Talk:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990/Archive 1

Archive 1

Beginning of talk page

I fully intend to summarize each section and provide a number of cases that are important to the implementation of this act. For this reason, I removed the remarks about public accommodations, which are only a small part of this act, but the most visible. Further, public accomodation has to be defined and this is not that simple. I ask that everyone be patient, or base their entries on the act itself and other "ADA" documents. The most important recent case, here, is one decided this year, that, incredibly enough, the Supreme Court, by one vote, found that the states immune from lawsuits against them under the ADA. This means that if a state facility is inaccessible to a job applicant and he cannot work there, he cannot sue on the grounds of the bloodz discrimination. If the same thing happened at a city faility, or even, your public library, that would be grounds for a suit. That was one step backward, that was provided by the courts. They may be forced to act, but not necessarily in everyone's best interest.

I added the link to the law itself, but if you intend (as seems apparent) to wikify the whole text of the law that would of course be much better. The public accommodations part may be a "small part" (by some measure) of the law, but it is indeed very visible and often talked about, and should be prominently mentioned in the article for precisely that reason; perhaps saying exactly that would be best, e.g., "a small but controversial part of the law..." etc. I will "be patient" as you suggest and let you finish before commenting further.

I share your revulsion at the very concept of "sovereign immunity" on which the decision you mention was based. It has led to many greater injustices than discrimination as well.---- I am not entering the entire law here. It is available on line. I am trying rather to summarzie the 5 titles and later offer the most important or controversial decsions that have resulted from lawsuits, orders by the doj, eeoc, etc., under each title. Also, I intend to put up a page on how to make an ADA complaint, which is much easier than most people think. I am actually working from paper copies of all relevant laws which I have had for, well, 10 years, including The Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, etc. Since 1990, bodies like the Architextural Guidelines Board have been established. Their regulations take up many books, are quite technical, and probably not of interest to the average reader. They can simply be linked to, as I believe they are online too.

(chat moved from main article) 21:12, 31 August 2002 (UTC)

Neutrality?

In my personal opinion, this article is not very neutral. It seems to me that it's taken from a critical standpoint of the act. I'm not one to rewrite it, as I do not know much about it (I merely found it when editing supreme court cases), but I do think the neutrality of this does need to be looked into. ^demon, 22:06, March 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think the criticism presented is generally valid, although it needs to be toned down a bit, and balanced with a discussion of views in support of the ADA. The ADA is still one of the most controversial parts of American law.

-- 146.64.26.3, 04:12, March 11, 2005 (UTC)

On that topic, does the 'political support' section really needed to be included? If so, it should probably be edited for NPOV (i.e. if it's supported by the "political Left", why is it opposed by the "political Right"?) Is this even still accurate/relevant? asciident, 20:33 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Dudes, this article is not neutral. Somebody should revise it to be more balanced or remove the criticism, which is overlarge. Rhombus 22:03, 18 June 2005 (UTC)

The large majority of this article is over the controversy and criticism, not about the Act or what the Act grants. Claiming that the Act makes a haven for "professional plaintiffs" is not in the best interest of an article that is about the act and its provisions itself. Moreover, the supporters section has more information and justification on the detractors of the bill than its supporters, adding to a growing trend of a bias against the Act in this article. More information needs to be added about the Act itself and/or its benefits to balance the article, or much of the criticism/controversy section should be deleted. offkilter 22:37, 30 June 2005‎ (UTC)

Well, I believe that the criticism here is Netrual POV, BUT...the ratio of introduction to criticism makes the article POV. Removing the criticism makes the article to short, so therefore an additional section(such as ACCOMPLISHMENTS/History) would be nice instead of "here is its name, why its bad, and oh.. here is one link with all the text of the act...have fun" Just my 2 pennies. Voice of All(MTG) 23:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am disabled, but somewhat critical of this act. In fact the criticisms mentioned I mostly agree with to varying degrees. That said that isn't the whole story of it. Right now the article is not very informative at all. I'm not very knowledgeable in the ADA debates though, many disabled people aren't, so I don't feel comfortable trying to fix it just yet.--T. Anthony 08:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"The ADA is notable because many disparate groups, many of which had never worked before..." C,mon if this article is not biased then my name is Jim Crow. Lets have some real information on the act, what it entails, and who it effects. Such information as the "undue hardship clause" or what the act considers disabled would be appropiate. 137.71.23.54 05:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC) John Titancloud

