September 2020

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Washington, DC 20425

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Visit us on the Web: www.usccr.gov

SUBMINIMUM WAGES | IMPACTS ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 

Subminimum

Wages

IMPACTS ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, 

bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957. It is 

directed to:

• Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are 

being deprived of their right to vote by reason of 

their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or 

national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices.

• Study and collect information relating to 

discrimination or a denial of equal protection of 

the laws under the Constitution because of race, 

color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national 

origin, or in the administration of justice.

• Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to 

discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws 

because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, 

or national origin, or in the administration of justice.

• Serve as a national clearinghouse for information 

in respect to discrimination or denial of equal 

protection of the laws because of race, color, 

religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin.

• Submit reports, findings, and recommendations 

to the President and Congress.

• Issue public service announcements to discourage 

discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws.1

1 42 U.S.C. §1975a.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

Catherine E. Lhamon, Chairperson

Vice Chairperson (vacant)

J. Christian Adams*

Debo P. Adegbile

Stephen Gilchrist

Gail L. Heriot

Peter N. Kirsanow

David Kladney

Michael Yaki

Mauro Morales, Staff Director

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20425

(202) 376-8128 voice

TTY Relay: 711

www.usccr.gov

* This report was voted upon on 6/19/20, prior to Commissioner Adams’

appointment.
Subminimum Wages: 

Impacts on the Civil 

Rights of People with 

Disabilities

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

2020 Statutory Enforcement Report

Letter of Transmittal

September 17, 2020 

President Donald J. Trump 

Vice President Mike Pence 

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

On behalf of the United States Commission on Civil Rights (“the Commission”), I am pleased to 

transmit our briefing report, Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with 

Disabilities. The report is also available in full on the Commission’s website at www.usccr.gov.

This report examines current implementation of Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 

1938, which directs the U.S. Secretary of Labor to grant special certificates allowing for the 

employment of workers with disabilities below the federal minimum wage to prevent reduced 

employment opportunities. The Commission collected data and testimony from Members of 

Congress, Labor and Justice Department officials, self-advocates and workers with disabilities, 

family members of people with disabilities, service providers, current and former public 

officials, and experts on disability employment and data analysis; conducted two field visits to 

employment and service provision sites supporting workers with disabilities earning 

subminimum and competitive wages; and received thousands of public comments both in favor 

of and opposed to the 14(c) program.

The primary recommendation approved by the Commission majority following this inquiry was 

that Congress should repeal Section 14(c) with a planned phase-out period to allow transition 

among service providers and people with disabilities to alternative service models prioritizing 

competitive integrated employment.

The Commission majority approved key findings including the following: As currently utilized, 

the U.S. Department of Labor has repeatedly found 14(c) providers limiting people with 

disabilities participating in the program from realizing their full potential while allowing 

providers and associated businesses to profit from their labor. This limitation is contrary to 

14(c)’s purpose. Persistent failures in regulation and oversight of the 14(c) program by 

government agencies including the Department of Labor and Department of Justice have allowed 

and continue to allow the program to operate without satisfying its legislative goal to meet the 

needs of people with disabilities to receive supports necessary to become ready for employment 

in the competitive economy.

People with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are currently earning subminimum 

wages under the 14(c) program are not categorically different in level of disability from people 

with intellectual and developmental disabilities currently working in competitive integrated 

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW  Suite 1150  Washington, DC 20425  www.usccr.gov
ii Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

employment. State-level phase outs of the use of the 14(c) program have been developed and 

designed for state service providers and other stakeholders to ensure that a competitive integrated 

employment model does not result in a loss of critical services to individuals with disabilities 

including former 14(c) program participants.

The Commission majority voted for key recommendations, in addition to recommending that 

Congress repeal Section 14(c) with a planned phase-out period. The phased repeal of 14(c) must 

not reflect a retreat in federal investments and support for employment success of persons with 

disabilities but rather a reconceptualization of the way in which the federal government can 

enhance the possibilities for success and growth for people with disabilities.

Congress should expand funding for supported employment services and prioritize capacity 

building in states transitioning from 14(c) programs. Now and during the transition period of the 

Section 14(c) program, Congress should assign civil rights oversight responsibility and 

jurisdiction, with necessary associated fiscal appropriations to conduct the enforcement, either to 

the Department of Labor or to the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Congress should 

also require that the designated civil rights agency issue an annual report on investigations and 

findings regarding the 14(c) program. During the phase-out period, Congress should require 

more stringent reporting and accountability for 14(c) certificate holders, and following the phase 

out should continue to collect data on employment outcomes of former 14(c) employees.

The Department of Justice should increase enforcement of the Olmstead integration mandate to 

determine whether state systems are inappropriately relying on providers using 14(c) certificates 

to provide non-integrated employment in violation of Olmstead. The Department should issue 

guidance, open more investigations, and litigate where voluntary compliance cannot be achieved.

We at the Commission are pleased to share our views, informed by careful research and 

investigation as well as civil rights expertise, to help ensure that all Americans enjoy civil rights 

protections to which we are entitled. 

For the Commission,

Catherine E. Lhamon 

Chair
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... vi

Findings and Recommendations............................................................................................... xv

Highlighted Findings ............................................................................................................ xv

Highlighted Recommendations............................................................................................ xvi

Briefing Agenda.......................................................................................................................... xvii

CHAPTER 1: APPLICABLE LAW & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS........................................ 1

Legislative History and Provisions of Section 14(c) .................................................................. 1

Employer Requirements.......................................................................................................... 3

Developments in Civil Rights Protections................................................................................ 11

Integration Mandate .............................................................................................................. 18

Wage Discrimination Issues ................................................................................................. 24

Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 ............................... 30

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 ........................................................... 31

Alternative Policies and Reforms to Section 14(c)................................................................... 37

Phasing Out 14(c) with Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act......... 38

Raising Subminimum Wages Over Time ............................................................................. 45

Federal Tax Credits or Other Federal Funding..................................................................... 49

Employment First Initiatives ................................................................................................ 51

Enhancing 14(c).................................................................................................................... 56

CHAPTER 2: DATA AND ANALYSIS...................................................................................... 59

Summary of Currently Available Data ..................................................................................... 59

Data Focusing on People with Disabilities and Their Employment......................................... 63

Employment and Labor Force Participation Rates of People with Disabilities.................... 64

Available Intersectional Data................................................................................................ 66

Data about 14(c) Certificate Holders and Employees with Disabilities............................... 68

Data about Transitioning to Competitive Integrated Employment....................................... 72

Data Received From Public Comments.................................................................................... 87

Public Comments Favoring Section 14(c)............................................................................ 91

Comments Against 14(c) ...................................................................................................... 98

Comments Regarding Transition or Other Policies............................................................ 100
iv Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

CHAPTER 3: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES......... 103

Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division...................................................................... 103

Department of Justice ............................................................................................................. 123

Guidance and Technical Assistance Regarding the ADA Integration Mandate & Informed 

Choice ................................................................................................................................. 124

Investigations and Litigation............................................................................................... 128

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).......................................................... 131

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services – Department of Health and Human Services: 

Home and Community Based Settings Rule........................................................................... 132

U.S. AbilityOne Commission ................................................................................................. 137

CHAPTER 4: STATES AND SUBMINIMUM WAGE LAWS................................................ 141

Employment Rates.................................................................................................................. 142

Trends in Wages ..................................................................................................................... 145

Integration............................................................................................................................... 147

States that Allow Subminimum Wages under Section 14(c).................................................. 148

Overview............................................................................................................................. 148

Virginia (Site Visit)............................................................................................................. 149

Arizona................................................................................................................................ 166

Missouri .............................................................................................................................. 171

State Initiatives to Phase Out Subminimum Wages Permitted under Section 14(c) of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act ............................................................................................................... 178

Overview of States that Are Eliminating or Have Eliminated Subminimum Wages......... 178

Vermont (Site Visit)............................................................................................................ 180

Maine .................................................................................................................................. 208

Oregon................................................................................................................................. 212

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 219

Findings................................................................................................................................... 219

Recommendations................................................................................................................... 223

Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals................................................................ 225

Statement of Commissioner David Kladney........................................................................... 225

Dissenting Statement and Rebuttal of Commissioner Gail L. Heriot..................................... 230

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Peter N. Kirsanow ................................................... 237

Appendix A: Settlement Agreements Revoking 14(c) Certificates............................................ 275
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was produced under the direction and with the contribution of Katherine CullitonGonzález, Esq., the Commission’s Office of Civil Rights Evaluation (OCRE) Director.

OCRE Civil Rights Analyst Nicholas Bair, Esq. performed principal research and writing. OCRE 

Social Scientists Dr. Marik Xavier-Brier, Dr. Julie Grieco, and Sarale Sewell, M.A. provided 

valuable data analysis, research, and writing assistance.

OCRE interns Chanel Sherrod (J.D. Candidate 2021, Howard University Law School), Jacqueline 

LaBayne (M.S. Candidate 2020, Florida State University), and Sabrina Rodriguez (J.D. Candidate 

2021, George Washington University Law School) also offered valuable research assistance. 

Commissioner Special Assistants Alec Deull, Alexander Heideman, Carissa Mulder, Amy Royce, 

Rukku Singla, Thomas Simuel, Alison Somin, and Irena Vidulovic, assisted their Commissioners 

in reviewing the report.

Commissioner Legal Interns Ryan Kelley (J.D. Candidate 2021, George Washington University 

Law School), Ariana Rosenthal (J.D. Candidate 2020, University of North Carolina School of 

Law), and Orlando Economos (J.D. Candidate 2022, Georgetown University Law Center) also 

offered valuable research assistance.

With the assistance of Attorney-Advisor Pilar Velasquez McLaughlin, the Commission’s General 

Counsel Maureen E. Rudolph reviewed and approved the report for legal sufficiency.

The Arizona Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights collected and provided 

testimony on related civil rights issues within its jurisdiction.
vi Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 as part of the New Deal. One of the Act’s 

provisions, Section 14(c) (hereinafter “Section 14(c)” or “14(c)”) directs the U.S. Secretary of 

Labor to grant special certificates allowing for the employment of workers with disabilities below 

the federal minimum wage “to the extent necessary to prevent curtailment of opportunities for 

employment.”1 The Fair Labor Standards Act is the federal law that sets the federal minimum 

wage and regulates the number of hours per week that employees are permitted to work, and it 

currently sets the federal minimum wage at $7.25 an hour.2 State or local minimum wages cannot 

be less than the federal minimum wage.3 Exceptions to the federal minimum wage include

apprentices4 and students5 (generally temporary statuses), and persons with disabilities (usually a 

lifelong individual characteristic).6 The Fair Labor Standards Act’s implementing regulations 

require 14(c) employers to apply for a certificate and submit to federal monitoring to ensure that 

the subminimum wages are used if and only if workers are “in fact disabled for the work they are 

to perform.”7 The Commission’s research shows that Section 14(c) is antiquated as it was enacted 

prior to our nation’s civil rights laws, and its operation in practice remains discriminatory by 

permitting payment of subminimum wages based on disability without sufficient controls to ensure 

that the program operates as designed “to the extent necessary to prevent curtailment of 

opportunities for employment.

8 Although Congress enacted the program with good intentions, the 

Department of Labor’s enforcement data as well as several key civil rights cases and testimony 

from experts show that with regard to wage disparities, the program is rife with abuse and difficult 

to administer without harming employees with disabilities, as reflected in over 80 percent of cases 

1 Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 214(c) c. 676, § 14, 52 Stat. 1060; see also, U.S. Dep’t 

of Labor Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-withdisabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders (last accessed May 21, 2020).

2 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1).

3 Id. and see 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) (definition of “employer”).

4 29 U.S.C. § 214(a).

5 29 U.S.C. § 214(b).

6 29 U.S.C. § 214(c); see also, Finn Gardiner, Communications Specialist, Lurie Institute for Disability Policy, 

Brandeis University, Testimony, Briefing Before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Washington, DC, Nov. 15, 2019, 

transcript, pp. 145-146 (hereinafter cited as “Subminimum Wages Briefing”) (explaining how work for subminimum 

wages reinforces stereotypes of people with disabilities, and how because many people with disabilities are 

diagnosed at birth, this reinforcement persists throughout the lives of people with disabilities).

