Search

Passed in 1973, the Rehabilitation Act was the first law to provide equal access for individuals with disabilities. The Rehabilitation Act opened the door for the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which created enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Working in tandem, these two Acts form the foundation that protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination in the U.S. However, in 1985, the Supreme Court intentionally refused to decide whether this protection included disparate impact as well as intentional discrimination. This has led the circuit courts to split in holding whether or not disparate impact claims are recognized under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. This Note will examine different methods of statutory interpretation to ultimately recommend that disparate impact claims should be recognized under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, following prior Supreme Court precedent in recognizing disparate impact claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act have made little progress towards preventing disability-based discrimination within the organ transplant evaluation process. Intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) pose a unique problem for transplant teams and transplant physicians because I/DDs can simultaneously be a legitimate contraindication for transplantation and a mechanism for invidious discrimination against intellectually disabled persons. A culprit for ongoing disability-based discrimination is a transplant center's authority to develop its own eligibility criteria. While medical criteria for eligibility are generally well-settled, psychosocial criteria — an amorphous constellation of risk factors for post-transplant success — can serve as a facially neutral disguise for social worth determinations of individuals with I/DDs. Consequently, individuals with I/DDs are unjustifiably denied eligibility for organ transplantation and transplant-related services. This Article begins by identifying the pitfalls of current federal antidiscrimination legislation. It then discusses the foreseen benefits and drawbacks of House Resolution (H.R.) 8981, a recently proposed federal bill, that expressly prohibits disability-based discrimination within the organ transplant evaluation process. The Article ends by offering potential solutions for professional organizations and transplant centers that aim to provide for equitable access to organ transplantation and transplant-related services for intellectually disabled individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the limitations of damages available under Spending Clause statutes, specifically the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act, in cases of discrimination by federal funding recipients. The Supreme Court's decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. held that plaintiffs cannot recover emotional distress damages under these statutes because such damages are not remedies "traditionally available" under contract law.

The article explores the impact of pretrial detention on individuals with various disabilities, such as physical disabilities, chronic illnesses, developmental disabilities, and psychiatric disabilities. It discusses how the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act require alternatives to detention as a reasonable modification of government practice. It argues that pretrial incarceration often violates the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The article assesses the public charge rule from a disability rights perspective, exploring the intersection between disability and immigration law. It mentions immigrants with disabilities no longer had access to federal programs to which they were entitled, and consequently, access to the U.S. It also mentions rule prompted several legal challenges, including under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the predecessor to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Children with disabilities are among the most vulnerable students in public schools. They are the most likely to be bullied, harassed, restrained, or segregated. For these and other reasons, they also have the poorest academic outcomes. Overcoming these challenges requires full use of the laws enacted to protect these students’ affirmative right to equal access and an environment free from discrimination. Yet, courts routinely deny their access to two such laws—the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (section 504). Courts too often overlook the affirmative obligations contained in these two disability rights laws and instead assume that students with disabilities’ only legal recourse is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Regrettably the IDEA is not capable of remedying all the harms students endure. In fact, the IDEA, by its terms, extends to only a subset of students with disabilities. Even so, courts force all students to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative procedures before invoking remedies under the other two disability rights laws. By narrowly construing antidiscrimination principles and ignoring the affirmative obligations contained in disability rights laws, courts unduly restrict students’ protections under these laws. This Article solves that problem by explaining and clarifying the nuance that drives confusion in this area: the difference between the IDEA’s guarantee of a free appropriate public education and the ADA and section 504’s guarantee of equal access to public education. With that distinction clear, this Article disaggregates the types of claims that are most often erroneously obstructed by the IDEA’s exhaustion clause and then creates a framework that would allow courts to analyze and correctly apply the exhaustion clause. In doing so, it hopes to remove these laws from the IDEA’s shadow and renew their promise of equal access to educational opportunity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People with disabilities are less likely to be employed than people without disabilities. To combat this disparity, Congress created a mandate in Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires federal government contractors to take affirmative action when hiring qualified individuals with disabilities. In 2014, regulations promulgated by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) clarified that contractors should strive to hit a seven percent utilization goal: an aspirational, non-binding benchmark by which compliance can be measured. However, numerous problems remain. Applicants and employees are not incentivized to self-identify their disabilities, leaving contractors without a means to demonstrate compliance with Section 503. Contractors have little incentive to work towards the aspirational utilization goal besides OFCCP enforcement, which has declined in recent years. Contractors also lack clarity on how to comply with Section 503 and its regulations outside of nebulous best practices from OFCCP. To address these problems, Congress should amend Section 503 to mandate that contractors follow a noncompetitive hiring process used by federal executive agencies known as Schedule A hiring. Schedule A hiring allows federal executive agencies to interview and hire qualified individuals with disabilities before interviewing the general population. Schedule A has resulted in a significant increase in the number of federal employees with disabilities and would incentivize applicants and employees to self-identify their disabilities. Schedule A would also encourage voluntary compliance with Section 503, which could mitigate the impact of declining OFCCP enforcement. Similarly, Schedule A would encourage compliance by clarifying contractors' duties under Section 503: if they were to hire noncompetitively, they would be in compliance with the law. The result of these reforms would better effectuate the purpose of Section 503 as it attempts to close the employment gap between people with disabilities and the general population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this creative nonfiction piece, the author discusses disability statement in order to comply with the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which "prohibits employment discrimination by Federal government contractors and subcontractors. It mentions conditions or illnesses considered "disabilities," including cancer and major depression, epilepsy, and many more. It also mentions congenital impairments such as a ventricular septal defect (VSD).

