Talk:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Disability (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States Public Policy (Rated Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States public policy articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Barack Obama (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Barack Obama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Beginning of talk page[edit]

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.

21:12, 31 August 2002

2008 amendment[edit]

We need to add the recent amendment passed by the house and sure to be signed by the president

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

Neutrality?[edit]

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)

"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

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 16 September 2014

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

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)

Latest addition[edit]

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)

A Question[edit]

Who would I contact in the event I'm being discriminated against due to my disability?

--Bumpusmills1 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's an employment matter, the EEOC. If it's a non-employment matter, the DOJ.--Travelingman 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Part Deux[edit]

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 Coletc 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 exa

Merge proposal[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

handicap parking in a regular parking spot[edit]

If handicap spots are all full and the lot is for patients only can I get a ticket for parking in the same lot, regular spot with my handicap card displayed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.178.76 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Anyone who sees the handicap tag will probably just assume the car was borrowed by someone who doesn't need the handicap spots. Wikipedia really isn't the best place to go for legal advice though.
Thatotherpersontalkcontribs 04:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"Capitol Crawlers"[edit]

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)