Impacts of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Adapted Fitness Activities

Congress weighed the interests of the businesses that would need to update their facilities versus the interests of the people that would be helped and decided that helping Americans with Disabilities would be the fairest thing to do. As verbally expressed by the founding fathers of America “All men are created equal.” Black, white, brown, short, tall, perspicacious, and incoherent, all are engendered equipollently. Therefore every person deserves fair judgement. Unfortunately, it is a profound fact that not everyone is born mundane and capable of task typical for a mundane person, who is liberate from incapacitation. In my opinion, the quote “All men are created equal” accommodates to promote an amicable environment that avails inspirit parity among people and avails to apperceive the kindred attributes rather than the differences that dissevers men. Even so, with this hope, the incapacitated community still struggles for parity. The Americans with disabilities act further goes to destroy those barriers between the community.

If everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom that is set forth in the Declaration, disabled people should not be robbed of their rights. However, they are still devalued from conducting common tasks which puts them at the bottom of the priority list as an employee and even so as a friend. If everyone is entitled to all the rights and liberation that is set forth in the Declaration, incapacitated people should not be purloined of their rights. However, they are still devalued from conducting mundane tasks which puts them at the bottom of the priority list as an employee and even so as a friend. President George Bush signed the ADA into law that serves and protects people with disabilities. This law prohibits discrimination against the disabled by employers and required commercial establishments, public accommodation, and mass transportation be made accessible to disabled persons. hence the law was signed, new doors opened for the deaf and hard of hearing culture for a better opportunity in gaining equal rights. President Bush appointed four titles to protect deaf and hard of hearing people. In “The ADA and Deaf Culture” by Tucker, B. Title I, prohibits both public and private employers from refusing to hire or promote an individual because of his or her impairment and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for applicants or employees who are deaf or hard of hearing (Tucker 28). If a deaf or hard of hearing employee can pass the essential part of the job qualification, he or she is protected by the ADA to be hired. Also, the ADA prohibits employers to discriminate disabled people in means of recruitment, job applications procedures, pay rates, and promotions. The second title, Title II, “Requires all state and local government agencies to make all of their services accessible to individuals with disability” (NAD 22). This ensures people with disability to be able to participate in services, programs, and activities who can meet the essential eligibility requirements. Such places that must make these accommodations are schools, libraries, police and fire department, public hospitals, jails and prisons, motor vehicle departments, parks and recreation programs, food stamp offices, and welfare and social service agencies. Because these places serves to the public they cannot neglect people with disabilities. Title III gives equal access to public accommodations which removes communication and physical barriers to people with disabilities from private businesses, professionals, and nonprofit organizations. These private entities may not discriminate “in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, lease, or operates a place of public accommodation” (NAD 28). Such places operated by a private entity of public accommodations are hotels or places of lodging, restaurant or establishment serving food or drink, theater, place of public gathering like convention center, zoo, nursery, bowling alley and more. Title IV requires “telephone companies to provide both local and long distance telecommunications relay services across the nation” (NAD 34). By providing an accessible telephone system, deaf and hard of people are able communicate much easier and would minimize traveling to relay a message. It also “requires all television public services announcements that are produced of funded by the federal government to include closed captioning” (NAD 34). With closed captioning, primary source of news and culture information, as well as emergency broadcast warnings will be accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing people. By appointing these four titles, deaf and hard of hearing are insured of their civil rights and acceptance in society. If American pursues to reach equality for all, people of color, language, and ability should be able to find peace within the differences between themselves.