In recent years, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the office of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) responsible for adjudicating immigration cases, has increasingly relied on the use of video teleconferencing (VTC) in immigration court proceedings, as opposed to in-person court appearances. Citing VTC as an efficient and effective way to conduct hearings and manage its large docket backlog, EOIR has installed VTC units at its headquarters and at nearly all immigration courts, and the agency's use of VTC has risen exponentially under the Trump Administration. Yet, VTC has been proven to harm immigration judges' abilities to assess respondents' credibility, body language, demeanor, and nonverbal communication cues. These issues are compounded for detainees suffering from serious mental conditions, such as major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and borderline personality disorder, among others. Not only do respondents with these conditions have difficulty testifying and understanding the nature of their proceedings, but it is also more difficult for judges to recognize respondents' mental disabilities over video than it is to recognize them in person. The potential consequences of these failures are extreme, as studies have shown that many mentally impaired detainees are often unfairly deported, a mistake that can lead to a possible death sentence for those deported back to countries with rampant violence or without adequate legal and medical safeguards to aid in treating and managing their mental conditions. This Comment examines the legality of the use of VTC in removal proceedings for detainees whom immigration judges, following a competency hearing called a Matter of M-A-M-proceeding, declare mentally incompetent by reason of their mental impairments. Since the 2013 landmark decision in Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder, immigrants in removal proceedings found to be incompetent due to mental disabilities have been entitled to a qualified representative, or an appointed attorney, as a reasonable accommodation under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This Comment extends the rationale in Franco-Gonzalez to argue that in-person court appearances be presumptively mandated as a reasonable accommodation under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for mentally incompetent detainees. Per the requirements of a prima facie case under section 504, this Comment shows that (1) mentally incompetent detainees appearing via VTC qualify as persons with disabilities within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act; (2) they are otherwise qualified for the benefit or services they seek from the government agency; (3) they are denied full participation in their proceedings and meaningful access to the benefit or services sought because of their disabilities when forced to appear via VTC as opposed to in person; and (4) EOIR, the agency providing the benefit, is a federal executive agency under the umbrella of the DOJ and to which section 504 applies. Given that all four elements of a section 504 prima facie case are met when mentally incompetent detainees are required to appear via VTC for their hearings, in-person court appearances should be presumptively mandated as a reasonable accommodation. This accommodation will therefore give mentally incompetent detainees the chance to effectively argue their cases and meaningfully participate in their removal proceedings unhindered by the inherent difficulties of appearing through a screen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses accommodation issues facing law students with disabilities in the U.S. and how to possibly resolved them. Also cited are the differences between the legal liabilities and requirements under Title IX, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, and the reasons why schools should allow advocates, observers, or supporters to accompany students with disabilities in accommodations meetings.

The article discusses disability discrimination in high school sports in the U.S. by analyzing the reasonable accommodation lawsuit filed by a disabled high school student athlete against the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) in 2017. Also cited are the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title IX as a civil rights legislation.