7 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(b).

8 See infra note 66.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii

investigated.9 However, the Commission has also received broad testimony in favor of 14(c), 

which is also discussed extensively herein.10

Programs operated pursuant to section 14(c) have at times contributed to segregation of persons 

with disabilities, as some employers who hold a Section 14(c) certificate have employed people 

with disabilities in separate work centers,11 or sheltered workshops,12 where the employees are 

mainly employed with other people with disabilities and not integrated into a broader community 

or work setting.

13 Regarding integration, the Commission’s research shows that Section 14(c) does 

not require, but has often resulted in, persons with disabilities being segregated into sheltered 

workshops without contact with persons without disabilities, except in a support or supervisory 

role.14 Moreover, reviewing thousands of public comments received—both in favor of and against 

14(c)—along with expert testimony, academic medical research, as well as persons interviewed 

during site visits also showed that persons with disabilities benefited greatly from being in 

9 See infra notes 658-660.

10 See, e.g., infra notes 556-573.

11 As of January 1, 2020, there were 1,558 14(c) certificates either issued or pending renewal by the U.S. 

Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. 1,452 of those certificates (93%) were held by Community 

Rehabilitation Programs; See, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for 

Individuals with Disabilities, Final Report, p. 28 (Sept. 15, 2016), 

https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/pdf/ACICIEID_Final_Report_9-8-16.pdf (finding that the majority of people with 

disabilities earning a subminimum wage work in congregate work centers operated by Community Rehabilitation 

Programs); see also 29 U.S.C. § 705(4) (Community Rehabilitation Program is “a program that provides directly or 

facilitates the provision of vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities, and that provides, singly 

or in combination, for an individual with a disability to enable the individual to maximize opportunities for 

employment, including career advancement”); Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated 

Employment for Individuals with Disabilities, Interim Report, Sept. 15, 2015, pp. 6-7, 

https://www.dol.gov/odep/pdf/20150808.pdf (“federal data confirms that most all people currently working under 

Section 14(c) subminimum wage certificates are working for sheltered workshops (also called community 

rehabilitation programs or work centers) that typically receive public funding, including federal Medicaid and 

Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) dollars, to provide employment-related habilitation and rehabilitation services to 

individuals with disabilities”).

12 A sheltered workshop is a work center where people with disabilities work segregated from people without 

disabilities. The Wage and Hour Division issues 14(c) certificates to four different types of entities, for-profit 

business establishments, hospital/residential care facilities, school work experience programs, and nonprofit 

community rehabilitation programs. Many 14(c) certificate holders have historically employed people with 

disabilities in segregated work centers or sheltered workshops; See, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive 

Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities, Interim Report, Sept. 15, 2015, p. 69, 

https://www.dol.gov/odep/pdf/20150808.pdf.

(“For the past several decades, sheltered workshops have continued to operate as facility-based vocational service 

programs attended by adults with disabilities thought to be unable to achieve [competitive integrated employment] 

outcomes. Sheltered employment characteristically offer opportunities for simple work activities such as 

assembling, packaging, and light manufacturing for which individuals are paid a wage meant to be commensurate 

with productivity”).

13 Alison Barkoff, Director of Advocacy, Center for Public Representation, Testimony, Subminimum Wages 

Briefing, pp. 40-43.

14 See infra notes 520-524.
viii Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

community employment settings and not being isolated.15 This showing comports with the 

integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act and past findings of the Commission.16

Since 1938, many thousands of sheltered workshops where employees are paid less than minimum 

wages have been certified under Section 14(c), and although their number is dwindling, according 

to the Department of Labor, there are still over 1,500 such workshops employing over 100,000 

persons with disabilities, although an exact count of the total number of individuals working for 

subminimum wages is unavailable and other estimates are much higher.

17 Some states have 

prohibited payment of subminimum wages and sheltered workshops altogether, but according to 

2020 federal data, there are currently 14(c) certificate holders in 46 states and the District of 

Columbia.18 That is, all states except four (Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont) 

currently have at least one 14(c) certificate allowing the employer to pay subminimum wages.19

Four other states (Alaska, Maryland, Oregon and Texas) are in the process of phasing out 

subminimum wages, although they currently still have operating 14(c) certificates.20

15 See infra notes 574-578.

16 See infra notes 192-195.

17 See infra notes 443 (historic figures), 465 (current number of 14(c) workshops), and 440-444 (current number of 

14(c) employees).

18 U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders, 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders (last accessed Apr. 6, 

2020).

19 Ibid.; Commission Staff Research.

20 See Oregon S.B. 494 (enacted Sept. 20, 2019) (payment of subminimum wages will be prohibited after 2023); see 

also, infra notes 1280-1287 (discussing Oregon’s phase-out plan enacted after litigation); N.H. Code Ann. Tit. 23 § 

279:22; Md. Code Ann. Tit. Labor and Employment § 3-414; Alaska Code Ann. Tit. 8 § 15.120; Or. Code Ann. Tit. 

16 § 653.030; Tex. Code Ann. Tit. 8 § 122.0075-0076.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix

Figure ES.1: States with Current or Pending 14(c) Certificates and States Phasing out 14(c)

Source: U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Data as of January 1, 2020, Chart generated by Commission Staff

To hear from currently affected stakeholders and to evaluate the civil rights implications of 14(c), 

the Commission collected data as well as testimony from five panels of experts, employers, 

advocates, a member of Congress and a lobbyist, an official from the Department of Labor, former 

Department of Justice officials and impacted community members, some of whom had personally 

worked for subminimum wages in 14(c) workshops and had since become national leaders.

21 The 

Commission reviewed a series of federal agency and academic studies of 14(c). A Subcommittee 

of the Commission conducted two site visits: one to an employer in Virginia who has a 14(c) 

certificate, enabling the employer to pay subminimum wages to persons with disabilities,22 and the 

other to sites in Vermont, where subminimum wages have been eliminated and persons with 

21 Subminimum Wages Briefing, transcript, passim, https://www.usccr.gov/calendar/2019/11-19-TranscriptCommission-Business-Meeting.pdf; U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Briefing Agenda, Subminimum Wages: Impacts 

on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities, Nov. 15, 2019, https://www.usccr.gov/press/2019/11-05-AgendaSubminimum-Wages.pdf.

22 See infra notes 829-981, (Members of the Subcommittee were Commissioner Debo Adegbile, Commissioner Gail 

Heriot, Subcommittee Chair David Kladney, and Commission Chair Catherine Lhamon).
x Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

disabilities are now employed through other programs.23 The Commission evaluated these two

states and five others that illustrate various types of programs for employment of persons with 

disabilities, ranging from 14(c) programs, to phase-out programs,24 and to states that have 

completely phased out 14(c).25

The Commission also invited public comments and within 30 days after the briefing, the 

Commission received the highest volume of public comments the Commission has ever received 

when covering any topic: over 9,700 public comments (about 8,000 as petition signatures and 

1,700 as individual public comments) about the 14(c) certificate program.

26 The Commission 

heard from proponents and opponents of the program and reviewed story after story of people with 

a disability or disabilities who were once presumed to be only capable of working for subminimum 

wages in a sheltered environment, who transitioned to and excelled in competitive integrated 

employment. The Commission also heard and received thousands of comments, mainly from 

impacted parents, stating that 14(c) is needed to protect employment opportunities for people with 

disabilities. This report analyzes these thousands of public comments as part of the data the 

Commission collected and evaluated.

Chapter 1 sets forth an analysis of applicable federal law and civil rights implications. The chapter

summarizes and evaluates the 1938 law as well as applicable civil rights laws. The main issues 

arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act are whether there is employment discrimination 

and whether there is compliance with the mandate that whenever possible, persons with disabilities 

should receive services in integrated settings.

27 Although there are limitations for reasonableness,

the Americans with Disabilities Act generally requires integration of persons with disabilities and 

prohibits discrimination in employment.28 This chapter also evaluates arguments for and against 

14(c). The Commission received testimony from parents who felt that their adult children with 

disabilities should be able to choose to have a safe place to be during the day and have the dignity 

of work, and they stated that sheltered workshops paying subminimum wages provided that.29 On 

the other hand, persons with disabilities, including some with direct experience with 14(c); statebased experts; and civil rights litigators including former Department of Justice staff indicate that 

the program is not only rife with abuse, but also that the program itself is exploitative and 

23 See infra notes 1055-1257.

24 See infra notes 828-1039 (discussing Arizona, Missouri and Virginia).

25 See infra notes 1040-1302 (discussing Maine, Oregon and Vermont).

26 See infra notes 552-555.

27 See infra notes 177-229 (Chapter 1, discussion of applicable law, including the reasonableness standard the 

Supreme Court has applied to the Americans with Disabilities Act).

28 See infra note 176.

29 See infra note 556.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi

discriminatory.30 Persons with disabilities who have transitioned out of 14(c) workshops were 

adamantly against the program.31 Further, some states have successfully transitioned employment 

of persons with disabilities to “competitive integrated employment,” in which persons with 

disabilities are paid at least minimum wage and are not segregated.32 In contrast, some employers, 

family members, and persons with disabilities feel strongly that eradication of the program would 

take away their choice as well as the opportunity to earn a paycheck and work in a supportive 

environment.33 As mentioned, the majority of the public comments the Commission received were 

from parents who support the continued operation of 14(c) workshops unchanged.

34

Chapter 1 also provides information about Community Rehabilitation Programs and discusses how

individuals’ Medicaid funded supports may be used by 14(c) and other employersthrough different 

policy iterations.

35 This chapter also surveys and discusses various policy options. For example, 

in recent years, several bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress that have included 

provisions for reforming or phasing out and eventually eliminating Section 14(c) and the payment 

of subminimum wages to people with disabilities.36 Some bills would phase out and eliminate 

Section 14(c), while others focus federal funding or tax credits on increasing opportunities for 

persons with disabilities to access competitive integrated employment.37 As shown by the map 

above and the more detailed data herein, many states are also undergoing these types of transitions 

through a variety of policy models. Because there are millions of persons with disabilities with a 

wide range of skill sets, and with many individual and community factors at stake, it is not possible 

to generalize about these programs or predict the employment outcomes for all.

38 However, new 

technology as well as new programs being developed in some states show that for many people

currently employed in 14(c) workshops, transitioning to competitive integrated employment is an 

attainable goal.

39 This transition may be aided by the provision of accommodations such as a job 

coach, peer support, or specialized training or other supports that allow persons with disabilities 

30 See infra note 574.

31 See infra notes 221.

32 See infra notes 1045-1051.

33 See infra notes 557-558.

34 See infra notes 556-584.

35 See infra note 212.

36 See infra notes 338-396.

37 Id.

38 See infra notes 1009-1039 (discussing subminimum wages in Missouri) and notes 704-705 (discussing Advisory 

Committee for Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment recommendation that the Wage and Hour Division 

verify there is a lack of competitive integrated employment opportunities in a state before issuing any 14(c) 

certificates in that state).

39 See infra notes 1040-1054.
xii Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

to effectively work in integrated settings.

40 Data shows that such supported employment leads to 

higher employment rates for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.41

To understand the available data, Chapter 2 summarizes and analyzes available national, state, and 

local data. At the national level, the most recent Census data, based on the 2018 American 

Community Survey, estimated that there were 39,674,679 people with disabilities in the United 

States, making up 12.6 percent of the total estimated U.S. population.42 The 2018 American 

Community Survey also found that only 35.9 percent of persons with disabilities were employed, 

as compared to 76.6 percent of the total population.43 Further, unemployment and underemployment correlated with higher poverty rates for people with disabilities, among other 

impacts.44 At the Commission’s November 2019 briefing, Jennifer Mathis of the Bazelon Center 

for Mental Health Law testified that: “People with disabilities continue to participate in the labor 

force at less than half the rate of people without disabilities, and only about 20 percent of people 

receiving public mental health services have any form of employment.”45 Furthermore, data the 

Commission reviewed showed that between 2017 and 2018, the average wage of a person with a 

disability working under a 14(c) certificate was $3.34 per hour46 and the average number of hours 

worked was 16 hours per week.47 This means that the average person with a disability working at 

a 14(c) certificate holding entity earned just $53.44 per week, or $213.76 per month.