Although the ADA protects people with disability, it is quite difficult to zero in a situation when people of disability are discriminated against during the time of the situation. In some cases the damage was done before justice is served. In one of the cases, a spouse of a pregnant women was denied of an interpreter because he was not the patient. However, he still deserved the right to be informed of the situation of his baby, therefore the judge rule in their favor and were compensated for their trouble. On July 1997 in an article by the New York Times “Judge Finds Bias at Hospital In Dealings With Deaf Man,” Mount Sinai Medical Center illegally discriminated against the Bravins by not providing an interpreter. Mr. Bravin, a Lexington School teacher for the deaf in Manhattan was unable to learn the Lamaze method to assist his wife give birth. Sinai Medical Center disapproved Mr. Bravin request for an interpreter because it’s Mrs. Bravins who was the patient not Mr. Bravin who was deaf. Nevertheless, Lamaze method is a team effort which Mr. Bravin needed to learn to assist his wife give birth. The judge ruled that the hospital violated state and federal laws requiring accommodations for the disabled (Stewart 1). This example violated the title II of the ADA which was to provide interpreters at hospital settings. Although it was not Mrs. Bravin who needed an interpreter while giving birth and could not interpret for her husband, it was Mr. Bravin who needed it to find the situation of their baby during the birth and the week that the baby was in the neonatal intensive care unit. Mr. and Mrs. Bravin, a family concerned about their baby, should have the right to be informed especially if the baby is in an intensive care unit. Because the hospital did not provide an interpreter the judge ruled in favor of the Bravins and was scheduled the decision on the amount of damages. Even though Mrs. Bravins was hearing, the hospital should have put in consideration to provide an interpreter for Mr. Bravin because Mrs. Bravins could not interpret for her husband for she was giving birth. Poor Mr Bravin was left in the dark to figure how he could had help his wife and find out what was happening to his baby. The hospital did not consider Mr. Bravin in the equation, therefore the hospital discriminated against him and are scheduled for the amount of damages. In another situation, a community of deaf and hard of hearing are neglected of their rights. In an article from The New York Times on July 29, 1997, titled “Judge Rules Fire Box Denies Access To The Deaf,” a federal judge ruled, “to shrink the city’s fire alarm box system” (Holloway 1) was in violation of the civil rights of deaf and hard of hearing residents of New York. When Judge Sweets ordered the city to refit the boxes that was removed or disconnected as a part of an experiment in 1995, the city reconnected the box system with only a single line to the police department, instead of two-button system, one to fire and other to police department. Their defense, fire department contended that single-boxes would drastically reduce false alarms. However according to Holloway, “Judge Sweet said the one-button boxes were “unusable” by a hearing impaired person, a violation of the American With Disabilities Act, which guarantees equal access to public services” (Holloway 2). Clearly, by replacing the box systems it reduces emergency calls, but it also prevents deaf and hard of hearing from making emergency calls, thus discriminating them of their right to telecommunications, especially for emergencies. Therefore, Judge sweets denied the city’s request to abolish the fire-box system entirely. Also, as stated by the ADA, state and local government must make accommodations for the disabled. One example where the disabled are severely mistreated is at prisons. In an article from Los Angeles Times, titled “a Win for Disabled Prisoners; Ruling: Federal appeals court says the state violated their rights during parole hearings,” by Krikorian, G. on November 29, 2001, the state officials was ordered to make it easier for thousands of disabled prisoners and ex-felons to attend in parole hearings by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court Appeals. Krikorian wrote, “Violations included prisoners who use wheelchairs being left to crawl up stairs to attend their parole hearings” (Krikorian 1) and “Deaf inmates also were sometimes deprived of interpreters during hearings or had their hands shackled and thus were unable to sign Wilken found” (Kirkorian 2). Evidently, this describes the nature of cruelty that happens in prisons. Although the prison is a place where people need to be disciplined or exiled, there still must be some balance. Aa Kirkorian described, the people who are on parole, who may be scheduled to leave, are still being deprived of their rights. Therefore, because of the harsh environment disabled people have to face in prisons, the U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ordered “that the board survey all its hearing rooms to ensure that they are accessible to the disabled, provide interpreters for deaf prisoners, supply assistants for inmates with mental retardation and learning disabilities and establish a grievance process” (Kirkorian 2). With this, state officials would be more lenient than before. These discrimination against the deaf and hard of hearing people would slowly depart as society realizes that these people are incapable to hear and/or understand words because of their disability. Therefore it would be inconsiderate to treat such people without accommodations.

Because deaf and hard of hearing have problems communicating and socializing, it is only fair to accommodate for their loss. There are numerous things that these people can do, but hear. If they are assisted for their loss, most would generously reconcile with in society, boosting their self-esteem and making positive deeds. In an article from the Los angeles Times titled “UPS Ban on Deaf Drivers is Rejected” by Girion, L. on October 11, 2006, a federal appeals court ruled that the United Parcel Services Inc. (UPS) has illegally discriminated against deaf employees by excluding them from driving delivery vans. The San Francisco-Based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the UPS has violated the ADA, employers must justify polices or job requirements that elude a group of people who are disabled. The UPS countered that the case was about safety not disability or discrimination. The Professor of Sanford University of Law, Mark Kelman, stated that the use of deaf drivers by other companies made UPS’ exclusion a difficult policy to justify under the ADA. Therefore, it was perceived that the UPS was not permitting very much individual analysis; they were rejecting the hearing impaired. Joe Beachboard who is representing employers defended that if a UPS driver has a serious accident, the company would be sued; hearing impaired poses a safety problem because of their inability to hear other vehicles. However, U.S. Circuit Judge Marsh Berzon noted that drivers are offered warning signals when backing up a van, therefore she wrote, UPS “failed to show that those accidents would not also been avoided by a deaf driver who has compensated for his her loss of hearing by, for example, adapting modified driving techniques or using compensatory devices such as backing cameras or additional mirrors” (Girion 2). In addition, being a safe driver does not merely rely on hearing that is why deaf people are able to acquire a license to drive passenger cars. Consequently, after a couple more hearings, federal ruled to require drivers of vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds or more to meet certain vision and hearing standards. The qualifications lets the companies determine drivers for lighter vehicles. The accommodation serves to allow deaf and hard of hearing employee to drive vehicles and keep their job. In another situation where accommodation are made for the deaf and hard of hearing is in the article “Dispute in Westchester on Deaf Child Accepted” from the New York Times by Greenhouse, Linda on November 3, 1981. Supreme Court agreed to provide a sign language interpreter for deaf third grader. The appeals was based on the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Apparently, Amy Rowley a deaf student who was adept at lip reading and received help from her hearing aid was performing above average from her class without special help. However, the court ruled “she was entitled to be able to understand everything said in the classroom, a goal that could be achieved only through sign language”(Greenhouse 2). Even though Amy Rowley in the top half of her class the court recognized that she is still being denied of her rights. Therefore, the court ruled in her favor to accommodate her for education. With the accommodation she will be given an opportunity to achieve her full potential.

Impacts of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Order Now