This is a poorly written entry, probably drafted at the Chamber of Commerce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.221.18 (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest addition

I'm hoping that my addition of groups who worked to pass ADA will help swing it in the NPOV direction, as it shows the large amount of support for it. (By the way, it's an incomplete list -- those were just the most active players, according to my source). I was thinking of making it a separate article, but after I read this page I decided it would do more good here, at least for now. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Part Deux

I've placed {{POV}} back on this article in light of the fact that it seems heavily slanted against the ADA. We either need to remove some of the "criticisms" and "inherent flaws", or we need to point to some of the good this law has done. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What this article needs is a good description and a lot more information. The criticisms are valid, but the article is so short and crappy that the criticisms take up most of it. What it needs is someone who really knows about the law and can describe all of the relevant issues - the cost of low-floor vehicles in comparison to high-floor ones, for example. That's why I came to this article. I'm generally very much opposed to this sort of act, but I'd like to have a lot more information about its specifics, the provisions, requirements, mandates, etc. The specifics. Knuckle50 15:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually a lot of the criticisms aren't valid (as far as Wikipedia is concerned anyways) because they're original research/unsourced, and tend to use weasel words ("some believe", "others complain"). I wish I knew more about it (it was actually part of the reason I came here), but I don't. If I find some reliable info elsewhere I might try and rewrite parts of this, but I'd rather someone with a better legal background worked on it. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms which I added to this page were a paraphrase of the articles in Linda Krieger's book (cited in References). Of course, I should have provided specific page cites, but that was before I learned how to do WP footnotes using the ref and note notation. Unfortunately, I don't have the book now or the time to go fish it back out of the library (I'm planning a major revision of the Lawyer article mess as discussed at Talk:Lawyer). --Coolcaesar 17:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I added four references to what seem to be some of the most cited evaluations of the ADA and tried to write a neutral summary. To be blunt, I think this is a crappy article... I wish more effort were put into into describing the Act rather than worrying about the POV. Amead 03:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not really sure how to use this. I like the changes Amead. I started tooling around with it even though I know practically nothing about it because the previous version seemed like a poorly written hit job on the ADA. I hope someone who knows what they are doing finishes this page!!!!!!--Brianbeck 04:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Use as a law overview

Regarding the article as an overview of the ADA, it provides a useful reference for the basic structure, criticisms, and basis of the law. However, with regard to specific details it was lacking as a representation of the law as passed by congress. In my research on this site for government actions I have seen many well written articles. If a section detailing the history preceding the law and statistics on its effects were including it would provide great factual help. As for NPOV, by representing the view points of both the propponents of the law and the opponents (Congress members, lobbyists), and structuring extant and future view point content under these headings, both views could be represented, allowing readers to make informed decisions with all sides in mind on this law, which encompasses a still largely unresolved and controversial issue. In this way cntent and POV concerns could be addressed while expanding the use of the article. 69.250.51.226 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I am new to Wikipedia. I know quite a bit about the ADA and I think I have a pretty balanced view. This article needs a lot of work. When I have an opportunity, I hope to continue working on this article to make it one of the best articles on wikipedia.--Travelingman 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

When will the eggshell marathon end?!

I am disabled. At birth, I was stricken with spina bifida, a very severe spinal affliction that relegates most to either crutches or a wheelchair, and usually causes any level of learning disability or mental retardation (luckily I am not in the latter group). Personally, I witness daily blind and unflagging support of the ADA, due in large part to some people's unwillingness to speak what they actually feel, because they don't want to "step on our toes". I fear this article is slowly going in that direction. Although the references begin to address this, I would love to see a list of links to detractors, just like there's that loooooong list of "Groups who worked to pass the ADA". It would be a lot clearer than sifting through the references.

