudinal barriers to community access leading; fear of loss of autonomy and independence in the community, and how they deploy; coping and advocacy strategies to address barriers. Recommendations for improving ADA knowledge, access, and utilization among the population, as well as senior service providers, are also addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disability rights took center stage in the recent battles over universal mask mandates in public schools. Pro-mask advocates argued that universal mask policies were necessary to ensure equal access to education under two different federal disability statutes, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Opponents argued universal masking was an infringement on personal liberty and uncalled for by either law. Courts responded with a great deal of confusion that resulted in disparate legal outcomes for cases with essentially the same facts. This confusion, however, is not new--it is rooted in decades of doctrinally flawed reasoning interpreting whether K-12 students' requested accommodations are reasonable. Courts imported this reasonableness framework from federal regulations for post-secondary and vocational schools. But those regulations do not apply to the K-12 space. In fact, the regulations governing K-12 schools say nothing about accommodations and do not limit schools' obligations to ensure equal access for students with disabilities. To confuse matters further, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), tasked with enforcing disability rights in public schools, applies an entirely different analysis when resolving allegations of disability discrimination in administrative claims. This Article is the first to identify and resolve courts' and agencies' confusion regarding K-12 disability discrimination claims. It argues that lower courts have misapplied the Supreme Court's higher education precedent to limit K-12 disability rights claims while the DOE has ignored legitimate limits on such claims to the confusion of individuals, schools, and courts. Further, it offers an amendment to Section 504 regulations that will clarify the law's reach for both lower courts and administrative claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Courts are increasingly transforming the Americans with Disabilities Act's inclusive "qualified individual" definition into a hurdle disabled people must surmount before they may access the ADA's protection. For example, some courts hold that retirees cannot challenge disability discrimination in retirement plans unless they prove they can still perform the "essential functions" of their former jobs. Other courts bar disability-based harassment claims when the plaintiff has not performed the "essential function" of complying with an employer attendance policy. Courts rationalize imposing this "essential functions" hurdle by stressing that the ADA defines "a qualified individual" as a person who can do a particular job's "essential functions" with or without a reasonable accommodation. Courts transform this definition into a hurdle by emphasizing that the ADA's prohibition of discrimination against "a qualified individual on the basis of disability" textually differs from race and sex discrimination statutes that prohibit race and sex discrimination against "any individual.". This superficial reading of the ADA fundamentally misunderstands the function of the ADA's unique "qualified individual" definition. Properly understood, the ADA's "qualified individual" language does not restrict the scope of the ADA's protected class. Instead, by forcing employers to treat workers who cannot do inessential job functions or otherwise need accommodations as "qualified," the ADA's "qualified individual" definition targets the discriminatory assumption that disability is disqualifying. The judicially imposed "essential functions" hurdle risks reviving this assumption. By blocking claims alleging discrimination based on disability that would succeed if they alleged discrimination based on sex or age, the "essential functions" hurdle relegates ADA claims to a second-class status. Additionally, by imposing a gate-keeping mechanism that does not apply to other discrimination claims, the "essential functions" hurdle reinforces the presumption that disability negatively impacts performance unless proven otherwise. Disability law, which ostensibly aims to eliminate this stereotype, should not contribute to its retrenchment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite laws in the United States (e.g., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its 2008 Amendments), students with various disabilities continue to experience access barriers to instructional content and inclusion in course activities. Online learning environments can present especially challenging circumstances for disabled students despite the advantages they could potentially bring. In this article, we present the design and development of three self-paced e-learning modules following a three-phased design process to prepare instructional design students to create accessible online learning content. The instructional design planning and development process can provide rich experiences for learning. In this design case, the authors tell the stories of the design team to delineate the recursive three-phased design process, aiming to present (a) the ideation, design, creation, and implementation of the accessibility modules to teach novice instructional designers the importance and methods to create accessible online instructional content and (b) the lessons learned by the design team as a result of the design process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the electronic age has taken hold of the global community, and digital devices have become the mainstay of human interaction, new accessibility barriers have emerged for people with disabilities. Although most courts now conclude virtual inaccessibility is an injury cognizable under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, great ambiguity surrounds the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III standing in online accessibility cases. Despite pleading for elucidation and clarifying principles, federal district courts have been left to navigate the uncharted territory of the digital injury-in-fact inquiry with exiguous guidance from higher courts. The resultant confusion in the federal courts has manifested itself as diametrically contradictory injury-in-fact holdings in factually identical cases, both inter- and intra-circuit. This Comment clarifies the digital injury-in-fact inquiry by identifying and dissecting four crucial issues dividing federal courts in ADA Title III online accessibility cases: (1) the location a plaintiff must intend to return; (2) the application of the geographic intent-to-return test factors in cyberspace; (3) the role of future injury; and (4) the scope of virtual standing. First, this Comment argues the destination of a plaintiff's intent to return is preordained by the type of injury alleged by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff alleges a purely virtual website injury, federal courts must assess the plaintiff's intent to return to the inaccessible website. If a plaintiff alleges a hybrid website injury, federal courts must assess the plaintiff's intent to return to the inaccessible website and intent to avail themselves to the goods or services of the public accommodation's brick-and-mortar location. Second, this Comment contends the geographic intent-to-return factors are not probative of a plaintiff's intent to return to a website. However, federal courts cannot merely remove the geographic factors from the intent-to-return test because the resulting analysis infringes on Supreme Court precedent. Rather, federal courts must substitute the intent-to-return test's geographic factors with factors appropriate in cyberspace. Third, this Comment asserts the injury-in-fact inquiry cannot be satisfied by past injury alone. Instead, federal courts must assess the plaintiff's likelihood of future injury. Finally, this Comment argues federal courts should not adopt a lenient approach to standing because a lenient approach is not necessitated by Supreme Court precedent, it is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, and it exacerbates the extant issue of serial litigation in online accessibility cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the legal protection and rights of theater actors with disabilities in the U.S. Topics discussed include the improvements in theater productions which may be attributed to the enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the employment discrimination being faced by actors with disabilities, and the statutory interpretation and application of affirmative action in cases involving said actors.

