Family Law,Parents with Disabilities,and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Parents with disabilities contend with bias within the family law system, often threatening their custody and visitation rights. The overarching goal of this article is to explore the experiences of parents with disabilities involved in custody and visitation disputes and the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in these cases. This article begins with an overview of parents with disabilities and their interactions with the family law system. Next, the article examines the ADA and its applicability to custody and visitation disputes. Finally, the article offers thoughts about strategies that can be utilized by attorneys to ensure that the rights of parents with disabilities are protected.     

Benefit plan limitations after the Americans with Disabilities Act

Virtually all company welfare benefit plans contain one or more disability-specific benefit limitations. The Americans with Disabilities Act casts doubt on the lawfulness of these limitations. The legislative history of the ADA is confusing, and the EEOC's failure to offer meaningful guidance on this issue further clouds the situation. Based on the Supreme Court's prior interpretation of language similar to that used in the ADA, we believe all disability-specific limitations adopted prior to the ADA are entitled to a "safe harbor"; disability-specific limitations adopted after Congress passed the ADA are still lawful unless the limitations are intentionally used to discriminate in a nonbenefit aspect of employment.     

The Americans with Disabilities Act as risk regulation.

Much disability based discrimination occurs because of fears that hiring or serving people with disabilities will pose a safety risk. Disability rights laws such as the ADA strictly regulate such risk-motivated discrimination. Many disability rights advocates and academic defenders of the ADA laud such laws as applying a "scientific" approach to risk rather than the "irrational" approach generally adopted by the public at large. That position is doubly strange: It stands in remarkable tension with disability rights advocates' general suspicion of "experts," and applies a technocratic approach to risk regulation-an approach that usually has politically conservative implications-to achieve the distinctly nonconservative goal of promoting the full integration of people with disabilities into our nation's economic and civic life. In this essay, Professor Bagenstos uses the problem of risk-motivated disability discrimination as a lens through which to examine the politics of risk regulation scholarship. He argues that the easy association of technocratic approaches with political conservatism-and of democratic approaches with political liberalism or progressivism-ignores the complex ways in which technocratic and democratic institutions may serve or disserve particular political interests.     

A primer on case law under the Americans with Disabilities Act

This article provides a comprehensive guide through the Americans with Disabilities Act. It discusses highlights of the statutory scheme, and surveys many of the cases decided under the Act, by subject matter.     

Making non-discriminatory fitness-for-duty decisions about persons with disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act

This article describes an assessment role performed by clinical psychologists in the employment context, and examines how it has been evaluated by the courts from the standpoint of discrimination against persons with disabilities. Guidelines are offered for making fitness-for-duty decisions which are legally defensible, and examples of the decision-making process are provided. Data-based limitations on professional expertise are articulated, and conclusions drawn are aimed at practicing psychologists and the courts dealing with these uncertainties. Issues are analyzed principally in courts dealing with these uncertainties. Issues are analyzed principally in relation to Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which has been passed by both houses of Congress.     

Stigma as a barrier to employment: mental disability and the Americans with Disabilities Act

In a controversial expansion of workplace civil rights, the 1990 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) extended anti-discrimination protection to individuals with "mental impairments." One of the most critical barriers to the employment of individuals with mental disabilities is the degree of social stigma such disabilities incur, and there is compelling evidence that employers have stigmatizing attitudes and have discriminated against those with mental disabilities. This study examines the role played by stigma in employers' response to the 1990 Americans with Disability Act (ADA). A stratified sample of one hundred ninety employers were surveyed in 1996-1997 in a major Southern metropolitan area. Telephone interviews were completed with one hundred seventeen employers (response rate of 61.6%). The article describes employers' experiences with employees with mental disabilities and accommodations, specific employment practices, and attitudes towards those with mental disabilities. Stigma played an important role in conformity to the ADA (operationalized as either hiring or having specific recruiting policies for hiring individuals with mental disabilities). Furthermore, employers expressing coercive (fear of a lawsuit) as opposed to normative (belief that it is the right thing to do) rationales for compliance were more likely to hold stigmatized attitudes. Employers' beliefs about mental disability form a crucial foundation for truly supportive work environments (those that value difference and diversity), and further research is needed to determine if over time the ADA is successful in changing attitudes as well as behavior.     

A guide to the EEOC's final regulations on the Americans with Disabilities Act

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued its final regulations on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although the regulations offer some guidance for employers on how to comply with the Act, they fail to provide specific answers to the many complicated compliance questions that will surely arise. Further, the regulations are almost totally silent on certain critical issues related to insurance, workers' compensation, and potential conflicts between ADA obligations and terms of collective bargaining agreements. The EEOC has essentially left the resolution of many important ADA questions to case-by-case determination and the litigation process.