Also, neutralize the language a bit. I like Wikipedia for its NPOV, but the article is too far in support of the ADA withough giving space to the detractors.

"The late Justin Dart worked tirelessly, travelling to all 50 States, to bring these many groups together in common cause." Tirelessly?!?! Sappy, and very npov (Pro ADA).

"Criticism The ADA is frequent target of criticism. For example, conservatives claim that lesser disabilities including clinical depression or minor neck or back pain (see neuropathy) are being accommodated when they should not be. Second, the ADA allegedly creates a class of "professional plaintiffs" who make a living out of collecting monetary damages from noncompliant businesses." Those dang conservatives.

On the bright side, this article does mention how the ADA collides with capitalism. I do appreciate that.

http://walterolson.com/articles/nrdisable.html --Coryma 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur that this article is now far too liberal. Formerly it was too biased against the ADA in that it had too much of the downsides and not enough of the upsides. Now it is too biased in favor of. It needs to be merely neutral. --Coolcaesar 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Neuropathy a lesser disability?

I don't understand the following placement of neuropathy:

"Criticism The ADA is frequent target of criticism. For example, conservatives claim that lesser disabilities including clinical depression or minor neck or back pain (see neuropathy) are being accommodated when they should not be."

Why is neuropathy placed in brackets after back pain? Perhaps this is a typo? I use a power chair, can only walk a couple of steps, have little use of my right arm or hand, I have weak trunk support, bladder and bowel difficulties etc. etc. etc. because of neuropathy. Neuropathy affects everything in my body. This is not a lesser disability. And guess what! I have no back pain!

Back to the books for whomever wrote that.----Turbowheel 04:02, 2 September 2006‎ (UTC)

I did not see mention of neuropathy listed but neuropathy brings to mind Charcot Marie Tooth disorder, fredriechs ataxia, diabetes, and hell i could go on for a while. Further more and for neutrality it might help if these "lesser disability" are written instead of being labbeled lesser if any are availableSerialjoepsycho (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Substance abuse and transsexuality?

I don't understand how substance abuse and transsexuality could be considered disabilities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.217.200 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

"The ADA is frequent target of criticism. For example, some claim that lesser disabilities including clinical depression or minor neck or back pain (see neuropathy) are being accommodated when they should not be." Who has the right to determine "lesser" and "greater" disabilities? I have severe clinical depression, and although it is episodic, it can leave me completely disabled for months and even years at a time. We all have different struggles, and I would hope that we would join together for support rather than exluding those who may not look disabled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maygeigh (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why accomidate subtance abuse? that sort slows production and eats payroll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.235.10 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Professional Plaintiffs

In the criticisms section, I added the two sentences that state that plaintiffs cannot sue for monetary damages under ADA Title III. For private parties that are suing places of public accommodation, the only thing available is injunctive relief. After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Buckhannon v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, it is actually quite difficult for plaintiffs to even recover attorneys' fees. The limited remedies for Title III violations are known as the "fragile compromise"--the definition of public accommodation is broad, but the remedies are weak. Consequently, violations of Title III are very widespread. Some states have legislation that indeed allows for monetary damages in suits for inaccessible public accommodations, which could create "professional plaintiff" situations, but this is an issue of state disability law and not the ADA. Slgordon3 10:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)slgordon3