The Commission also received testimony as to the dearth of available data about subminimum 

wages. Chair Neil Romano of the National Council on Disability noted in his testimony that “we 

collect data on things we view as important, and historically we just don't count people with 

disabilities.”48 However, there is some data, particularly regarding trends. For example, there were 

at least 1,558 14(c) certificate holders across the country as of January 1, 2020, and that estimate

40 See infra note 259.

41 See infra notes 227-228; See also Jennifer Mathis, Deputy Legal Director & Director of Policy & Legal 

Advocacy, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Written Statement for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before 

the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Nov. 15, 2019, at 2-3 (hereinafter Mathis Statement). (regarding the focus in the 

field on persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and belying stereotypes about persons having the 

most employment challenges); See infra note 388 (“the [Microsoft employment] program targets those who may 

have been most excluded, as the mission of the program is “to make a substantial difference in the lives of people 

with intellectual and developmental disabilities who have historically been overlooked in the jobs market”).

42 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2018), Disability Characteristics, Table S1810, 

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=S1810&tid=ACSST1Y2018.S1810.

43 University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability, 2017 Disability Statistics Annual Report, p. 2, 

https://disabilitycompendium.org/sites/default/files/user-uploads/2017_AnnualReport_2017_FINAL.pdf

44 Ibid.

45 Jennifer Mathis, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 199-200.

46 See infra note 455.

47 See infra note 456.

48 Romano Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 38.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiii

has decreased by about two-thirds over the past ten years.49 Data published on the website of the 

Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor indicates that as of January 1, 2020, an 

estimated 100,300 people with disabilities were working for 14(c) certificate holders.50 State and 

local data provides some information about Medicaid-based supports in Community Rehabilitation 

Programs, as well as more granular data about transitions to competitive integrated employment. 

Details and analysis are set forth below in Chapter 2.

Chapter 3 evaluates the role and responsibilities of the federal government. In 2009, the 

Government Accountability Office critiqued the enforcement procedures of the Wage and Hour 

Division of the Department of Labor, stating that it did not adequately investigate complaints 

received.51 At the Commission’s November 2019 briefing, Mary Ziegler, then the Director of 

Policy of the Wage and Hour Division52 testified that the Division had increased its enforcement 

of the rights of employees working in the 14(c) program. Since 2013, the Division had revoked 

14(c) certificates from six employers—and none could be shown to have been revoked between 

1938 and 2013. During the past 10 years, the Wage and Hour Division also ordered the payment 

of back wages to 88,034 employees with disabilities in 14(c) workshops.

53 The Commission’s 

research also shows that in the last 10 years the Wage and Hour Division has reviewed an average 

of approximately eight percent of 14(c) certificate holders and found an average 81 percent 

violation rate of certificate holders investigated over the ten-year period.54

The Wage and Hour Division is limited to enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act and does not 

have jurisdiction to enforce civil rights laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.55 Federal 

enforcement of that statute by other agencies is also examined in Chapter 3. In an apparently 

unique case, brought by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunity 

Employment Commission won a multi-million dollar jury award when it enforced the Americans 

with Disabilities Act against a former 14(c) employer. Chapter 3 reviews this and other data about 

the effectiveness of federal government programs, including the work of the Civil Rights Division 

of the Department of Justice, which also enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act, reflecting 

49 See infra note 598.

50 U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders, 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders (last accessed May 21, 

2020).

51 Government Accountability Office, GAO-09-629, Wage and Hour Division Needs Improved Investigative 

Processes and Ability to Suspend Statute of Limitations to Better Protect Workers Against Wage Theft, pp. 14-33 

(Jun. 23, 2009) https://www.gao.gov/assets/300/291496.pdf.

52 Ziegler has since retired from her position, in February 2020. See, e.g., Ben Penn, Two Senior Officials Exit 

Labor Department’s Wage Division, Bloomberg Law (Feb. 4, 2020) https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-laborreport/two-senior-officials-exit-labor-departments-wage-hour-division.

53 See infra notes 659-661.

54 See infra notes 656-665.

55 See Response of the Wage and Hour Division to the Commission’s Interrogatories.
xiv Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

that much more enforcement and enforcement authority is needed. 56 This chapter also highlights 

the work of another federal entity, the National Council on Disability, which studied the 14(c) 

program in 2012 and 2018, and in both instances, found the program to be discriminatory and 

recommended that it be phased out.57

In Chapter 4, the Commission evaluates how subminimum wage policy is manifested at the state 

level, in six states. The Commission collected information about various iterations of employment 

policies of persons with disabilities, in three states with 14(c) certificate holders (Virginia, 

Arizona, and Missouri) and in three states that have transitioned or are in the process of 

transitioning to competitive integrated employment (Vermont, Maine, and Oregon). This chapter 

also includes a deeper focus on Virginia and Vermont, based on the Commission Subcommittee’s 

site visits to those states. The Commission undertook site visits to a current 14(c) certificate holder 

in Springfield, Virginia, and visited people with disabilities working in competitive integrated 

employment sites in and around Burlington, Vermont. A Subcommittee of Commissioners toured 

the facilities and met with the management of sites and employees. Commission staff also 

conducted individual interviews with employees with disabilities and their families to better 

understand their experiences.58

Chapter 4 also includes an over-arching analysis of available data in these states with various types 

of policies and programs. The Commission’s research at the state level indicates that transition 

from employment of persons with disabilities in 14(c) programs to competitive integrated 

employment, being paid at least minimum wage and working with persons without disabilities as 

peers, is possible.

59 Competitive integrated employment is shown to be possible in at least two

states in which funding and supports have been in place to ensure that 14(c) workers will not lose 

their jobs and will have time to learn new skills. Such funding may come from an individual’s own 

Medicaid funds, which are the same funds used in 14(c) settings.60

In sum, the state transitions from 14(c) evaluated by the Commission seem promising and illustrate 

that it is possible to pay persons with disabilities at least minimum wage. However, financial and 

educational supports may be needed to accomplish these transitions,61 and different state policies 

about funding,62 as well as different state demographics, transportation infrastructure, and 

56 See infra notes 736-759.

57 Nat’l Council on Disability, National Disability Employment Policy, From the New Deal to the Real Deal: Joining 

the Industries of the Future pp. 61-98 (2018).

58 See infra notes 829-981 and 1055-1257.

59 See infra notes 1040-1054.

60 See infra notes 780-782.

61 See infra notes 1055-1073, 1281-1292.

62 See infra notes 1021-1029 (Missouri).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xv

economic factors, affect the analyses and choices.63 As one state agency employee interviewed 

stated: “One model can’t be the model for all people in any services.”64 Moreover, the Commission 

received abundant public comments and testimony from other states indicating that many parents 

and employers are in favor of 14(c), seeing it as a place of safety and dignity for persons with 

disabilities. Herein, the Commission takes into account all of this testimony as well as the civil 

rights implications.

Chapter 5 states the Commissioners’ findings and recommendations based upon the research, as 

highlighted below. 

Findings and Recommendations

Highlighted Findings: 

1. In 1938, Congress enacted the exception to the minimum wage requirement for people with

disabilities, contained in Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, with a rehabilitative

purpose. As currently utilized, the federal Department of Labor has repeatedly found

providers operating pursuant to Section 14(c) limiting people with disabilities participating

in the program from realizing their full potential while allowing providers and associated

businesses to profit from their labor. This limitation is contrary to 14(c)’s purpose.

2. Persistent failures in regulation and oversight of the 14(c) program by government agencies

including the Department of Labor and Department of Justice have allowed and continue

to allow the program to operate without satisfying its legislative goal to meet the needs of

people with disabilities to receive supports necessary to become ready for employment in

the competitive economy.

3. People with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are currently earning

subminimum wages under the 14(c) program are not categorically different in level of

disability from people with intellectual and developmental disabilities currently working

in competitive integrated employment.

4. The Commission took in bipartisan testimony in favor of keeping the 14(c) program and

to end the 14(c) program. Notably, in 2016, both major party platforms included support

for legislation ending the payment of subminimum wages to people with disabilities.

House Committee on Education and the Workforce Chairman Bobby Scott (D-VA)

introduced bipartisan legislation to phase out the 14(c) program. Chair Neil Romano,

Republican appointee to the National Council on Disability, and former Republican

63 See infra notes 1156-1257 (interview notes from Vermont); Cf. infra notes 897-981 (interview notes from 

Virginia).

64 Notes of the Commission’s General Counsel, quoting Sima Breiterman, Director of Adult Services, Subcommittee

Site Visit to Think College at University of Vermont (Mar. 4, 2020).
xvi Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Governor Tom Ridge, who now leads the National Organization on Disability, both 

testified that ending the 14(c) program is their shared highest priority.

5. State-level phase outs of the use of the 14(c) program have been developed and designed 

for state service providers and other stakeholders to ensure that a competitive integrated 

employment model does not result in a loss of critical services to individuals with 

disabilities including former 14(c) program participants.

6. Increased integration of people with disabilities into the workplace and society is now 

legally required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and legal precedent, and is 

facilitated by technological advancements. These developments obviate any need for 

subminimum wage work.

Highlighted Recommendations:

1. Congress should repeal Section 14(c) with a planned phase-out period to allow transition 

among service providers and people with disabilities to alternative service models 

prioritizing competitive integrated employment.

2. The phased repeal of 14(c) must not reflect a retreat in Federal investments and support for 

employment success of persons with disabilities but rather a reconceptualization of the way 

in which the federal government can enhance the possibilities for success and growth for 

people with disabilities.

3. Congress should expand funding for supported employment services and prioritize 

capacity building in states transitioning from 14(c) programs.

4. Now and during the transition period of the Section 14(c) program, Congress should assign 

civil rights oversight responsibility and jurisdiction, with necessary associated fiscal 

appropriations to conduct the enforcement, either to the Department of Labor or to the 

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Congress should also require that the 

designated civil rights agency issue an annual report on investigations and findings 

regarding the 14(c) program.

5. During the phase-out period, Congress should require more stringent reporting and 

accountability for 14(c) certificate holders, and following the phase out should continue to 

collect data on employment outcomes of former 14(c) employees.

6. The Department of Justice should increase enforcement of the Olmstead integration 

mandate to determine whether more state systems are inappropriately relying too heavily 

on providers using 14(c) certificates to provide non-integrated employment in violation of 

Olmstead. The Department should issue guidance, open more investigations, and litigate 

where voluntary compliance cannot be achieved.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xvii

Below is the agenda from the briefing the Commission held in November 2019 to inform this 

report:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Public Briefing:

Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with 

Disabilities

Friday, November 15, 2019

National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1150, 

Washington, DC 20425

Also live-streaming

Expert Panels: 9:00 am – 4:30 p.m. ET

Open Public Comment Session: 5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. ET

Briefing Agenda

I. Introductory Remarks: Chair Catherine E. Lhamon 9:00 a.m. - 9:10 a.m.

II. Panel One: The Federal Government’s Role: 9:10 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.

• U.S. Representative Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Chairman, House Committee on 

Education and Labor

• Mary Ziegler, Assistant Administrator for Policy, Wage and Hour Division, U.S.

Department of Labor

• Neil Romano, Chairman, National Council on Disability

• Alison Barkoff, Director of Advocacy, Center for Public Representation

III. Break: 10:30 a.m. – 10:40 a.m.

IV. Panel Two: Data Regarding Subminimum Wages and Competitive Integrated 

Employment: 10:40 a.m. – 11:20 a.m.

• John Butterworth, Director of Employment Systems Change and Evaluation Senior 

Research Fellow, Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts 

Boston

• Teresa Grossi, Director, Strategic Developments, Indiana Institute on Disability

and Community, Indiana University

V. Break: 11:20 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

VI. Panel Three: The Nature of Existing 14(c) Programs: 11:30 a.m. – 12:40 p.m.

• Michele Ford, President and CEO, Inroads to Opportunities

• John Anton, Legislative Specialist, Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress

• Ruby Moore, Executive Director, Georgia Advocacy Office

• Finn Gardiner, Research Associate, The Lurie Institute for Disability Policy,

Brandeis University
xviii Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

VII. Remarks by Gov. Tom Ridge, Chairman, National Organization on Disability: 12:45 p.m. 

– 1:00 p.m.