The article offers information on the VPAT is a useful tool for libraries to assess the usability of electronic resources by users with disabilities. Topics include the accuracy of VPATs can help libraries communicate accessibility issues to vendors for remediation, resulting in more accessible library licensed content; the VPAT, or Voluntary Product Accessibility Template, is rooted in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act; and VPATs are familiar to vendors and procurement officers.

This paper examines to what extent the 129 members of the Urban Public Libraries Council meet the Section 508 standards for accessibility under the Rehabilitation Act, the minimum acceptable standard for accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Using an HTML evaluation tool, WAVE, the HTML coding of the libraries' homepages was evaluated according to the Section 508 criteria for accessibility. After one-to-one deep examination to determine the accessibility of the library websites, the results tended to mirror other studies showing that most library websites have some coding deficiencies that limit the accessibility of the websites. Notably, only 7 of the 122 libraries that were surveyed had no Section 508 errors present with their homepages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the undue hardship cases related to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Topics discussed include undue hardship provision, including the statutory language and its regulations, the legislative history; undue hardship cases under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and actual costs of the accommodation.

The article aims at identifying areas of potential mischief and to explain why, if implemented, Professor Czapanskiy Hopes proposal would lead to the very problems she critiques. It mentions that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 embody a requirement of employers, state and local governments, and public places to make reasonable accommodations to disabled persons.

The Fourth Circuit's recent decision in Class v. Towson University threatens the rights guaranteed to disabled persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehab Act"). The Acts demand that disabled persons not be excluded from activities based on unsubstantiated paternalistic concerns, and, where exclusion occurs, the Acts entrust courts to evaluate whether exclusion was warranted in light of the best available objective evidence. This Comment argues that by deferring to the speculative fears and subjective judgment of Towson University--the very entity accused of violating the ADA and Rehab Act in Class v. Towson--the Fourth Circuit abandoned its duties and rendered an improper decision. This Comment begins with a critique of the Fourth Circuit's reasoning in Class v. Towson and demonstrates that the factual record was devoid of evidence supporting the court's decision to exclude Gavin Class--a disabled athlete--from Towson's football team. This Comment continues by arguing that the Fourth Circuit employed an incorrect standard of analysis when determining that Class's disqualification did not violate the ADA or Rehab Act. The conclusion of this Comment implores the legal community to reject the Fourth Circuit's holding and reaffirm disabled persons' right to live free from paternalistic authorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on laws governing high school student-athletes with disabilities at the college level in the U.S. Topics discussed include initiatives started by the Eastern College Athletic Conference opportunities available to those with disabilities; enactment of Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act for addressing the same; and National Collegiate Athletic Association's take on the same.

A single subject alternating treatment design was used to compare most-to-least and least-to-most prompts to teach work tasks in community businesses. Four students with moderate to severe disabilities, two paraprofessionals, and one transition teacher participated in the study. Results of the study suggest that both prompting strategies were effective in promoting the acquisition and maintenance of employment skills taught in community employment training settings. The special education teacher and paraprofessionals implemented the prompting strategies with fidelity and minimal training. Results are discussed in terms of future research and implications for expanding the scope of community-based employment skills training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disruptive students potentially pose significant problems for campus administrators as they strive to maintain a safe campus environment conducive to learning while not violating the legal rights of the students. Maintaining a safe campus is important because increasing numbers of students with mental and cognitive disorders are enrolling in college and university classes. This article examines selected court cases involving disruptive students who alleged violations of their First Amendment right of free speech, due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and violations of the rights afforded them under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The rulings in these cases were used to develop campus guidelines and procedures to address the actions of disruptive students. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Since the passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, federal and state governments have played a significant role in the employment of individuals with disabilities. In the present study, one aspect of that relationship was analyzed—individuals with disabilities who received vocational rehabilitation (VR) services to become self-employed. The authors utilized a two-level hierarchical generalized linear modeling to analyze national data from the Rehabilitation Services Administration for fiscal years 2008–2012. Among several significant (p < .001) predictors of successful VR self-employment case closure across the years, ethnicity had the largest effect, followed by gender. Although the findings from this study build on those from a previous study, conclusions about the predictors are tentative. Nevertheless, the findings add to a sparse literature on VR self-employment of individuals with disabilities, and the authors discuss the study’s implications for researchers and VR and provide suggestions for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the scope of standing under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its uneasy entanglement with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Topics discussed include contemplates a solution born of statutory interpretation and economic analysis of Rehabilitation Act, decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife on zone-of-interests test into disability law and Supreme Court's competing standing doctrines.

