Priorities in Disability Legislation
When it comes to disability rights, courts and legislative bodies seem to be most concerned with broadening the definition of disability to include more groups, implementing reasonable accommodations and universal design, and promoting the integration and autonomy of disabled individuals.
In influential statutes and cases, the definition of disability is continually being reevaluated to ensure that it is inclusive of the entire spectrum of disabled individuals, as different disabilities have vastly different presentations. Fletcher vs. Tufts University is a district court case pertaining to a professor at Tufts whose disability benefits were terminated before she was able to return to work, which resulted in her own termination from her position at Tufts. One key issue in the case was whether Fletcher counts as a “qualified individual with a disability” under Title I of the ADA: “The plaintiff contends that the defendant’s interpretation of the ADA is too narrow, and that the term ‘qualified individual’ should be read to include former employees” (Fletcher v. Tufts University 2). The court allowed this claim of Fletcher’s to proceed, highlighting how the courts placed an emphasis on broadening the definition of disability and ensuring that Title I applies to not just current employees, but also former ones. Another issue was related to Fletcher’s LTD plan benefits expiring due to her disability being mental, not physical. Fletcher “argues that by offering her less coverage for her mental disability than it offered to persons with physical disabilities, defendant MetLife denied her the ‘full and equal enjoyment’ of her benefits in violation of Title III of the ADA” (Fletcher v. Tufts University 10). This exemplifies how a recurring theme in disability law related to expanding the definition of disability and ensuring that all groups were included. Since Fletcher’s disability was mental, not physical, she was denied adequate coverage and was therefore terminated from her position, demonstrating the need to treat all disabilities as equal. The district court also allowed this claim of Fletcher’s to proceed, illustrating how the courts prioritized anti-discrimination for all disabilities, regardless of their physical manifestation. The Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act additionally works to redefine disability. A purpose of this act is to reject “that the terms ‘substantially’ and ‘’major’ in the definition of disability under the ADA ‘need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled’” (ADA Amendments Act 2). These amendments demonstrate that legislative bodies were continually attempting to expand the definition of disability and forgo strict interpretation in favor of a broader, more inclusive understanding. Instead of making disability a more niche classification that applies to fewer people, Congress attempted to expand the number of people who qualify as disabled through the ADA Amendments Act. Both the district court case and these amendments highlight the mission to place more people within the category of qualified disabled individuals to ensure that all groups were represented fairly.
Another key imperative illustrated throughout laws and statutes was the push for accessibility via universal design principles. In the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, they define universal design as “the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (UN CRPD 4). The notion of universal accessibility ties into the previous emphasis on expanding the definition of disability; the expansion of accessibility to allow more people to use certain products or interact with certain architecture aligns with the ideal of absolute inclusion. The UN goes on to list general obligations, one of which is “to undertake or promote research and development of universally designed goods, services, equipment and facilities… to promote their availability and use, and to promote universal design in the development of standards and guidelines” (UN CRPD 6). The idea of universal accessibility is such a crucial aspect of disability law as infrastructure even currently is not disability-friendly, and many disabled individuals struggle to interact with their surrounding environment. The implementation of ramps, elevators, and other wheelchair-accessible architecture has been beneficial, but there is still a long way to go in terms of promoting accessibility and inclusion in public spaces. Though the concept of universal design is constantly addressed in laws and statutes, the implementation of it proves to be much more difficult to address.
Finally, more key values undergirding disability law are the integration and autonomy of disabled individuals. In Olmstead vs. LC, a Supreme Court case, two mentally disabled women were voluntarily institutionalized,, and after being approved to move to community-based care, remained institutionalized due to the state’s inaction. They sued under Title II of the ADA, arguing that this institutionalization was discriminatory. The ruling states, “Institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life” (Olmstead vs. L.C. 3). The court’s ruling, in favor of the women who were wrongfully kept institutionalized, reinforced the integration mandate, which requires public entities to provide service to disabled individuals in the most integrated setting that is appropriate to their needs. This case established a precedent that allowed for further integration of people with disabilities, allowing more people to transition to community-based care settings rather than remain institutionalized, which also provides them with more autonomy. Along the lines of autonomy, supported decision making was a concept whose creation supported disability rights and the autonomy of disabled individuals. In Piers Gooding’s article on supported decision making, Gooding states, “At the heart of supported decision making then is the proposition that instead of delegating a person’s decision making power to another, the individual can be provided with necessary supports and accommodation to make and communicate decisions according to his or her wishes” (Gooding 5). Supported decision making was viewed as a beneficial alternative to guardianships and conservatorships as it allowed the individual more freedom and autonomy, rather than being stripped of their rights and controlled by someone else. Supported decision making also highlights the gradual push toward greater autonomy for disabled individuals and entrusting them to make their own decisions – with the help of others.
Broadening the definition of disability, implementing universal design, and allowing for integration and autonomy of disabled individuals all demonstrate the gradual destigmatization of disability, and how both courts and legislative bodies prioritized antidiscrimination and inclusion.
Works Cited
Gooding, Piers. Supported Decision Making: A Rights-based Disability Concept and its Implications for Mental Health Law. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, vol. 20, no. 3, 2013, pp. 431–451. Taylor & Francis, https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2012.711683
United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 13 Dec. 2006. www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf
United States, Congress. ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Public Law 110–325, 25 Sept. 2008. U.S. Government Publishing Office. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ325/pdf/PLAW-110publ325.pdf
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. Fletcher v. Tufts University. 15 April 2005.
United States, Supreme Court. Olmstead v. L.C. 527 U.S. 581. 22 June 1999.