VIII. Lunch: 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.

IX. Panel Four: Transitioning from 14(c) Programs: 2:00 p.m. – 3:10 p.m.

• Jennifer Mathis, Director of Policy & Legal Advocacy and Deputy Legal Director,

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law

• Julie Christensen, Director of Policy & Advocacy, Association of People

Supporting Employment First (APSE)

• Lilia Teninty, Office of Developmental Disabilities Services Director, State of

Oregon Department of Human Services

• Carol Ann DeSantis, President and CEO, Melwood

• Bryan Dague, Think College Vermont Program Coordinator and Research

Assistant Professor, College of Education and Social Services, University of 

Vermont

X. Break: 3:10 p.m. – 3:20 p.m.

XI. Panel Five: Reform to the 14(c) Program at the Federal Level: 3:20 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.

• U.S. Representative Glenn Grothman, Member, House Committee on Education 

and Labor

• Kate McSweeny, Vice President of Government Affairs & General Counsel,

ACCSES – The Voice of Disability Service Providers

• Anil Lewis, Executive Director, Blindness Initiatives, National Federation of the

Blind

• Brian Collins, Senior Manager for Planning, Change Management, and

Accessibility, Microsoft

• Regina Kline, Partner, Brown, Goldstein, Levy

XII. Break: 4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

XIII. Open Public Comment Session: 5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 1

CHAPTER 1: APPLICABLE LAW & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

This chapter begins by discussing the legislative history of Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, the requirements the Act imposes on 14(c) employers, and how employers must 

calculate the subminimum wages of people with disabilities. The chapter then moves to examine

developments in civil rights protections for people with disabilities. Finally, this chapter discusses 

alternatives and proposed reforms to the 14(c) program, including bills currently introduced in the 

U.S. Congress that would provide alternate funding to encourage the transition away from 

subminimum wage employment or would implement a gradual phase-put of the program 

altogether.

Legislative History and Provisions of Section 14(c)

In 1938, Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (Labor Act) to continue President Franklin 

Roosevelt’s New Deal-era package of programs designed to engage more Americans in the 

workforce. The Labor Act transformed employment in the United States, setting a national 

minimum wage for the first time, capping the number of hours employers could force employees 

to work per week without overtime pay, and imposing standards for child labor.65 Section 14(c) of 

the Labor Act created an exception for the new wage requirement by allowing certified employers 

to employ workers with disabilities at an hourly wage below the federal minimum wage.66 After 

passage of the Labor Act, thousands of employers set up sheltered workshops employing 

individuals with disabilities in work environments set apart from the non-disabled workforce.67

According to Curtis Decker, the Executive Director of the National Disability Rights Network, 

these sheltered workshops were originally conceived of as a place where people “could get trained, 

be protected and learn some skills,” but over 80 years after the passage of the Act, “people in these 

segregated workshops [are] not moving out, not getting into competitive employment, and making 

well below the minimum wage.”68 While some evidence suggests that it was originally conceived 

65 Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., Pub. L. c. 676, 52 Stat. 1068 (1938); Jonathan Grossman, "Fair 

Labor Standards Act of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage" Monthly Labor Review 101, no. 6 (1978): 

22-30, Accessed January 27, 2020, www.jstor.org/stable/41840777.

66 29 U.S.C. § 214(c).

67 Matthew Crawford and Joshua Goodman, Below the Minimum Wage: A Critical Review of the 14(c) Wage 

Program for Employees with Disabilities, 30 HOFSTRA LAB. AND EMPLOYMENT L. J. 591, 595 (2013),

https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1556&context=hlelj, citing William G. 

Whittaker, Cong. Research Serv., RL 30674, Treatment of Workers with Disabilities Under Section 14(c) of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act 2, 7 (2005).

68 Cheryl Corley, Subminimum Wages for the Disabled: Godsend or Exploitation? NPR (April 23, 2014) 

https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305854409/subminimum-wages-for-the-disabled-godsend-or-exploitation.
2 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

after World War I as a program to employ veterans with physical disabilities,69 the 14(c) program 

is now mainly used to employ people (including non-veterans) with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities.70

The statutory language of the Fair Labor Standards Act sets the federal minimum wage.

71 The 

Labor Act permits the certificate-based payment of a subminimum wage for some messengers,

apprentices and students (temporary statuses), and persons whose earning or productive capacity 

is impaired by a physical or mental disability (the disability may be a lifelong individual 

characteristic).72 Section 14(c) of the Labor Act includes some minimal protections. The statute 

only permits the Secretary of Labor to issue certificates to certain employers and allows those 

employers to pay below the federal minimum wage “to the extent necessary to prevent curtailment 

of opportunities for employment.”73 Also, any worker earning a subminimum wage is entitled to 

overtime pay consistent with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.74 And in 2016, the 

Wage and Hour Division issued an official interpretation that while Section 14(c) of the Labor Act

permits wages below the federal minimum wage, individual states may set higher wages.75

Section 14(c) defines a person who may be paid subminimum wages as “an individual whose 

earning or productive capacity is impaired by a physical or mental disability, including those 

relating to age or injury for the work to be performed.”76 To administer the 14(c) certificate 

program, the Labor Act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to promulgate regulations governing the 

issuance and Wage and Hour Division monitoring and oversight of 14(c) certificate holders.

77

Notably, 14(c) regulations provide that “the determination of an employment relationship does not 

69 Christensen Statement at 4; See also, Cheryl Corley, Subminimum Wages for the Disabled: Godsend or 

Exploitation? NPR (April 23, 2014) https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305854409/subminimum-wages-for-thedisabled-godsend-or-exploitation.

70 Butterworth Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 90.

71 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1).

72 29 U.S.C. § 214(a) (Learners, Apprentices, and Messengers); § 214(b) (Students); § 214(c) (Handicapped 

workers); See also, Finn Gardiner, Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing pp. 138-40 (explaining how work for 

subminimum wages reinforces stereotypes of people with disabilities, and how because many people with 

disabilities are diagnosed at birth, this reinforcement persists throughout the lives of people with disabilities).

73 29 U.S.C. § 214(c)(1).

74 29 U.S.C. § 207; 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(e).

75 Wage and Hour Division Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2016-2, Effect of state laws prohibiting the payment 

of subminimum wages to workers with disabilities on the enforcement of Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, (Nov. 17, 2016), https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/FLSAAI2016_2.pdf. See infra, 

Notes 1045-1048 (discussion of state initiatives to abolish 14(c)).

76 29 U.S.C. § 214(c)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 525.3(d).

77 29 U.S.C. § 214(c)(1); See, 29 C.F.R. §§ 525.11525.13, 525.19 (Department of Labor regulations governing 

issuance of 14(c) certificates, terms and conditions of certificates, renewal of certificates, and Wage and Hour 

Division investigations of certificate holders).
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 3

depend upon the level of performance or whether the work is of some therapeutic benefit.”78 There 

are also a number of employer requirements about wage determination, discussed below.79

The Secretary of Labor has delegated administration and enforcement of the 14(c) certificate 

program to the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor.80 The Wage and Hour 

Division defines itself as “a federal law enforcement agency with the mission to promote and 

achieve compliance with the labor standards that protect and enhance the welfare of workers in the 

United States.”81 Its duties and performance are evaluated in Chapter 3 of this report.

Employer Requirements

Under Section 14(c), employers are permitted to pay a “special minimum wage”82 below the 

statutory federal minimum wage, provided that the employers meet several conditions. An 

employer must apply for, and be issued, a federal certificate before being allowed to pay a 

subminimum wage to any employee.83 The certificate covers all workers employed by the 

employer “provided such workers are in fact disabled for the work they are to perform.”84 Once

the Wage and Hour Division grants a certificate, the employer must also conduct studies to ensure 

that each employee is being paid a wage commensurate with the employee’s abilities as determined 

by the employer. Such determinations are made through the use of a verifiable work measurement 

method or the productivity of experienced non-disabled workers employed in the vicinity on 

comparable work.

85 First, the certificate-holding employer must determine the prevailing wage for 

the same or similar work that the employee with a disability performs. Then, the employer must 

calculate the commensurate wage it will pay to the employee based on the prevailing wage.86 The 

wage must be commensurate with wages paid to workers without disabilities,87 although the wage 

is calculated based on the individual productivity of the worker with a disability.88 The federal 

regulations explain this calculation as follows:

78 29 C.F.R. § 525.3(g).

79 See infra notes 82-93; 29 C.F.R. § 525.3(g).

80 Sec’y of Labor’s Order No. 01-2014, Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the 

Administrator, Wage and Hour Division (Dec. 19, 2014), 79 Fed. Reg. 77,527 (Dec. 24, 2014) 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/12/24/2014-30224/secretarys-order-01-2014.

81 Zeigler Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 26-27.

82 29 C.F.R. § 525.3(h).

83 29 C.F.R. §§ 525.7, 525.11.

84 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(b).

85 29 C.F.R. §§ 525.9(a)(3), 525.12(h)(1).

86 29 U.S.C. § 214(c)(2).

87 29 U.S.C. § 214(c)(1)(B); 29 C.F.R. § 525.3(i).

88 29 U.S.C. § 214(c)(1)(C); 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(c).
4 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

For example, the commensurate wage of a worker with a disability who is 75% as 

productive as the average experienced nondisabled worker, taking into consideration the 

type, quality, and quantity of work the disabled worker, would be set at 75% of the wage 

paid to the nondisabled worker. For purposes of these regulations, a commensurate wage 

is always a special minimum wage, i.e., a wage below the statutory minimum.89

The employer must evaluate and determine the worker’s productivity within one month of the 

worker beginning employment.90 The commensurate wage of the employee shall be reviewed 

“[u]pon completion of not more than six months of employment” and “[t]he worker's productivity 

shall then be reviewed and the findings recorded at least every 6 months thereafter.”91 In addition, 

wages for all employees must be adjusted by the employer at periodic intervals at a minimum of 

once each year” to reflect changes in the prevailing wage for similar work in the vicinity.

92 These 

requirements were modified by subsequent legislation in 2014, requiring that all 14(c) certificate 

holders also provide ongoing career counseling and other resources designed to enable employees

to attain competitive integrated employment.93

Types of 14(c) Certificate Holders

The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor issues 14(c) certificates to four types of 

entities that employ people with disabilities. These are: for-profit business establishments, hospital 

or residential care facilities, school/work experience programs, and nonprofit community 

rehabilitation programs. The great majority is in the latter category. A 2015 study found that 

employees with disabilities worked at 2,820 certificate holders, 89 percent of which were 

Community Rehabilitation Programs.94 More recent Wage and Hour Division data illustrate the 

expansion of Community Rehabilitation Programs, which by January 1, 2020, comprised 93 

percent of 14(c) certificate holders, accounting for 96 percent of workers receiving subminimum 

wages.95 Illinois holds the most Community Rehabilitation Program certificates, with 121 as of 

January 2020, followed by Missouri and California, with 96 and 95, respectively. An examination 

in 2018 of the top 50 Community Rehabilitation Programs, selected according to the number of 

89 29 C.F.R. § 525.3(i).

90 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(j)(2).

91 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(j)(3).

92 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(f) (“The wages of all workers paid a special minimum wage under this part shall be adjusted 

by the employer at periodic intervals at a minimum of once a year to reflect changes in the prevailing wages paid to 

experienced individuals not disabled for the work to be performed employed in the vicinity for essentially the same 

type of work.”)

93 See infra, note 280 (discussing the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act).

94 Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities at 28 (Sept. 15, 2016).

95 See infra note 599.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 5

subminimum wage workers employed, found a disproportionately large number of workers are 

employed by a small number of Community Rehabilitation Programs.96

Chart 1.1 Breakdown of 14(c) Certificate Holders

Source: Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-withdisabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders; Chart Created by U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

A Community Rehabilitation Program is a program that provides directly or facilitates the 

provision of vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities and that provides, 

singly or in combination, for an individual with a disability to enable the individual to maximize 

opportunities for employment, including career advancement.97 Under federal law, the government 

is authorized to make grants to state agencies for vocational rehabilitation services, and these 

grants support services to help individuals with disabilities prepare for and engage in 

employment.98 Through a funding formula, federal grants are provided to the states through the 

Rehabilitation Services Administration of the Department of Education,99 which in order to be 

received must be matched by the states.100 In FY 2019, the federal government authorized 

$3,521,990,000 in grant funding for vocational rehabilitation programs, which are responsible for 

96 National Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, (Oct. 2018) p. 

50.