It is not correct to say that professional plaintiffs are a matter of state law and not ADA. The ADA provides the foundation for state law, and all subsequent actions pursuant to injunctive relief stem directly from the way the legislation is written. While there was some brilliance on the part of the ADA by not overloading the DOJ with having to prosecute every non-compliant, public acccommodation, it also opens the door for vexatious litigants like Jarek Molski and his "counsel" Thomas Frankovich to sue up and down the California Coastline.[1] Thus ADA is inherently flawed. And it is not as difficult as you think it is to obtain injunctive relief.Justinslink —Preceding comment was added at 19:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While the ADA provides the foundation for a state law claim for monetary damages, but for the state law, private plaintiffs can only get injunctions and attorneys' fees. The federal ADA legislation has no provision for monetary damages for private plaintiffs suing for Title III violations. Molski enriches himself because the Unruh Civil Rights Act allows him to get money from accommodations that violate the ADA. This is not possible in states that do not have Unruh-type state legislation. I do not think it is difficult to obtain injunctive relief. Serial ADA litigation is widespread, but financially it is lawyers that benefit from it (at least in states without Unruh-type laws). If a public accommodation is not compliant with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, a person with standing can easily win an injunction. But injunctions do not provide income for disabled plaintiffs. Nor do attorneys fees. Lawyers, on the other hand, can and do prosper from serial ADA Title III litigation. Furthermore, Buckhannon's rejection of the catalyst theory for attorneys' fees provides incentives for lawyers to spring lawsuits on businesses without presuit notice, because if the business remedies its noncompliance before trial, the suit is rendered nonjusticiable and the plaintiff's lawyer can't get attorney's fees. Much of the sharp practice of lawyers in ADA Title III cases is a consequence of the 5-4 majority in Buckhannon because, as we all know, lawyers usually don't want to work for free. I don't follow that the ADA is "inherently flawed" because it is the predicate for Unruh causes of action. Professional plaintiffs enrich themselves because states provide monetary damages with their own legislation. You can blame the state legislature for that, but not the U.S. Congress and President Bush (#41) in enacting ADA Title III. Many lawyers think that the felony murder rule is inherently flawed, but that does not mean that the predicate felony is bad law. If you are opposed to all public accessibility laws, fine, just come out and say it. I can understand that people think that market forces should dictate accessibility, and not legislatures. I have updated the page to reflect this debate in a way that I hope is balanced. If you disagree with what it now says, please feel free to change it. Slgordon3 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of ADA Signs

I ran across the article for ADA Signs and saw that there is a proposed merger with this article. Personally I would like to see the ADA Signs article remain separate from that article for several reasons. I own a sign company and it is often difficult to explain to customers why they need so many ADA signs, what type of sign they need, and the installation requirements as outlined in the Act. The Act itself is difficult to read and find appropriate information in regarding the use of signs for the handicapped and disabled. Instead of merging the article I would like to see it expanded into something simpler for people to understand. Also, instead of addressing only the issue of interior ADA signs it would be useful to have it expanded into an article for all ADA signage requirements including handicap parking signs. I would propose changes myself except that I am a newbie today and had trouble getting this far to make a comment. Hicks1415 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Title IV effects edit

I removed the last two sentences of this section:

In 2006, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), VRS calls averaged two million minutes a month. That statistic captures the tremendous impact of Title IV. It has made it not only possible, but very easy, for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, and/or speech-impaired to call friends and co-workers, order a pizza, or make a doctor appointment.

Not only did the Act alone not make these things possible (the telecommunications companies and their technology were required, too, and the Title IV would have been ineffective without them), but they describe only the benefits, as if they were the sum total of the "tremendous impact," without mentioning the costs. Perhaps the undue weight of the removed sentences could be corrected by adding information about the costs to the businesses and governments that were required to effect the benefits. Mwickens (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Clinical depression

The ADA is a frequent target of criticism. For example, some claim that individuals who are diagnosed with one of the "lesser disabilities," including clinical depression or minor neck or back pain (see neuropathy) are being "accommodated" when they should not be.