The article offers insight to the issues surrounding unfair coverage denials for quality health care in the U.S., and discusses Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and Federal Rehabilitation Act enacted for addressing the same; physician-patient relationship; and unfair trade practices.

The study of postsecondary students with disabilities has a relatively short history that largely began with descriptions of programs designed for returning World War II veterans with disabilities and expanded in the 1970s with the advent of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Currently, the literature about postsecondary-level students with disabilities is principally descriptive, is published in professional journals reflecting a range of disciplines, and lacks a guiding organizational taxonomy. A taxonomy is particularly useful when organizing, discussing, and conducting research and practice efforts. This article presents a four-domain taxonomy that was developed based upon a comprehensive analysis of the body of literature about postsecondary education and students with disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authors' Synopsis: A significant percentage of American families have a family member with a mobility impairment. The numbers will increase as our population continues to age. Therefore, it is important to focus on accessibility so that people can safely and easily navigate their local communities. This Article deals with the legal obligation to make communities accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, this Article addresses the intricate regulations applicable to sidewalks. Local communities must construct, repair, and maintain sidewalks in compliance with the ADA. This obligation includes removing obstacles to accessibility such as snow, even in snow-belt communities that would prefer to avoid the cost of snow removal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on the article "The Limits of Federal Disability Law: State Educational Voucher Program" by Wendy Hensel which evaluates efficacy of the school voucher model for students with disabilities. It addresses private school compliance with Title II of the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (Title II) and Section 504 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The article examines the legislative mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. It mentions application ADA to the online learning environment of higher education for students with disabilities. Topics discussed include standards for accessibility in the virtual educational environment; ways in which courses can be designed for accessibility to disable students; and challenges faced by online students with disabilities.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges establishing marriage equality for same-sex couples marks a major shift in recognizing gay, lesbian, and bisexual people as a central part of the fabric of American society. Obergefell also marks the passing of the torch from "LGB" to "T"; the next civil rights frontier belongs to transgender people, for whom key barriers still remain. In January 2015, a transgender woman filed an equal protection challenge to a provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), which explicitly excludes several medical conditions closely associated with transgender people. In support of this challenge, lawyers for the plaintiff (and co-authors of this Article) advance a novel argument: transgender people are a "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" class entitled to heightened scrutiny. The authors further argue that the ADA's transgender exclusions are unconstitutional no matter what level of scrutiny applies because moral animus against transgender people is not a legitimate basis for lawmaking. This equal protection challenge paves the way for the extension of disability rights protection to transgender people under the Rehabilitation Act, Fair Housing Act, and state anti-disability discrimination laws that mirror the ADA. It also marks a new break for equality law--reaching far beyond disability rights to all laws that single out transgender people for disparate treatment. This challenge also informs the broader theoretical debate over the relationship between identity and impairment, and diagnosis and discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in response to the extensive history of discrimination Americans with disabilities have faced These federal statutes provide that no individual is to be precluded from enjoying the programs provided by certain entities solely on the basis of their disability. However, this is difficult in regards to organ transplantation and individuals with cognitive disabilities. The issue lies where a physician is faced with the difficult decision in pursuing their moral and ethical obligations to preserve life while determining whether a specific cognitive disability is a contraindication for organ transplantation. This Note advocates for federally implemented guidelines, supplementing current federal antidiscrimination statutes, which would be more stringent on healthcare providers and provide clarity to physicians to prevent discrimination in determining whether an individual with a cognitive disability should receive an organ transplant. This Note provides the background of the applicable federal antidiscrimination statutes and judicial interpretation of the applicable statutes as well as the difficulties in procuring an organ transplant and the risks subsequent to an organ transplant procedure. Additionally, this Note discusses public policies and how some states have taken steps to deter discrimination. This Note will also provide an analysis of physician discretion in evaluating organ transplant eligibility and how absolute discretion presents the opportunity for discrimination. Lastly, this Note provides solutions, including judicial intervention and policy reform implementing a spectrum of risk classification, and mandatory disclosure of the reasons for transplantation refusal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]