The opioid epidemic has brought the immense harms of substance abuse to the fore of national attention. Despite a growing bipartisan consensus that substance use disorders are best addressed through treatment and community support, rather than punitive deterrence measures, policymakers have yet to allocate the necessary resources for a comprehensive and evidence-based national drug policy. Until that occurs, advocates for individuals with substance use disorders must search for reform opportunities within existing law and policy. To that end, this Article explores whether, and to what degree, the federal disability statutes that are applicable to public schools—the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act—can “see” and serve adolescents with substance use disorders within the public school system. It argues that substance use disorders can be educationimpacting disabilities, that the general failure to recognize and address substance use disorders in school settings is due to widespread misperception of substance-involved students, and that a novel-butreasonable interpretation of existing law could provide a meaningful degree of support for certain students with substance use disorders. This Article has three objectives: (1) to instigate a debate in an uncharted area of education law and policy; (2) to provide a comprehensive survey of current medical research and special education case law for advocates of students with substance use disorders; and (3) to direct further attention to the broader inadequacies of special education law and policy for students with mental health challenges. The implications of this debate, upon the lives of the estimated 1.6 million adolescents with substance use disorders and upon education policy generally, are profound. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Washington State utilizes the Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA) to civilly commit individuals experiencing behavioral health crises. Although civil commitment involves stripping away fundamental rights, it receives less attention than criminal incarceration. The ITA is meant to protect not just the general community, but also the rights of people with behavioral health disorders who utilize the ITA system. Yet, its implementation tells a different story. Individuals in King County are detained and committed repeatedly, without receiving consistent care. Furthermore, the ITA disproportionately impacts unhoused individuals and Black individuals. As the ITA continues to grow both in utilization and expense, other community-based behavioral health interventions are unable to thrive. This is not just a social services issue: the implementation of the ITA in King County does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act or Washington's constitutional duty to foster and support institutions for individuals who are "mentally ill." Implementation of civil commitment law in King County is ethically and legally questionable, and raises disturbing questions about civil commitment statewide. This Comment suggests that federal litigation may be necessary to persuade state and local governments to alter how they implement the ITA and to bring that implementation into alignment with state and federal disability law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article explores the connections between disability and health justice in service of further tethering the two theories and practices. The author contends that disability should shift from marker of health inequity alone to critical demographic in the analytical and practical application of health justice. This theoretical move creates a more robust understanding of the harms of health injustice, its complexities, and, remedially, reveals underexplored legal and policy pathways to promote health justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a roundtable discussion on the uses of disability frames in conditions of confinement litigation in the U.S. It mentions that productive disability frames can serve to improve conditions of confinement for all incarcerated people; and the laws governing disabled people under the American with Disabilities Act.

