Search

The Americans with Disability Act sets forth the conditions under which management is compelled to respond to informal and formal requests for accommodations, one of which is that requests must relate to essential job functions. When requests do not relate to essential job functions, employer responsiveness becomes voluntary. The difference between compelled and voluntary management responsiveness to efforts by employees with disabilities to acquire workplace accommodations is import to the decision-making processes of employees with disabilitiess as is discussed here for the benefit of employees with disabilities, their supervisors, and advocates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the panel discussion on decision on the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Olmstead v. L.C. and E.W. It mentions legal research and legislative history research on the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and people with severe disabilities living in institutions. It also mentions background in the Fourteenth Amendment and motion for summary judgment.

The South Dakota Bar Application, as it is currently written, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by eliciting an extensive inquiry into an applicant's mental health history if the applicant discloses a diagnosis in response to questions about mental health. These questions lead applicants to admit diagnoses about mental health, which has resulted in either conditional admission or rejection of admission. The Department of Justice has analyzed the relationship between questions about an applicant's mental health on a batapplication and how those questions may violate the Act. In response to the Department of Justice's analysis, the National Conference of Bar Examiners has changed its questions regarding character and fitness. This article will discuss the history of the Act and its applicability to bar application questions about mental health. Further, this article will discuss South Dakota's use of questions about mental health, and how those questions violate the Act by leading to further inquiries of applicants with a mental health diagnosis. As a solution, this article urges South Dakota to reexamine its use of questions relating to mental health, along with its use of conditional admission. Finally, this article suggests that South Dakota should incorporate education about mental health into the legal profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the extent to which the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and state laws govern disability-access law in California. It highlights the enactment of Chapter 383 by the California legislature that addresses damage and procedural problems in ADA litigation in California and also prohibits attorneys from issuing demands for money.

Mass plaintiff filings under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have received frequent, and negative, press coverage over the past several years in California newspapers, The New York Times, and even the radio show This American Life. Each press report has catalogued a rising number of lawyers and plaintiffs who file hundreds of ADA claims per year and profit from attorney's fees and additional state remedies. Little empirical research, however, has been done to identify whether this popular coverage reflects actual trends and, if true, what possible solutions are available to prevent abuse of the ADA and protect the law's reputation. This Note seeks to fill that void, using an original, nationwide data set of Title II and III ADA claims. The data set identifies the rapid increase of Title II and III filings and their concentration in California, New York, and Florida district courts. The data shows that a small set of private litigants files tens or even hundreds of claims per year in a concentrated number of judicial districts. Unfavorable judicial decisions and negative press reveal the threat to the ADA from this new trend. Although the ADA is under-enforced, this Note concludes that the unchecked rise of private enforcement is neither the best deterrent to ADA violations nor helpful to ADA advocates. Rather, this Note recommends that the DOJ play a more active gatekeeper role in private suits through strategic enforcement in high litigation districts and harsh penalties on flagrant violators. This Note ultimately sheds light on the unintended consequences of Congress shifting enforcement of the ADA--or any statutory regime--to the private sector and the potential benefits of introducing a rigorous administrative gatekeeper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the impacts of the disabilities discrimination law on the legal education and the legal profession in the U.S. It discusses the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in two significant cases Roe v. Wade and San Antonio v. Rodriguez in relevance to the discrimination in disability. It mentions that organizations like American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools have played a vital role in curbing discrimination in legal education.

Two conflicting stories have consumed the academic debate regard-ing the impact of deinstitutionalization litigation. The first, which has risen almost to the level of conventional wisdom, is that deinstitutionali-zation was a disaster. The second story challenges the suggestion that deinstitutionalization has uniformly been unsuccessful, as well as the causal link critics seek to draw with the growth of the homeless popula-tion. This Article, which embraces the second story, assesses the current wave of deinstitutionalization litigation. It contends that things will be different this time. The particular outcomes of the first wave of deinstitu-tionalization litigation, this Article contends, resulted from the interaction between the political dynamics surrounding that litigation and the legal claims asserted by deinstitutionalization advocates. But both those dynamics and those legal claims have changed significantly. Precisely because the first wave of deinstitutionalization litigation was so successful in moving residents out of large state institutions, the efforts of deinstitutionalization advocates have turned to ensuring the availability of adequate services in the community. This has shifted the fiscal politics of the field in ways that destabilize old political alliances but create the potential for new ones. At the same time, deinstitutionalization advocates have moved from the due process theories on which they relied in the 1970s and 1980s to an anti-discrimination theory relying on the ADA. That theory imposes a powerful incentive on states to create and fund adequate community services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Information about several papers discussed at a symposium held on February 4, 2011 sponsored by the periodical "Review of Law & Social Change," on corporate law and progressive lawyers. The topics include the role of corporation regarding the development of the public policy of the U.S. Information on the impact of the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act by the Congress of the U.S. on the business community is also presented.

There is a vast and growing cause lawyering literature demonstrating how attorneys and their relationship to social justice movements matter greatly for law's ability to engender progress. But to date, there has been no examination of the work of ADA disability cause lawyers as cause lawyers. Similarly, despite an extensive literature focused on the ADA's revolutionary civil rights aspects and the manner in which the Supreme Court's interpretation of that statute has stymied potential transformation of American society, no academic accounts of disability law have focused on the lawyers who bring these cases. This Article responds to these scholarly voids. We conducted indepth interviews with many of the nation's leading disability rights cause lawyers. What we found makes three novel contributions. As the first examination of the activities of these public interest lawyers and their advocacy, it brings to light a neglected sector of an otherwise well-examined field. In doing so, this Article complements, but also complicates, the cause lawyering literature by presenting a vibrant and successful cohort of social movement lawyers who in some ways emulate their peers and in other ways have a unique perspective and mode of operation. The Article also forces a reconsideration of academic critiques of the efficacy and transformative potential of the ADA because it demonstrates how disability cause lawyers have effectively utilized the statute to achieve social integration in the shadow of the Court's restrictive jurisprudence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article looks at the responsibilities of lawyers under Title III of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide effective communication access to deaf and hard of hearing people in the U.S. It examines the implementation of Title III which has been effective, but is now restricted within the legal practice. It explores the realisms facing these hearing impaired people who look for legal representation. It also offers ways on how to change Title III to realize its promise.

The article discusses that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 2021) gave employers the legal right to make such a decision as long as they do not violate the Americans with Disabilities or Civil Rights acts. It mentions that according to the CDC (2021a), smaller employers still have the right to require COVID-19 vaccination per state law; and it gets more complicated for small businesses with multistate operations as their policies.