97 29 U.S.C. § 705(4).

98 Congressional Research Service, Rehabilitation Act: Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants, 2014, p.1.

99 Ibid, p.3.

100 Ibid, p. 5.

Business Establishment

2%

Community Rehab 

Program (CRP)

93%

Hospital/Patient Worker

4%

School Work 

Experience Program 

(SWEP)

1%
6 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

allocating funds for community rehabilitation programs for persons with disabilities. In FY 2020, 

the grant program was authorized for $3,610,040,000.

101

Vocational rehabilitation services provided for individuals with disabilities include Community 

Rehabilitation Programs aiming to promote integration into the community and prepare individuals 

with disabilities for competitive integrated employment, including supported employment and 

customized employment.102 These programs may specifically require skills training and job 

coaching.103

Community Rehabilitation Programs often act as both employers and service providers. As 

employers who have been granted a 14(c) certificate, they are able to benefit from certain 

noncompetitive contracts. As service providers, they are able to tap into a multi-billion dollar 

reservoir of federal and state fundsfor services for people with disabilities. As the National Council 

on Disabilities explained in its report, “14(c) employers ... benefit from reduced labor costs by 

paying subminimum and/or sub-prevailing wages, and often also benefit from these federal and 

state set-aside contracts, while receiving payments from Medicaid, Vocational Rehabilitation, 

state, and local funding sources.”104 To fully fund the services they offer, Community 

Rehabilitation Programs rely on a “braided funding stream”105 including three main sources: 

vocational rehabilitation funding described above, the Medicaid Home and Community-Based 

Services waiver program, and direct revenue from labor contracts, which for some Community 

Rehabilitation Programs includes federal contracts awarded through the AbilityOne program.106

All three federal programs impose restrictions that reflect a national disability policy that 

prioritizes competitive integrated employment.

107

Many employers of persons with disabilities use these various funding mechanisms to provide 

services in addition to employing individuals with disabilities, as part of their overall employment 

101 The majority of community rehabilitation programs which provide supports and services for people with 

intellectual and developmental disabilities to obtain a job are funded by the vocational rehabilitation system. Under 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Department of Education funds grantees that are defined as: “State VR agencies 

or a consortium of State VR agencies in partnership with other key entities, such as State and local educational 

agencies, community rehabilitation providers, 2-year and 4-year postsecondary educational institutions (including 

vocational and technical schools), and employers.” The Department of Education does not offer a line item of funds 

that go specifically to community rehabilitation providers. See Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services, 

Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget20/justifications/i-rehab.pdf.

102 29 U.S.C. § 723(b)(2).

103 See infra notes 272-317 (discussing the Rehabilitation Act and the Workforce Opportunity Investment Act).

104 National Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, (Oct. 2018) 

pp. 55-56.

105 National Council on Disability, Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment, (Aug. 2012) p. 26.

106 See discussion infra notes 778-799.

107 See discussion infra notes 231-235.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 7

programs. This includes 14(c) certificate holders such as MVLE in Virginia, as described in 

Chapter 4.108 As discussed during the Commission Subcommittee’s site visit to MVLE, a 

Community Rehabilitation Program may describe utilization of 14(c) as a “stepping stone”109

method of providing training to people with disabilities who might not be familiar with a particular 

employment setting.110 Joanne Aceto, Senior Director of Employment Services at MVLE, 

indicated that MVLE sees employees transition from 14(c) to commensurate wages when they no 

longer need a regular job coach.111 At the Commission’s briefing, Kate McSweeny, Vice President 

of Government Affairs and General Counsel of ACCSES, testified to the major role that 

Community Rehabilitation Programs may have in future policy, stating that “there can be no 

growth without them.”112

Kenan Aden of MVLE explained how MVLE, like other Community Rehabilitation Programs, 

relies on revenue generated by contracts they make with local businesses as well as state and 

federal funding. Such a contract with a local business “operates just like any other laborer 

contract.”113 Where Rehabilitation Act funding and Medicaid funding are available to Community 

Rehabilitation Programs in their capacity as service providers, business contracts fund Community 

Rehabilitation Programs in their capacity as employers. As Mr. Aden explained:

It's very important for us to make sure that we separate out, first off, the job coaching, and 

the support services, and the funding that we're discussing. So when we talk about someone 

having access to one of the jobs that MVLE offers, every single time a staff person helps a 

person get into a job, that touch, that help is a support service.114

Aden went on to explain how the funding streams for these support services (and staff necessary 

to render them) are separate from the contract payments to pay 14(c) subminimum wages. Mr. 

Aden states, “We really have to ... separate out the contract performance and the pay for 

performing on the contract from the support service and ... the funding around providing the 

support service.”115 While the support services Community Rehabilitation Programs provide to 

108 See infra notes 830-837 (discussing the Virginia site visit in Chapter 4).

109 Ashley Welsh, Program Manager of Transition and Training at MVLE, testimony, Commission Subcommittee 

Virginia Roundtable, Springfield, VA, Mar. 3, 2020, testimony, p. 11 (hereinafter cited as Subminimum Wages 

Virginia Roundtable).

110 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 3, 2020), Notes of Maureen Rudolph, 

General Counsel (Mar. 3, 2020).

111 Joanne Aceto, Senior Director of Employment Services at MVLE, testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia 

Roundtable, p.18.

112 McSweeny Statement, at 4-5.

113 Aden testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 55.

114 Ibid, pp. 55-56.

115 MVLE Transcript at 57.
8 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

their employees with disabilities to facilitate contract work are paid for by state and federal funding 

sources, the sub-minimum wages paid to 14(c) employees come directly from the labor contracts 

the provider is able to secure.116

Researchers found in 2016 that two-thirds of Community Rehabilitation Programs provided nonwork services in addition to employment services.117 In 2002–2003, only 18 percent of individuals 

served by Community Rehabilitation Programs received employment services in integrated 

settings, compared to 28 percent during 2010–2011, and 38 percent in 2014–2015.118 According 

to researchers at University of Massachusetts’ Institute for Community Inclusion, these increases

in integration reflect a national trend in people with disabilities requesting services in an integrated 

setting, as well as federal policy encouraging Community Rehabilitation Programs to provide 

services in integrated settings.119

The type of work performed at a Community Rehabilitation Program varies widely. It may include 

packing, collating, and light assembly in a factory setting,120 to working at a cotton candy shop.121

Kitchen and cafeteria work may include rolling silverware in napkins, moving equipment around 

on carts, washing dishes, and filling table containers with sugar packets.122 Community 

Rehabilitation Programs may even provide a service to translate any military skills to new 

employment.123 In the public comments received by the Commission, one family member of a 

person with a disability stated that individuals on a waiting list for a Community Rehabilitation 

Program have to fill their days watching TV and playing on a tablet, highlighting that without 

116 See MVLE Transcript at 59.

117 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2016. University of Massachusetts 

Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 4; See supra notes 127-131.

118 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2016. University of Massachusetts 

Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 3-4 (the study notes 3 important caveats to this data: These figures 

include use of enclaves and mobile groups made up of only people with disabilities within integrated settings, 

Community Rehabilitation Programs provide a higher proportion of individuals with intellectual/developmental 

disabilities with facility-based non-work services than they do employment services in community settings, and this 

trend is not corroborated in data on services delivered by state intellectual/developmental disabilities agencies, in 

which the percentage of individuals receiving integrated employment services has remained relatively level, at 19%, 

since 2010).

119 Ibid.

120 General Assembly Cincinnati, Production, http://generalassemblycincy.com/production/ (last accessed May 26, 

2020).

121 Holy Angels, Cotton Candy Factory, https://www.holyangelsnc.org/cotton-candy-factory (last accessed May 26, 

2020).

122 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (March 3, 2020); Notes of Maureen Rudolph, 

General Counsel (March 3, 2020).

123 PRIDE Industries, Military Jobs at PRIDE, https://prideindustries.org/jobs/military-jobs/ (last accessed May 26, 

2929).
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 9

Community Rehabilitation Programs persons with a disability in her state are “wasting away and 

losing valuable time.”124

In contrast to Community Rehabilitation Programs that are 14(c) employers, sites in Vermont have 

transitioned from subminimum wage employment and utilize funding to provide enhanced services 

for people with disabilities.125 Whether or not they are 14(c) employers, many Community 

Rehabilitation Programs provide non-work services in addition to employment services, and are 

under increasing pressure to shift to competitive integrated employment from facility-based work 

(in facilities or institutions), where there is a risk of isolation or institutionalization;126 there is also 

an additional focus on community life engagement.127 Non-work services can range from 

rehabilitation services, day treatment, and training.128 More specific examples of non-work 

services include clinical services (i.e. speech and behavioral therapy), community exploration 

activities (i.e. computer training, pet therapy, and first aid classes), or performing arts programs.129

Additional on-site projects can include rug weaving, paper recycling, and custodial/food service 

training opportunities,130 training in financial management, networking, and using various forms 

of transportation.131 In Vermont, the services included networking, researching job opportunities, 

facilitating career decisions, and other self-determination-focused activities such as advocacy and 

skills for independent living.132 Community Rehabilitation Programs may also provide 

transportation, an important component for people with disabilities, particularly when accessible 

public transportation limits employment opportunities,133 and for individuals who are unsure that 

another job would provide the transportation they require to work.134 These funded services should 

124 Donna Ahola, Public Comment for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

125 See infra, notes 1075-1087 (discussing how a former Community Rehabilitation Program continues to provide 

services to people with disabilities).

126 Even in facility-based settings, the ADA integration mandate requires integration whenever reasonable. See infra

notes 200-203 (discussing the Olmstead Supreme Court case and subsequent Department of Justice actions); see 

also infra notes 142-156 (discussing the history of policies institutionalizing persons with disabilities).

127 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2016. University of Massachusetts 

Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 4.

128 U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Fact Sheet #39G: The 2010 National Community Rehabilitation 

Program Compliance Baseline Survey, (June 2009) https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/39g-14c-2010-

survey.

129 MVLE, Support Services, https://www.mvle.org/support-services/ (last accessed May 26, 2020).

130 Booneville Human Development Center, Overview, https://humanservices.arkansas.gov/about-dhs/ddds/humandevelopment-centers/booneville-hdc (last accessed May 26, 2020).

131 Abilities Without Boundaries, Programs & Services, https://abilitieswithoutboundaries.org/programs-services/

(last accessed May 26, 2020).

132 See infra, notes 1075-1087.

133 See infra notes 972, 1180, 1217, 1235, and, 1237.

134 See infra note 972.
10 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

be taken into account when analyzing the economics as well as the effectiveness of 14(c) and other 

policy options.

Time Trials and Piece Rates

Under the Labor Act, after not more than six months of employment, the 14(c) employer is required 

to review the quantity and quality of work performed by the worker with a disability as compared 

to that of a worker who does not have a disability.135 14(c) certificate holders may conduct time 

studies or time trials as a method to determine the productivity of an individual with a disability.136

However, these time studies may only be used to assist in setting that individual’s wage.137

After the initial evaluation, the wage determination must be periodically reviewed.138 According 

to the Wage and Hour Division’s responses to the Commission’s interrogatories, conducting 

reviews in six-month intervals should be viewed as the minimum requirement for certificate 

holders to remain compliant with the Labor Act Section 14(c), though the employer may conduct 

reviews more frequently.139

Employers may also establish a piece rate for industrial work being performed by workers with 

disabilities under a 14(c) certificate.140 Federal regulation establishes that these piece rates must

be:

Based on the standard production rates (number of units an experienced worker not 

disabled for the work is expected to produce per hour) and the prevailing industry wage 

rate paid experienced nondisabled workers in the vicinity for essentially the same type and 

quality of work or for work requiring similar skill. (Prevailing industry wage rate divided 

by the standard number of units per hour equals the piece rate.).141

135 29 U.S.C. § 214(c)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(j)(3).