The article discusses some of the uses of disability frames in conditions of confinement litigation in the U.S. It mentions that productive disability frames can serve to improve conditions of confinement for all incarcerated people; and the laws governing disabled people under the American with Disabilities Act.

The article discusses some of the uses of disability frames in conditions of confinement litigation in the U.S. Topics include the goals of disability rights and disability justice movements and how those goals connect to movements for prison reform, decarceration, and abolition; productive disability frames can serve to improve conditions of confinement for all incarcerated people; and the laws governing disabled people under the American with Disabilities Act.

Society has a distorted view of those battling addiction and essentially marks them with a sign of disgrace; however, what society may not fully understand is that addiction is a disability beyond the afflicted individual's control. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicates that 19.7 million Americans have battled a substance use disorder in their life. Of the 19.7 million Americans who battled illicit substance use disorders, approximately seventy-four percent also struggled with alcohol use disorder. Based on these statistics, it is clear that illicit drug use disorders are often interconnected with alcohol use disorders. However, Congress makes a distinction between substances that are legal or illegal when determining if individuals are protected under the A.D.A. Thus, current illicit substance users will not be afforded protection. Granted, the state's legitimate purpose is to deter individuals from engaging in the use of illegal substances. However, modern studies have shown that people's addictions become biochemical in nature and may be exacerbated as a result of their genetic composition. At this point, these individuals are not consciously choosing to violate the law; instead, they are driven by the chemical imbalance in their brain and being punished for it. Ultimately, the current structure of the A.D.A. inherently discriminates against certain individuals based on their substance of choice, thereby favoring one person's life over another's simply because they chose an "acceptable" addiction. However, raising the level of scrutiny from rational basis review to intermediate scrutiny will prevent Congress from criminalizing diseases, such as substance use disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The movement to protect the rights of persons with disabilities has followed the trajectory of the U.S. Civil Rights movement, for decades. Issues of Social Justice for ethnic and racial minority citizens paved the way for inclusion of all underrepresented groups in our social order. The landmark events of the late 1960s and 1970s moved all Americans toward a picture of what it means to be included in our society, and eventually lead to the landmark piece of legislation for persons with disabilities in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Unfortunately, the last group of those needing change have been young adults with intellectual disabilities, especially in education and employment. This article speaks to empowering that group by involvement in Inclusive Higher Education. The model program discussed uses a Systems Approach to Placement as the cornerstone for developing a Person-Centered plan for achieving each customer's career and independent living goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses legal issues on disabilities and employment discrimination in the U.S., particularly the implementation of the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) to protect people with disabilities. Also cited are how courts are adjudicating the interpretation of disability that denied protections to people with disabilities, and some court cases like Shell v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. STME.

