The ADA & its Flaws
The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA for short, is a civil rights law that seeks to prevent discrimination against disabled individuals in various sectors, namely employment, education, transportation, and publicly accessible domains that are either publicly or privately operated (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division). The purpose of the ADA is to ensure that those with disabilities receive the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, but there has been difficulty enforcing the ADA. Some critiques with the ADA are that the language is extremely vague and open to interpretation, it states what changes should be made without determining sources of financial assistance, and Title I specifically has caused employment rates for the disabled to decline.
The vagueness of the expression “reasonable accommodation” as referenced in the ADA allows for employers or those who operate public spaces to utilize their own interpretations when deeming if they can reasonably accommodate disabled individuals. The ambiguity of reasonable accommodation advantages the employer, as they can dictate what they believe to be within their bounds of achieving and therefore prevent their disabled employees from receiving accommodations. In an article from Psychology Today, Hari Srinivasan discusses how “this places an undue burden on autistic employees, who must not only navigate the complexities of legal action but also prove they were discriminated against” (Srinivasan 6). Since the ADA is written so ambiguously, there are many court cases where employees or people discriminated against in other sectors argue that their rights guaranteed by the ADA have been violated. Engaging in such legal battles expends money, time, and energy, and can be especially troublesome for people with disabilities. People should not have to fight so hard in order to obtain accommodations that they are entitled to. In order to amend this issue, I would suggest using more clear, specific language in the ADA, as well as implementing sector-specific guidelines with clarifications on what exactly falls under “reasonable accommodation” in different contexts. Ideally, somewhere it should state everything that falls under reasonable accommodation and everything that would be considered out of the scope of reasonable, and to do so for different settings, such as hospitals or schools. Though it would be nearly impossible to account for every case, accounting for most would lead to greater clarity and limit the number of legal expenditures that clients must undertake to fight for their accommodations.
Another issue with the ADA is that it does not provide adequate solutions for financial assistance, or state where funding should come from in order to allow for accommodations. Currently, employers, the government, and private entities operating public spaces are not incentivized to make changes to increase accessibility, as they believe these endeavors to be expensive. In an article from The Denver Gazette, Barry Fagin writes, “The ADA is a bad law because it attempts to achieve a public good through private means. It simply decrees what must be done, and then leaves it up to the magic goodness fairy to figure out how to pay for it” (Fagin 12). If I was suggesting changes to the ADA or if I ran for office myself, I would implement sections that discuss sources of funding to allow for accommodations. For example, I would advise policymakers to provide federal grants or tax incentives to businesses to aid them in complying with ADA regulations. Currently, the biggest barrier to compliance is merely financial. Another solution could potentially be creating a federal accommodation reimbursement fund, which could also incentivize employers and businesses to accommodate disabled individuals, as they could be fully reimbursed.
The issue with financing accommodations is extremely relevant to the employment sector in particular, as employment rates for the disabled have actually been declining since the passing of the ADA (Dorfman and Burke). Samuel Adams, a neurodiverse man, wrote about his own experience applying to jobs in an article from The Enquirer, stating, “I was already almost 30 years old, and I naively believed the neurodivergent label would not change how people interacted with me. Ever since I started checking ‘yes’ on the question of whether I would like to disclose being a person with a disability on job applications, the rejections, admittedly a tiny fraction compared to those who do not respond at all, have piled up” (Adams 2). Employers are hesitant to hire those with disabilities as it presents them with what they view as a financial burden. They don’t want to expend excess resources on accommodating people with diverse needs. This leads to many disabled people ending up unemployed, or with jobs below their level of education or capabilities. One solution could be mandating inclusive hiring in government contracts so that companies receiving federal or state contracts must meet a minimum benchmark for how many people with disabilities they are hiring – similar to requirements that are already in place for veterans. For the issue of costs to employers, I would recommend expanding the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and making it easier to claim when hiring employees with disabilities. Another option could be providing startup grants or wage subsidies to businesses that practice inclusive hiring or implement programs benefiting the disabled.
Ultimately, most issues with the ADA stem from the fact that the law states what employers and businesses need to do, but it doesn’t provide avenues to successfully incorporate those changes. Reforming policy to allow for financial incentives, such as grants or subsidies, could lead to greater integration of disability into the workplace. Additionally, altering the language in the ADA to be more precise, so that terms such as “reasonable accommodation” are not up for debate, can again allow for smoother integration; it also removes the need for engaging in complicated legal battles in which the courts have the ability to interpret the ADA as they please.
Works Cited
Adams, Samuel. “Job Rejections Have Piled up since Disclosing My Disability on Applications: Opinion.” The Enquirer, Cincinnati Enquirer, 29 Jan. 2024, www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2024/01/29/the-americans-with-disabilities-act-has-failed-opinion/72325914007/.
Burke, Thomas F. and Doron Dorfman. “Thirty Years Later, Still Fighting over the ADA.” The Regulatory Review, 25 Feb. 2021, www.theregreview.org/2020/12/07/dorfman-burke-thirty-years-fighting-over-ada/.
Fagin, Barry. “Column: The ADA Is a Terrible Law and Should Be Repealed.” Colorado Springs Gazette, 14 Nov. 2019, gazette.com/opinion/column-the-ada-is-a-terrible-law-and-should-be-repealed/article_7ee5be86-062d-11ea-96e6-035599668baf.html.
“Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act.” ADA.Gov, www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/.
