Talk:Rehabilitation Act of 1973
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
These comments were left by User:MArnoldNYC:
[I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I am very familiar with both the technology of our digital world, and say the difference, or more accurately lack thereof, between say, voice, video and data, and why this is relevant, and disability legislation and national federal case law (I worked at the ACLU legislative office on Capitol Hill who was instrumental in getting the bill written and passed), and of course am now in federal action involving an ADA claim.
The "official position" that 508 does NOT apply to private websites per the ADA is absolutely WRONG. And the White House's GROSS violation of it, even under the cover of a legal memo attempting to justify it, carries about as much legal water as a Yoo memo on torture.
Not only has the Justice Department written a memo about this, and over a decade ago, but the UN considers it a global violation of human rights for ANYONE not to have access to the internet. And guess who just signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights for People with Disabilities? Even if it hasn't been ratified by Congress yet.
Furthermore adaptive technology and coding, give equal access to a population that is so badly stigmatized and mistreated if not tortured (one fifth of this country who have disabilities, have a 90% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, not to mention are forced into the worst possible medical care on the planet, live in forced poverty, horrific living conditions, and often can't even afford their medication). Thanks mostly to horrific government legislation.
However, if this population were given proper access to adaptive technology, they could easily function in the workplace. As well as overcome many other challenges they face.
Not the least of which is horrific and discriminatory attitudes and treatment BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Not to mention the issue that even in Title I of the ADA, private employers are already having to deal with this and comply, both on the telco/wireless side and on the software end of things (i.e. in putting 401K programs online, which most medium to big companies do, which since they are benefits of employment, are automatically subject to Title I, so they alone have to be 508 compliant). By definition. The reason you don't hear about any lawsuits is that one, PWDs don't get hired, much less have 401K's, but also because so many people don't even think about gimps, much less are familiar with disabilities law.
Plus there's that little NATIONAL CLASS ACTION AGAINST A COMPANY CALLED TARGET, which firmly established the relevancy of that section of the Rehab Act to the ADA, under Title III. That's on the website side of things. And Morgan Stanley settled another national class action Title III, very quietly just the year before on the telco side of things.
So, please get your facts straight. Wikipedia is a good site in general. But this is THE most appallingly inaccurate entry I have yet to find on your site so far. Ever hear of Lexis Nexis?]
--MArnoldNYC(Talk) 08:15, 22 November 2009
This article is incomplete and misleading
Why does this article only focus on Title V of the Rehabilitation Act, which addresses non-discrimination? The main purpose of the Rehabilitation Act was to authorise funding for programs of vocational rehabilitation, supported employment, independent living, and client assistance. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
New Section 504 case
There's a cert petition pending at the Supreme Court raising the question (on which petitioners presumably lost in USCA3) of whether section 504 applies to the financial firms which received money from TARP. Peoples v. Discover Financial is the caption. I haven't read the petition so I don't know how squarely this issue is teed up or how likely the SCOTUS is to actually decide it, but it was the "Petition of the Day" on SCOTUSblog today. 121a0012 (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the full name of the act, "Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973"? If so, shouldn't this be mentioned? I'm not familiar enough with US law to make the change myself. – RossJ81 Talk/Cont 08:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)