136 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(h)(2)(i).

137 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(h)(2)(i).

138 Supra note 92.

139 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(j)(3); Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 17 at 7.

140 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(h); See also, Hodgson v. Cactus Craft of Arizona, 481 F.2d 464, 467 (9th Cir. 1973) 

(Minimum wage provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 203 apply to employees paid a piece rate); Wage and Hour Division, 

Section 14(c) Online Calculators User Guide, p. 39, 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/calculatorGuide.pdf (“A piece rate is the wage paid per 

each completed unit of work (e.g., a task performed or piece produced). When a worker with a disability is to 

perform a production job, the simplest and most objective method to ensure the payment of commensurate wages is 

the payment of a piece rate”).

141 29 C.F.R. § 525.12(h)(1)(i).
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 11

Developments in Civil Rights Protections

Although Congress enacted the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments and some prior 

federal legislation with the intent to protect rights to freedom from discrimination and equal 

protection under the law, it was not until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the federal government 

had broad authority to investigate civil rights violations and to enforce civil rights laws.

142 A 1983 

Commission report documented the civil rights challenges facing people with disabilities dating 

back to pre-Revolutionary America, when “[l]aws in the Thirteen Colonies excluded settlers who 

could not demonstrate an ability to support themselves independently.”143 People with disabilities 

have experienced pervasive discrimination over time, including the eugenics movement in the 

1920s that irrationally blamed people with disabilities for many societal problems.144 The 

unwarranted and harmful institutionalization of many people with disabilities has its beginnings 

in discriminatory attitudes about people with disabilities that were widespread in 1920s 

America.145 The Commission found in 1983 that the historical institutionalization of people with 

disabilities led to their being overlooked by policymakers later in the twentieth century.146

The Commission identified 30 civil rights laws that protected people with disabilities as of the 

1983 report, recognizing that the most significant legislation had been passed in the 1970s.147

Building on concerns identified in the Commission’s 1983 report, in 1986, the National Council 

on Disability recommended that Congress take further legislative action to expand equal protection 

laws to people with disabilities, noting that:

A problem with existing laws [regarding discrimination against people with disabilities], 

however, is that their coverage is not nearly as broad as laws prohibiting discrimination on 

the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Many types of activities, such as 

employment by agencies engaged in interstate commerce, public accommodations, and 

142 See, e.g., U.S. Com’n on Civil Rights, Are Rights a Reality?, pp. 7-10.

143 U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities, p. 18 (1983) 

https://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr11081.pdf.

144 Ibid., 19-20.

145 Ibid.

146 Ibid., 21-22.

147 Ibid., 46.
12 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

housing, are covered by laws prohibiting other types of discrimination, but not by laws 

prohibiting handicap discrimination.148

In 1990 Congress enacted and President Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

providing explicit federal civil rights protection in all walks of life to people with disabilities.149 It 

was not until the 1990s that federal courts invalidated statutes that were facially discriminatory 

against persons with disabilities. For example, in 1996, the Sixth Circuit held that the antidiscrimination provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act preempted Michigan zoning laws with 

stricter requirements for the location of adult foster care for persons with disabilities.150 The Sixth 

Circuit reasoned that the Supreme Court had held that a facially discriminatory policy is a form of 

intentional discrimination, and found that: “By their very terms, these statutes apply only to [adult 

foster care] facilities which will house the disabled, and not to other living arrangements.”151

Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA) testified at the Commission’s briefing that he hopes the type 

of discrimination he views as inherent in Section 14(c) will end, emphasizing that:

[P]eople with disabilities should be treated like everybody else. If they can make the 

minimum wage, if they can get a job, they ought to be able to make the minimum wage.

You ought not to be able to pay them a differentiated wage just because they have a 

disability. And we found that in most of the people on 14(c) could, perhaps with a little 

support, make a full minimum wage.152

In the 1983 report, Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities, the Commission

recognized the risk of discrimination that people with disabilities faced when seeking employment, 

148 Nat’l Council on Disability, Toward Independence: An Assessment of Federal Laws and Programs Affecting 

Persons with Disabilities - With Legislative Recommendations, (Feb. 1986), 

https://ncd.gov/publications/1986/February1986#9a (no page numbers indicated) (To note, the Commission 

recognizes that referring to people with disabilities as “handicap” is offensive and is only used in this context to 

remain accurate to the original legislative text of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), which 

was under discussion by the National Council on Disability).

149 In 1983 the Commission published Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities and called for greater 

federal civil rights protections for people with disabilities. See, U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Accommodating the 

Spectrum of Individual Abilities, pp. 163-64 (Sept. 1983) 

https://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr11081.pdf; See also, U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Celebrates the 25th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

(July 24, 2015) (“The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is proud to have contributed to the understanding of this 

important law and of all other federal civil rights laws that are essential to the development and maintenance of a 

productive citizenry free to choose its own destiny without artificial and discriminatory barriers.”) 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-commission-on-civil-rights-celebrates-the-25th-anniversary-of-theamericans-with-disabilities-act-of-1990-300115868.html.

150 Larkin v. State of Michigan Dep’t of Social Services, 89 F.3d 285 (6th Cir. 1996)

151 Id. at 290 (analyzing International Union, United Auto. Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Johnson 

Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 197-200 (1991)).

152 U.S. Representative Robert C. Scott Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 21.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 13

writing that “studies indicate that only in a tiny percentage of cases is inability to perform a regular, 

full-time job the reason” that a person with disabilities “is not employed.”153 Furthermore, the 

Commission found in 1983 that for workers with disabilities with less than twelve years’ 

experience, the average wage paid was below the federal minimum wage.154 The Commission also 

recognized the risk of unnecessary institutionalization people with disabilities face when seeking 

services, finding that even the best-run institutions could not avoid segregation of people with 

disabilities.155 The Commission noted, however, that the recognition that people with disabilities 

are better served in community settings came with the responsibility to ensure that 

deinstitutionalization did not result in the elimination of programs without proper replacements for 

necessary services.156

The Commission’s investigation into subminimum wages for people with disabilities builds on the 

important work of the National Council on Disability, which, like the Commission, is bipartisan 

by design.

157 “First established as a small advisory Council within the Department of Education in 

1978, [the National Council on Disability] was transformed into an independent agency in 1984 

and charged with reviewing all federal disability programs and policies.”158 In his written 

testimony to the Commission, the Council’s current Chair, Neil Romano, wrote that “there isn’t a 

topic I feel more strongly about than ending subminimum wages for people with disabilities.”159

Over the past decade, the Council has published several reports on employment for people with 

disabilities, including its 2018 report on competitive integrated employment, National 

Employment Disability Policy, From the New Deal to the Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the 

Future.

160 The Council’s report recognized the advancements made in protecting the civil rights 

of people with disabilities, and the work that remains to ensure that all people with disabilities 

have access to integrated supports and services, as follows:

As a result [of civil rights advances since 1968], today, many young people with disabilities 

have come of age in an America where they live at home and in their communities, go to 

school with nondisabled peers, navigate their cities and towns free from the physical and 

153 U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities at 29 (1983) 

https://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr11081.pdf (emphasis added).

154 Ibid., 31.

155 Ibid., 33.

156 Ibid., 34-35.

157 29 U.S.C. § 780(a).

158 Nat’l Council on Disability, About Us, History of NCD, https://ncd.gov/about (accessed April 3, 2020).

159 Neil Romano, Chairman, National Council on Disability, Written Statement for the Subminimum Wages Briefing 

before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Nov. 15, 2019, at 1 (hereinafter “Romano Statement”).

160 Nat’l Council on Disability, National Employment Disability Policy, From the New Deal to the Real Deal: 

Joining the Industries of the Future (Oct. 11, 2018) 

https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/New%20Deal%20to%20Real%20Deal%20FINAL_508.PDF.
14 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

architectural barriers that formerly existed, and hold increasingly higher expectations of 

themselves and others for a self-determined life in the community.

Despite these significant advancements, however, the country and its public institutions are 

still grappling with the reality that full inclusion is more than mere physical proximity in 

the community, it is also economic. While thousands of Americans with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities, blindness, and other disabilities have moved out of segregated 

residential institutions and now live and attend school in community settings, many such 

people, nevertheless, still lack access to typical jobs in the mainstream of the economy, or 

competitive integrated employment, and in turn, the resources and supports that they need 

to be fully engaged in civic and recreational activities during the hours that they are not 

working. Many of these same persons can and want to work and contribute as taxpayers 

and consumers but are restricted from doing so by considerable structural barriers to 

employment.161

The payment of subminimum wages to people with disabilities, and the segregated settings in 

which some people with disabilities earning subminimum wages have been employed, raise federal 

civil rights concerns. By statutorily permitting less than the federal minimum wage for persons 

with disabilities, Section 14(c) raises issues under Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment; adopted in 1861, this Amendment guarantees all persons “equal protection of the 

laws.”162 By paying individuals less than the minimum wage, employers may be infringing upon 

the amendment’s express purpose of treating all people equally.163 Section 14(c) may also raise 

legal issues under Title I of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was intended 

to ensure wide-reaching and comprehensive civil rights protections for individuals with 

disabilities.164 Categorically, under Section 14(c), people with disabilities being paid a 

subminimum wage are not granted the same protections, nor are they offered the same 

opportunities that are available to people working at the minimum wage or above. For example,

the Commission received testimony from Alison Barkoff, Director of Advocacy at the Center for 

Public Representation, that employees of 14(c) certificate holders are denied the ability to 

unionize.165 At the same time, proponents of Section 14(c) argue that these differentials allow 

some of the most vulnerable persons with disabilities to have access to jobs that they would 

161 Ibid., 8-9 (emphasis in original).

162 U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.

163 Matthew Crawford and Joshua Goodman, Below the Minimum Wage: A Critical Review of the 14(c) Wage 

Program for Employees with Disabilities, 30 HOFSTRA LAB. AND EMPLOYMENT L. J. 591, 600 (2013),

https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1556&context=hlelj

164 See infra notes 177-188.

165 Alison Barkoff, Response to USCCR Follow-Up Question No. 6 at 8.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 15

otherwise not have.166 Set forth below are the applicable laws and legal arguments for and against 

the 14(c) program.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, in part, that “no state shall...deny to 

any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”167 It is also applicable to the 

federal government.168 This language would seemingly create a conflict with the established 14(c) 

program that allows employers to treat individuals with disabilities differently by paying them less 

than nondisabled individuals. Despite this apparent conflict, claims in federal courts have been 

challenging. As a former American Bar Association president stated, “[w]hile the 14th 

Amendment has been used to uphold the rights of women and minorities, it has not proven as 

effective in the disability rights movement, due mainly to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling more than 

30 years ago.”169

In 1985, in the formative case on this issue, City of Cleburne v. Texas, Cleburne Living Center, 

Inc., the Supreme Court declined to find that individuals with intellectual disabilities were a class 

who were historically subject to discrimination, and therefore the Court only afforded them a lesser

“rational basis” standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause.