Major depressive disorder is a debilitating condition that, as defined by National Institute of Mental Health (and as can be found on the Wikipedia article on the disorder), can significantly affect a person's ability to work, their family and school life, their sleeping and eating habits, their general health and ability to enjoy life. It is also potentially fatal. The characterization that it is a "lesser disability" and somehow NOT to be taken seriously is not only factually inaccurate, but downright offensive. I'd move to delete it myself immediately, but since a small part of this is motivated by my opinion and not just common sense, I figured I would get a consensus on it first. Fifty7 (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 amendment

We need to add the recent amendment passed by the house and sure to be signed by the president — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a small independent article about the 2008 Amendment on Wikipedia. There is a link to the 2008 Amendment article in the first section of this page. ADA Amendments Act of 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.89.250 (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

WPMED assessment

WPMED does not have a process for identifying articles as A class. It also does not consider any single country's law to be one of the most important articles on Wikipedia for this project, which focuses primarily on diseases, medical conditions, and their treatment. I ask that the assessment for WPMED be left as I have set it. If you disagree with it, then please actually read the project's assessment guide here and post a request at the end of that page for reassessment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama assessment

I've concurred with the other projects in giving this a B rating, but only barely. The "citation needed" tags, the reliance on the primary source only for some statements, and especially the use of a separate "criticism" section (see WP:Criticism) are holding the article back. Mike Serfas (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to defend the entire article, but if any topic should have a "Criticism" section it is this one. By 2008 it was finally criticized so thoroughly that congress amended it to restore the original intentions. See ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) which for some reason isn't included in your project. Both articles need A LOT of work. Possibly they should be merged? Then the criticisms would fit nicely in a "History" section. - Hordaland (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Transsexuality

This sentence, with a totally inadequate "reference", has been added, in quotes no less. Is it true? Who is being quoted?

• Certain specific conditions are excluded as disabilities, such as current substance abuse and visual impairment which is correctable by prescription lenses, "Although transsexuality is recognized as a medical condition, transsexuals are not covered under federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. Both the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 explicitly exclude transsexuals from protection."

- Hordaland (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has fixed the above - it's been a month. I feel that the text quoted must have a proper and reliable source, before it can be allowed to stand. Thus I'm removing it. - Hordaland (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

see Zoe Brain here: Talk:Transsexualism#Transsexuality_and_the_Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990. It is here: [[2]] 72.66.63.94 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Title II of the ADA

As a newbie here, I don't want to rush to edit someone else's work. However, I do propose adding two short paragraphs to the section on Title II, and adding two words to the first sentence of the first paragraph, to give a more complete picture of its scope. In the first sentence, I would change the word "services" into the phrase "services, programs, or activities," tracking exactly the language of 42 U.S.C. 12132. At the end of the first paragraph, I would then add the following paragraph,

"While Title II of the ADA has been applied mainly to issues involving physical barriers and other limitations on access to basic government services, the plain language of the statute also regulates all government programs or activities. Thus, in Hason v. Medical Board of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the granting of medical licenses is a "service" regulated by Title II of the ADA. Similarly, in Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, the Second Circuit held, at least implicitly, that the granting of licenses to practice law is a state program or service regulated by the ADA." (Citations: Hason v. Medical Board of California, 279 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2002) and Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, 226 F.3d 69 (2nd Cir. 2000)).

To the end of the section, I would add this paragraph,

"In Tennessee v. Lane, the Supreme Court held that Title II of the ADA is valid Fourteenth Amendment enforcement legislation at least as to some of the state activities regulated by it, and thus properly abrogates the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity as to those activities. Therefore, in contrast to Title I of the ADA, private suits for damages are possible under Title II under certain circumstances." (Citation: Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004)). Ian4all (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi newbie. As to your first paragraph, go for it. As to the rest, I'm not going to put any stamp of approval on it as I don't feel qualified. But be bold and add it. If anyone wants to revert you, s/he should give good reasons here on the Talk page. But, as you may know, the citations can't appear in the text as you've written them here; they must appear at the bottom of the article. Therefore I'd be inclined to add the years to the text itself.

Also, the article is quite long. If you notice any redundancies or irrelevant passages, feel free to delete them. It's often best to do your additions in one edit and your deletions in another, so it's clear what any responses are about. And, by the way, welcome to Wikipedia! - Hordaland (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient inline citations?