Background: Thirty years after the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed, promising equal access to health services for people with disabilities and serious mental illness, research on Pap testing continues to uncover health disparities among women with disabilities and women with serious mental illnesses, including those that identify as an ethnic/racial minority. Aim: The purpose of this paper is to describe and present the literature on the barriers and facilitators women with disabilities and women with serious mental illnesses face with receiving a Pap test using the social ecological model. We also examined the degree to which racial/ethnic minority women were included in these articles. Method: A scoping review was conducted where the research team searched United States academic literature from 1990 through February 2020 in PubMed, Medline, and CINAHL using general subject headings for disability, mental illness, and Pap testing. Results: Thirty-two articles met inclusion criteria. More barriers than facilitators were mentioned in articles. Barriers and facilitators are organized into three groups according to social ecological model and include individual (e.g., socioeconomic status, anxiety, education), interpersonal (e.g., family, living environment), and organizational factors (health care provider training, health care system). Participant's race/ethnicity were often reported but minoritized populations were often not the focus of articles. Conclusions: More articles discussed the difficulties that women with disabilities and women with serious mental illnesses face with receiving a Pap test than facilitators to Pap testing. Additional research should focus on the intersectionality race/ethnicity and women with disabilities and women with serious mental illnesses in relation to Pap testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IN TODAY'S WORLD, WE INTERACT AND COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER INSTANTANEOUSLY THROUGH THE CLICK OF A BUTTON. WITH THE INTERNET, INFORMATION HAS NEVER BEEN MORE READILY AVAILABLE THAN IT IS NOW. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The two laws primarily governing disability services in postsecondary education, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, permit institutions of higher education to determine disability documentation requirements on an individual basis. Many institutions have utilized documentation guidelines delineating a range of domains to be addressed, and often, suggestions for specific tests to be included, as well as strict recency requirements. Following passage of the ADAAA in 2008, the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) published documentation guidance practices that reflected the updated ADAAA. The current qualitative study examined the perspectives of 12 directors of disability services (DDS) at postsecondary institutions in the United States regarding the disability documentation requirements at their respective schools and their perspectives on why the standards were adopted. Findings revealed a wide spectrum from flexibility to rigidity in requirements from those who employ traditional guidelines to those who apply selective degrees of the AHEAD guidance. Benefits and drawbacks of documentation and the AHEAD guidance are discussed, as well as suggestions for practitioners and institutions seeking to implement the AHEAD guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over thirty states maintain criminal laws that expressly target people living with HIV. Thousands of people are prosecuted under these statutes, exposing them to decades of incarceration, thousands of dollars in fines, and state-sanctioned stigma. This broad pattern of discrimination based solely on HIV status--what this Note terms serodiscrimination--is not supported by scientific evidence nor public-health rationales. This Note argues that many states' HIV-specific criminal laws violate the Americans with Disabilities Act's ban on discrimination by public entities. While previous constitutional challenges to these laws have fallen short, litigation under federal disability law offers a new pathway for reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We stand at the cusp of a potentially transformative moment for disability rights. For decades, the disability rights movement has been burdened by a profound obstacle: many of its potential constituents do not self-identify as disabled. Disability has long been constructed around a social welfare-law model: as quintessentially associated with intrinsic limitation and an inability to work. Although disability civil rights law includes no such requirement, it has not yet transformed entrenched colloquial understandings. As such, many people who qualify as disabled under contemporary civil rights law do not selfidentify in that way. But numerous factors make this a uniquely opportune moment to transform this state of affairs. The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act ("ADAAA"), enacted in 2008, has, for the first time, provided a definition of disability that is broad, inclusive, and untethered to functional limitation. So too, the advent of social media and the growth of both disability pride and disability positivity all hold promise for encouraging a mass movement of disability identity. If only a fraction of those who qualify as disabled under the ADAAA were to "claim disability" and embrace a disabled identity, millions of Americans would self-identify as disabled for the first time. Such "claiming" of disability has the potential to be transformational for disability rights. As scholars have long observed, the disability movement has struggled to dislodge bias against people with disabilities, even as the law has formally afforded them rights. Even in a time when bias against other stigmatized groups has rapidly decreased, disability bias has remained substantially unyielding. This Article suggests that "claiming disability" holds the potential to radically disrupt this state of affairs by vastly expanding the opportunities for known contact with people with disabilities and by increasing the self-perceived constituents of disability rights. In addition to its benefits for disability rights as a whole, this Article argues that claiming disability may also be individually transformational. For too many people, the experience of physical or mental health impairment is one of enforcing silence, closeting and covering, hiding pain and difficulty, and not taking pride in identity. So too, it is too often the case that societal tropes of deficiency and limitation associated with impairment can be internalized in the absence of a positive disability frame. Claiming disability identity thus holds the potential to offer a liberatory alternative to the current experience of impairment, even as it paves the way for broader transformations in disability rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Service and emotional support animals are increasingly common in the United States. There is a distinction between service animals and emotional support animals that must be acknowledged and understood. Service animal roles, for dogs in particular, started with blind World War I veterans and continue to evolve with modern legislative changes. Health professionals and the general public lack knowledge and understanding of how service dogs provide essential services to disabled handlers. Service dogs are underrepresented in life care plans. This article defines the purpose, function and services provided by service dogs. This article also provides Nurse Life Care Planners with factual details to price a service animal in a plan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the challenges and issues facing people with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S., particularly discrimination and marginalization. Also cited are the mistreatments of these people in areas like employment, housing, and policing, and their protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The article discusses the issues over obesity as an impairment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Also cited are the history and aim of ADA, the structure of ADA claim, how the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) considers obesity in its regulations and interpretive documents, and the uniform methods developed by the medical community in diagnosing obesity as a disease.