170 In ruling on the case, the 

Court held that the lower court “erred in holding [individuals with intellectual disabilities 

comprise] a quasi-suspect classification calling for a more exacting standard of judicial review 

than is normally accorded economic and social legislation.”171 But the Court also acknowledged:

“How this large and diversified group is to be treated under the law is a difficult and often a 

technical matter, very much a task for legislators guided by qualified professionals and not by the 

perhaps ill-informed opinions of the judiciary.”172 Further, the Court stated that its decision was 

“absent controlling Congressional discretion.”173

There is some debate about whether the passage of the ADA in 1990 impacts the holding in 

Cleburne, particularly in light of the following Congressional findings in the ADA:

166 See infra notes 564-565.

167 U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.

168 See, e.g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).

169 Linda Klein, “14th Amendment should be used to ensure equal protection for those with disabilities,” ABA

Journal, June 27, 2017, 

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/14th_amendment_should_be_used_to_ensure_equal_protection_for_those

_with_dis

170 City of Cleburne v. Texas, Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473. U.S. 432 (1985).

171 Id. at 442.

172 Id. at 442-43.

173 Id. at 439-40.
16 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

[I]ndividuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with 

restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and 

relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics 

that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions 

not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and 

contribute to, society[.]174

A federal court in New York found that this language in the Congressional findings suggested 

individuals with disabilities “should be deemed a suspect class for purposes of equal protection 

review.”175 As noted by the federal district court:

Several questions arise from Congress' invocation of [the findings section of the ADA, 42 

U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7)]. It is unclear what Congress attempted to effect by this language—

whether Congress intended to force the courts to subject legislation or behavior respecting 

disabled persons to strict scrutiny review or whether the Congress merely desired to send 

a message to the courts that a heightened level of review of the claims of disabled 

individuals was appropriate.176

The Americans With Disabilities Act

Congress passed the ADA in 1990 “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for 

the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;” “to provide clear, strong, 

consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against with disabilities;” and “to 

ensure that the Federal Government plays central role in enforcing the standards established[.]”177

As the Commission summarized in a 2000 report:

The ADA provides a host of civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities. The 

law seeks to ensure for people with disabilities rights such as equal opportunity in

employment, full accessibility to government services, public accommodations,

telecommunications; and meaningful methods of enforcing those rights. These rights were 

not always provided, but they have evolved over time.178

174 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7).

175 Bartlett v. New York State Bd. of Law Examiners, 970 F. Supp. 1094, 1132 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff'd in relevant 

part, 156 F.3d 321, 332 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. granted, judgment vacated, 527 U.S. 1031, (1999) (mem.), and aff’d in 

relevant part, 226 F.3d 69, 86 (2d Cir. 2000).

176 970 F. Supp. at 1132.

177 42 U.S.C. §12101(b)(1)-(3).

178 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Sharing the Dream: Is the ADA Accommodating All?, Oct. 2000, Ch. 1, at 

notes 2-7 (citing ADA provisions), https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/main.htm.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 17

The language of the ADA prohibits discrimination against persons with essentially all types of 

disabilities as well as perceived disabilities, including with respect to employment.

179 The statute 

defines “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major 

life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such 

an impairment.”180 Moreover, such discrimination is prohibited in both the public and private 

sectors,

181 although there are some heightened requirements for public employers.182

Relevant to the civil rights analysis of Section 14(c), Title I of the ADA prohibits discrimination 

in employment, and Title II includes a mandate requiring integration. Title I prohibits 

discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment, and defines employers as persons 

engaged in industry affecting commerce with more than 15 employees.183 The types of prohibited 

discrimination include “limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in way 

that adversely affects the opportunities or status of such applicant or employee because of the

disability of such applicant or employee;”184 failure to provide a reasonable accommodation unless 

it would impose an undue hardship on the business;185 and discriminatory testing or qualification 

standards unless they are job-related for the position in question and consistent with business 

necessity.

186 Discrimination against a “qualified individual” is prohibited, and “qualified 

individual means an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the 

essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.”187 However, 

the statute requires consideration of “the employer’s judgement as to what functions of a job are 

essential.”188

179 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3).

180 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) (emphasis added).

181 See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2) (definition of “‘covered entity’ means an employer, employment agency, labor 

organization, or joint labor-management committee”) and § 12111(5)(A) (definition of employer).

182 The Code of Federal Regulations requires that:

A public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other 

arrangements, on the basis of disability . . . . (vii) Otherwise limit a qualified individual with a disability in the 

enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aid, benefit, or service. 

28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(vii).

183 See 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (discrimination prohibited) and § 12111(5) (definition of employer includes persons 

engaged in commerce with 15 or more employees, with few exceptions such as the United States government).

184 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(1).

185 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A).

186 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6).

187 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).

188 Id.
18 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Title II of the ADA establishes and protects the right of people with disabilities to receive services 

in the most integrated setting.189 In one class action lawsuit, individuals with disabilities working 

in a sheltered Community Rehabilitation Program in Oregon challenged a state program that overly 

relied on segregating people with disabilities in employment settings, resulting in a settlement 

requiring the state to engage in systematic reforms to reduce the number of people with disabilities 

working in sheltered workshops.190

Integration Mandate

As mentioned, Title II of the ADA includes a mandate that persons with disabilities be integrated, 

and unlike Title I, it has been applied more directly to 14(c), as there have been some cases in 

which individuals with disabilities were not working in segregated settings.191 Title II prohibits 

discrimination against any qualified person with a disability, as well as the exclusion from or denial 

of the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity.192 The language of Title II 

prohibiting exclusion or denial is referred to as ADA’s “integration mandate.”193 Under the 

integration mandate, Title II regulations require public entities to “administer services, programs, 

and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with 

disabilities.”194 Under this language, no specific amount of integration is required; however, 

integration is required to the fullest extent possible.195

Title II prohibits public entities from segregating persons with disabilities either directly or 

indirectly, through contractual programs, licensing or “other arrangements,” such as program 

administration or policy choices that have the effect of discriminating against persons with 

disabilities.196 This language may apply to 14(c) workshops because although the rate of 

Community Rehabilitation Programs197 offering integrated employment services has increased in 

recent years, over 90 percent of 14(c) employers are Community Rehabilitation Programs.

198

189 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

190 Lane v. Brown, 166 F.Supp.3d 1180 (D. Or. 2016); See also, Settlement Agreement, Lane v. Brown, 3:12-cv00132 (D. Or. 2016).

191 See infra notes 234-237.

192 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

193 See, e.g., Townsend v. Quasim, 328 F.3d 511, 515–16 (9th Cir. 2003).

194 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d) (the “integration mandate”) (emphasis added).

195 Id.

196 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(1) and (b)(3).

197 Community Rehabilitation Programs are federally-funded programs that provide vocational rehabilitation and 

employment services for people with disabilities.

198 See, Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-withdisabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders (last accesses May 29, 2020) (93% of 14(c) certificates as of Jan. 2020)..
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 19

Although data shows that there has been a trend towards integration, the Advisory Committee for 

Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment found as of 2014, three-quarters of people with 

disabilities receiving employment services through a state intellectual/developmental disabilities 

agency (through Community Rehabilitation Programs) were receiving services in a “sheltered or 

facility-based environment.”199

In 1999, nearly a decade after the passage of the ADA, in the case of Olmstead v. L.C., the Supreme 

Court reviewed the ADA’s integration mandate and held that public entities must provide

integrated services or programs when they are appropriate, not opposed by affected persons, and 

can be reasonably accommodated.200 The Court also stated that a public entity may be excused 

from the integration mandate if it would create a “fundamental alteration” of its services.201 The 

Court reasoned that:

Recognition that unjustified institutional isolation of persons with disabilities is a form of 

discrimination reflects two evident judgments. First, institutional placement of persons 

who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions 

that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life. 

Second, confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of 

individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic 

independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment.202

While Olmstead dealt with unnecessarily institutionalizing individuals with psychiatric and 

intellectual disabilities, finding discrimination on the basis of their disability violated the 

integration mandate of Title II of the ADA, these principles have been successfully applied to 14(c) 

workshops in cases involving states’ sheltered workshop systems. Not all 14(c) workplaces are 

segregated, but if they are, this segregation may pose civil rights issues. As Regina Kline, Partner 

at Brown, Goldstein & Levy, explained:

As public employment systems in the majority of states have serially overinvested in 

sheltered workshops to the exclusion of integrated alternatives like supported employment, 

many people with disabilities, who can and want to work but need additional services and 

supports to do so, will continue to be pipelined, referred, or otherwise enrolled in 

segregated sheltered workshops with little opportunity to make meaningful and informed 

choices to work elsewhere.203

199 Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities, Final 

Report, p. 28, (Sept. 15, 2016) https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/pdf/ACICIEID_Final_Report_9-8-16.pdf.

200 Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 607 (1999).

201 Id. at 604.

202 Id. at 600-01.

203 Regina Kline, Supplemental Testimony to USCCR at 2.
20 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Two cases in particular support the concept that if they are segregated, 14(c) workshops may 

violate the ADA’s integration mandate. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the 

case of Lane v. Brown, inserting itself as a party in private litigation against the State of Oregon 

challenging the state’s operation of sheltered workshops. Oregon had been employing thousands 

of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities in sheltered workshops, principally in 

sorting hospital trash, where they earned well below minimum wage—an average of $3.35/hour 

and some as little as 44 cents/hour—and they had little interaction with others.204 Further, the 

complaint alleged the state education system was directing at-risk youth towards working in such 

segregated workshops.205 The Department argued that although the plaintiffs didn’t allege risk of 

institutionalization, as in Olmstead “the precepts of Olmstead were nevertheless violated.”206

According to the Department of Justice, the most integrated setting mandate established under the 

ADA and Olmstead, applied to workday activities, and therefore, “required the state to provide 

plaintiffs with support to access mainstream employment and avoid unnecessary segregation.”207

In its settlement of Lane v. Brown, Oregon agreed to no longer fund new placements into sheltered 

workshops, and to gradually phase out current employees by providing supports for competitive 

integrated employment.208 The state also agreed to enhance such opportunities through “Supported 

Employment” services funded by Medicaid.209 Supported Employment was defined to include: 

“Discovery, job development, job-finding, job carving, job coaching, job training, job shadowing, 

co-worker and peer supports, and re-employment support.”210 Although this case did not end in a 

court order, it shows that workshops that rely on Section 14(c) certificate employment may violate 

the ADA’s integration mandate if they over-rely on sheltering employees with disabilities.211

Further, at least in this case, employees who are phased out of sheltered workshops may be 

provided with supported employment through Medicaid.212

204 Complaint in Intervention of the United States of America at ¶ 3, Lane v. Kitzhaber, No. 3:12-cv-00138, ¶ 3 (D. 

Ore., Mar. 27, 2013), https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lane_complaint.pdf.

205 Id. at ¶ 9.

206 Zoë Brennan-Krohn, “Employment for People with Disabilities: A Role for Anti-Subordination,” 51 HARV. CIVIL 

RIGHTS-CIVIL LIBERTIES LAW. REV., 239, 250-251; Complaint in Intervention of the United States at ¶¶ 35-37, 54, 

68-70, Lane v. Kitzhaber, Case No. 3:12-cv-00138-ST (D. Or. March 27, 2013).

207 Brennan-Krohn, supra note 206, at 251; Lane, 841 F. Supp. 2d at 1203.

208 Settlement Agreement, Lane v. Brown, No. 3:12-cv-00138 §§ IV – V (D. Ore. 2013), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lane_sa.pdf.

209 Id., § VII.1(b).

210 Id., § 12.

211 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Fact Sheet on Proposed Agreement over Oregon Supported Employment, p. 1, 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lane_fact_sheet.pdf.

212 Settlement Agreement, Lane v. Brown, No. 3:12-cv-00138, § 12 (D. Ore. 2013), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lane_sa.pdf.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 21

The Department of Justice (DOJ) also enforced Title II of the ADA as interpreted by Olmstead in 

an action against the State of Rhode Island and the City of Providence for over-reliance on 

sheltered workshops,213 which culminated in a court-ordered consent decree in 2014.214 In this 

case, the Department of Labor’s findings of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act resulted in

retroactive revocation of two employers’ 14(c) certificates from 2010 to 2013 and an order that 

employees be paid the federal minimum wage for hours worked during that period.

215 The 

Department of Labor referred the matter to DOJ who investigated and found Title II ADA 

violations due to “unnecessary over-reliance upon segregated sheltered workshops.”216 The state 

agreed to take measures to desegregate workers with disabilities and dismantle major aspects of 

its system that had led to ADA violations through youth career development plans, person-centered 

planning to transition youth out of the system, cessation of funding for new entrants into sheltered 

workshops, and supported employment placements, among other measures.217 As discussed in 

Chapter 3, the DOJ recently dismissed the case against the City of Providence and the court agreed 

to terminate the consent decree with the City, but the consent decree with the State of Rhode Island

is still open and subject to monitoring for compliance.218

That is, the requirements for supported employment are still enforceable under the terms of the 

consent decree with the State of Rhode Island. Regarding supported employment, Regina Kline 

testified that, “[t]he ADA’s integration mandate requires employment service systems to allow 

those who are qualified for, and who do not oppose doing so, to receive employment supports in 

the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.”219

The Oregon and Rhode Island cases also show that isolated 14(c) workshops can be discriminatory. 