In early June 2009 someone added tag: "its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations" without any discussion. There are quite a few inline citations in the article. Discuss needed improvements before adding tag. I'm removing it. - Hordaland (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The haircut picture

While hilarious, it is not especially relevant.Gorramdoll (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and I removed it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Joan Aleshire Quote

The Joan Aleshire quote needs some sort of context. Who is this person? A star NBA player? A quadriplegic? One of these makes the quote relevant, the other does not. Please fill in the blanks.76.103.47.66 (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Recently edited "Political Pressure" section

I was surprised to to find a lack of information in the “political pressure” section. The Americans with Disabilities Act was the largest civil rights bill since 1960s and affected every employer and every one of the millions in this country who live with a disability, yet there were only two sentences on politics.

I focused on political opposition to the Act because I think people sometimes assume that no one was speaking out against the ADA--especially when looking at the margins by which the bill was passed. In my research, I was expecting to see the complaints of business interests, but was surprised to find several Christian groups also opposed the ADA. (Obviously certain businesses and Christian groups supported the ADA as well, which is why I tried to remain objective in my language.)

Full disclosure: I am new to Wikipedia and created the Church/Business edits as part of a class assignment.

(Signature below added several days after originally posting the article, as I forgot to sign it...) --Olinparker (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Title 1

the way the article is written it seems as if the supreme court struck down title 1 as completely unconstitutional and it almost seems to mean that article 1 has been completely written off. The problem is the only invalidation that was offered was under a 10th amendment argument. Meaning that the federal government can not force a state to comply with title 1. That only invalidates title 1 where states and sovereign immunity are concerned. This does not invalidate the law where a private employer is concerned. It is not unconstitutional for the federal government to force a private employer such as wal-mart to comply with title 1. There is no source to show that this is the case.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's written correctly. I understand the paragraph to mean that an employee can not sue his state employer for money. I also want to clear up another misunderstanding. State employers still have to comply with the ADA. They just can't be sued by a private person for money under the ADA. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No state employers do not have to comply with the ADA at least not under the authority of the federal government or do in anyway to the ADA. They may have state laws and articles written under state constitutions that complement the ADA but they are beholden only by and to those laws.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It's been proposed for some time to merge Americans with disabilities to this article. I think that it doesn't stand well on its own but would provide necessary background for this article. Any thoughts? (Also see the previous discussion.) Danger (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

support for reasons stated. Good suggestion. When merging, please complete the references in the merged content to match the style (source and presentation) of this article. --Mirokado (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Support the little article could form a good part of an intro/background for the ADA article. Roger (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Smith v. Hotels.com irrelevant

While correcting the external dead link, I noticed that the Smith v. Hotels.com case appears to be irrelevant to the ADA (it was filed as a violation of the California Unruh act in County court, not as a Federal ADA complaint).

If someone reading this has the motivation, please either rewrite or remove this section (or potentially move it to the page on Unruh Civil Rights Act)

—Hobart (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bates v. UPS description

According to FindLaw's record of the decision, the Bates v. UPS case doesn't have to do with nearly anything that is described in its section. The decision there revolves around UPS mandating that all package car drivers pass a DOT hearing test that the DOT only requires for drivers of GVWR 10,001+ pound vehicles; UPS delivery trucks aren't that big. That high of a standard was deemed discriminatory to a deaf or hearing-impaired employee who could otherwise meet all the same criteria as a potential hearing driver. There was no mention of workplace communication, emergency warning systems, or widespread workplace reforms. The injunction placed on UPS was to eliminate that one element of their requirements for UPS package cars, or to individually assess the ability of a potential driver to drive safely. Was there some other case that was actually about workplace accommodation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.74.49.37 (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Capitol Crawlers"

The following text is in the article

Jennifer Keelan,[citation needed] a second grader from Denver with cerebral palsy, was videotaped as she pulled herself up the steps, using mostly her hands and arms, saying "I'll take all night if I have to!"

I added 'citation needed'; a citation should be placed directly attached to the girl's name. --Hordaland (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)