The article discusses the concept of autonomy as it comes into conflict with the disability law, and the values of people with disabilities in the U.S. Topics discussed include theory of the disability law based on the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the value of anti-subordination and autonomy in the context of disability, and the harmful effects of misconceptions about mental illness.

The article focuses on conceptual framework and practical guidelines for applying the do not oppose prong of the case L.C. v. Olmstead for determining a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA) integration mandate. It mentions National Council on Independent Living (NCIL) relied extensively on Congressional testimony from individuals purpose and historical abuses of the institutionalization of persons with disabilities.

Persons with dementia often prefer to participate in decisions about their health care, but may be prevented from doing so because healthcare decision-making law facilitates use of advance directives or surrogate decision makers for persons with decisional impairments such as dementia. Federal and state disability law provide alternative decision-making models that do not prevent persons with mild to moderate dementia from making their own healthcare decisions at the time the decision needs to be made. In order to better promote autonomy and wellbeing, persons with dementia should be accommodated and supported so they can make their own healthcare decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the reason Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits the practice approved in the case, Buck v. Bell, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., wherein states were free to forcibly sterilize persons with disabilities on the basis of disability alone. Topics discussed include background on ADA and Title II of the ADA, historical setting of Buck v. Bell, and arguments on the validity of Title II in the forced sterilization context.

As a result of the disability rights movement's fight for the development of community-based services, the percentage of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and mental illness living in institutions has significantly decreased over the last few decades. However, in part because of government failure to invest properly in community-based services required for a successful transition from institutions, individuals with disabilities are now dramatically overrepresented in jails and prisons. The Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA) "integration mandate"--a principle strengthened by the Supreme Court's 1999 Olmstead v. L.C. decision, entitling individuals with disabilities to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs--may provide one avenue to disrupt the schoolto- prison pipeline and overrepresentation of people with I/DD and mental illness in prisons and jails. In this Article, we explore how the federal government and private parties have used--and are beginning to use in new ways--the integration mandate to advocate for the rights of individuals with disabilities to receive the supports they need to thrive in the community and avoid unnecessary entanglement with the criminal justice system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 28 years since the establishment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), individuals with disabilities still live on the margins in social, public, and mediated discourse. Women of color with disabilities, in particular, still struggle to challenge their positionality on the margins due to multifaceted layers of oppression, ranging from sexism, racism, classism, and ableism as further complexities of identity. Yet, in a society with such disregard for and contestation involving disability issues, there is hope with disability activist Vilissa Thompson. In this rhetorical analysis, I examine Thompson as a marginal rhetor whose disability activism serves as a form of public pedagogy to inform the public how to engage in disability discourse in feminist activist spaces. Examined is Thompson's hashtag #DisabilityTooWhite and her development of the website Ramp Your Voice as a discursive mediated platform of empowerment for people of color with disabilities. Applications for applying intersectional theory in praxis are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The foundational faith of disability law is the proposition that we can reduce disability discrimination if we can foster interactions between disabled and nondisabled people. This central faith, which is rooted in contact theory, has encouraged integration of people with and without disabilities, with the expectation that contact will reduce prejudicial attitudes and shift societal norms. However, neither the scholarship nor disability law sufficiently accounts for what this Article calls the "aesthetics of disability," the proposition that our interaction with disability is mediated by an affective process that inclines us to like, dislike, be attracted to, or be repulsed by others on the basis of their appearance. The aesthetics literature introduces a significant complication to uncritical reliance on contact as the theoretical and remedial basis for our inclusive ideal. Contact and engagement with the aesthetics of disability may fail to provide the benefits assumed by contact theory, but more perversely, under certain conditions, they may trigger negative affective responses that may stunt the very normative change sought through antidiscrimination law. This Article proposes a novel theoretical lens to more accurately reflect the complexity of the aesthetic-affective process of discriminatory behavior in the context of disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]