Regarding isolated workshops, Anil Lewis, Executive Director of Blindness Initiatives at the 

National Federation of the Blind, testified about how his brother remained in a sheltered workshop 

because of lack of opportunities:

213 See Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, United States v. Rhode Island and Providence, No. CA 13-

442 (D. R.I., June 13, 2013), https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-providence-complaint.pdf.

214 Consent Decree, United States v. Rhode Island, CA 14-174 (D. R.I., Apr. 9, 2014), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-olmstead-statewide-agreement.pdf.

215 See Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, United States v. Rhode Island and Providence, No. CA 13-

442, ¶ 6 (D. R.I., June 13, 2013), https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-providence-complaint.pdf.

216 See, Consent Decree, United States v. Rhode Island, CA 14-174, § II.E (D. R.I., Apr. 9, 2014), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-olmstead-statewide-agreement.pdf. See Consent Decree, United States 

v. Rhode Island, CA 14-174, § II.E (D. R.I., Apr. 9, 2014), https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-olmsteadstatewide-agreement.pdf.

217 Consent Decree, United States v. Rhode Island, CA 14-174, § IV (D. R.I., Apr. 9, 2014), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-olmstead-statewide-agreement.pdf.

218 See infra note 749.

219 Regina Kline, Supplemental Testimony to USCCR at 1.
22 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

This noncompetitive segregated environment was not designed for skills acquisition and 

did not present opportunities for upward mobility. In fact, the supervisors/managers, with 

no expertise in blindness, actually encouraged employees not to exceed an income that 

would adversely impact their Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits. Yet, the 

external perception was that this was a wonderful institution, which offered blind people 

an opportunity to experience the benefits of “work,” and gave them something to do besides 

staying at home.220

Lewis also testified about his experience running a 14(c) sheltered workshop, and how his view of 

the 14(c) program changed over time:

In full disclosure, I participated in the perpetuation of the FLSA Section 14(c) fallacy that 

people with disabilities could not be competitively employed by helping run an extended 

workshop while employed as a Job Placement Specialist at a community rehabilitation 

center in Atlanta, Georgia. We had blind consumers performing work under contracts for 

various letter mailing campaigns and small assembly tasks that generated significant 

revenue for the center. We brought donors, public officials, and employers on tours of the 

center stating we were providing work readiness training. We received donations, 

legislative support, but no employment opportunities resulted from our workshop efforts. 

However, once I received the proper training on how to effectively prepare and assist blind

individuals with obtaining employment; and we finally made the decision to close the 

workshop, we were successful in employing all but one of the fifteen to twenty individuals 

in the workshop.

In addition to my receiving training on strategies and best practices for facilitating the 

employment of people with disabilities, the reason for our success was that we evolved as 

an organization. We changed our philosophy and implemented new strategies. It was 

nothing revolutionary. We discontinued exploiting the consumers as tools for marketing 

and fundraising. We set higher expectations for the consumers and ourselves, evaluated the 

strengths and interests of our consumers, provided specific job skills training, and 

proactively implemented a job placement strategy that demonstrated how the acquired 

talents of our consumers met the needs of the employer.221

Lewis also testified how low expectations of people with disabilities can inhibit their ability to 

work in integrated settings and earn competitive wages.222 Studies have shown that parental 

expectations and family engagement are important determinants in the success of transitions of 

220 Anil Lewis, Executive Director of Blindness Initiatives, National Federation of the Blind, Written Statement for 

the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Nov. 15, 2019, at 2.

221 Ibid., 3.

222 Lewis Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 269-71.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 23

people with disabilities to competitive integrated employment.223 Brian Dague of the University 

of Vermont has documented that some family members feared their relatives with disabilities will 

face stigmatization and isolation in integrated work environments, hence the need to ensure that 

their family members are safe in sheltered employment environments.224

Some have argued that persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities have the most 

challenges and need the most protection or “a safe, supported, and understanding atmosphere.”225

Census data also shows lower employment rates among this group, compared with people without 

intellectual and developmental disabilities.

226 But at the Commission’s briefing, Jennifer Mathis, 

Director of Policy and Legal Advocacy at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and member 

of the Commission’s Maryland State Advisory Committee, provided testimony to the Commission 

that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities will find employment success in 

integrated settings if provided with the right supports.227 Mathis further explained that:

Supported employment is founded on the belief that every person with a disability is 

capable of working competitively in the community if the right kind of job and the work 

environment, can be found. These services help people find jobs that align with their 

interests and strengths.228

Some 14(c) workshops are sheltered or segregated, while others may be integrated and yet pay 

subminimum wages. As will be discussed in Chapter 3, data provided to the Commission by the 

Department of Labor shows that even with permission to pay subminimum wages, a high 

percentage of 14(c) certificate holders investigated by the Wage and Hour Division have violated 

the labor rights of workers with disabilities. Over the last 10 years, an average of eight percent of 

all 14(c) workshops in the country were investigated each year, and the great majority of those 

investigated were in violation of even the subminimum wage rules and were ordered to pay back 

pay.229

223 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes. through 2016. Boston, MA: University of 

Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 11.

224 Dague, Bryan, Sheltered employment, sheltered lives: Family Perspectives of conversion to community-based 

employment, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 37 (2012) at 2-4.

225 Tracy Gritsenko, A-Team Missouri, Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 360.

226 See infra notes 506-508.

227 Mathis Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 190.

228 Ibid.

229 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 2 at 2; Wage and Hour Division, Response to 

USCCR Affected Agency Review (May 19, 2020) (“It is important to note, investigation findings include a mix of 

some investigations with technical violations and some with more serious violations.”) (on file)
24 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

In addition to the integration of services required by Olmstead, Community Rehabilitation 

Programs using 14(c) certificates may be required to integrate their services to receive federal or 

state funding. As discussed further in Chapter 3, Medicaid-funded Home and Community Based 

Services, a major source of funding for employment services for people with disabilities, will no 

longer be approved in segregated settings beginning in 2022. Additionally, vocational 

rehabilitation funding, another source of funding for services for people with disabilities, contains 

requirements that these services be used to assist people with disabilities to work in competitive 

integrated employment, including that employees with disabilities must be afforded a chance to 

“[interact] with other persons who are not individuals with disabilities . . . to the same extent that 

individuals who are not individuals with disabilities and who are in comparable positions interact 

with other persons.”230

States must separately comply with each of these legal standards of integration. As the D.C. 

Department on Disability Services explained in a Question and Answer document,

“A determination that a setting complies with the HCBS settings rules does not necessarily 

mean that it is an “integrated setting” under the ADA, and CMS’ approval of a state’s 

transition plan does not necessarily mean that the state is in compliance with the ADA and 

Olmstead. A state may violate the ADA when its service system is overly reliant on 

“segregated settings”.”231

Likewise, “competitive integrated employment” has a specific definition in the Rehabilitation Act 

for the purposes of vocational rehabilitation funding.232 Despite these definitional nuances, each 

of these legal requirements indicates a strong public policy preference for integrated services. As 

the Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities put it, “presumed employability of people with significant disabilities is implicit in 

relevant federal legislation.”233

Wage Discrimination Issues

In 2012, in the case of EEOC v. Hill Country Farms, the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC) won partial summary judgement and a multi-million dollar jury award 

against an employer paying subminimum wages under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA), which prohibits both public and private employers from discriminating against 

230 29 U.S.C. § 705(5)(B)

231 D.C. Department on Disability Services, Questions and Answers About The Home and Community Based 

Services (HCBS) Settings Rules, p. 5 (Feb. 2015) 

https://dds.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dds/publication/attachments/HCBS%20QA%20%282.19.15%20final%

29.pdf. (citing CMS and DOJ explanations of state obligations).

232 29 U.S.C. § 705(5)(B)

233 ACICIEID Report at 9. The Committee also recommended federal agencies align policies and definitions to 

promote competitive integrated employment. ACICIEID Report at 11-12.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 25

employees with disabilities.234 Notably, these types of damages are not available against states, 

but they are available against private employers.235 The EEOC’s lawsuit against Hill Country 

Farms involved discrimination against 32 individuals with intellectual disabilities working at 

subminimum wages at a turkey farm in Iowa.236 The farm had a 14(c) certificate from 2006 to 

2009, but the Department of Labor and federal courts found that its practices violated the Labor 

Act as the employees with disabilities “were performing as productively and effectively as nondisabled workers.”237 In the EEOC’s subsequent litigation under the ADA, EEOC was able to 

secure over a million dollars in back pay for the employees,

238 and a jury awarded the workers 

$240 million for disability-based harassment, discrimination and abuse.

239 This case does not 

directly address whether 14(c)’s permitting payment of subminimum wages violates the ADA, but 

it does illustrate that Title I ADA violations are possible under those circumstances.240

Recently, multiple media outlets as well as federal investigations have reported that some workers 

with disabilities are making well below the minimum wage, including some extreme cases 

involving employers paying people with disabilities as little as 4 cents an hour.241 According to 

Alison Barkoff, Director of Advocacy at the Center for Public Representation, recently private 

litigation has been filed to enforce Title I of the ADA against sheltered workshops. For example, 

in 2018, an ADA complaint was filed in federal court on behalf of individuals in a sheltered 

workshop in Ohio run by Roppe and Seneca, which allegedly employed more than 100 persons 

234 E.E.O.C. v. Hill Country Farms, 899 F. Supp. 2d 827 (S.D. Iowa 2012), aff’d 564 Fed.Appx. 868 (Mem) (8th Cir. 

2014).

235 See infra note 762 (discussing Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360 (2001)).

236 E.E.O.C. v. Hill Country Farms, 899 F. Supp. 2d 827, 830-31 (S.D. Iowa 2012), aff’d 564 Fed.Appx. 868 (Mem) 

(8th Cir. 2014).

237 E.E.O.C. v. Hill Country Farms, 899 F. Supp. 2d 827, 832 (S.D. Iowa 2012); see also Solis v. Hill Country 

Farms, 808 F.Supp.2d 1105 (S.D.Iowa 2011), aff'd, 469 Fed.Appx. 498 (8th Cir.2012).

238 E.E.O.C. v. Hill Country Farms, 899 F. Supp. 2d 827, 831, 833-34 (S.D. Iowa 2012).

239 Jury Awards $240 Million for Long-Term Abuse of Workers with Intellectual Disabilities, United States Equal 

Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n (May 1, 2013), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-1-13b.cfm.

240 Wage and Hour Division, Response to USCCR Affected Agency Review (May 19, 2020) (“It is important to note 

that the employer did not have a valid certificate at the time of the case.”) (on file).

241 Anna Schecter, Monica Alba, and Mark Schone, More disabled workers paid just pennies an hour, NBC News 

(Aug. 10, 2013) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/more-disabled-workers-paid-just-pennies-hourv19916979; Cheryl Corley, Subminimum Wages For The Disabled: Godsend Or Exploitation? NPR (April 23, 

2014) https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305854409/subminimum-wages-for-the-disabled-godsend-or-exploitation; 

Alison Knezevich, Subminimum wage' for disabled workers called exploitative, The Baltimore Sun (Jun. 14, 2014) 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/investigations/bs-md-subminimum-wage-20140614-story.html; Alexia 

Fernández Campbel, A loophole in federal law allows companies to pay disabled workers $1 an hour, Vox Media 

(May 3, 2018) https://www.vox.com/2018/5/3/17307098/workers-disabilities-minimum-wage-waiver-rock-rivervalley-self-help.
26 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

with disabilities in a segregated “sampling division” to produce samples of flooring materials.242

Several employees alleged that Title I was violated by the 14(c) employer “utilizing standards, 

criteria, and methods of administration with regard to job application procedures, hiring, 

advancement, employee compensation, job training and other terms, conditions, and privileges of 

employment [that] have had the effect of discriminating against Plaintiffs on the basis of

disability.”243 Plaintiffs also alleged that employees with disabilities were paid according to the 

work assigned, that some were paid at a piece-rate,244 and that “staff . . . have assigned Plaintiffs 

to the same mundane and rote tasks based on erroneous assumptions about their individual 

disabilities[.]”245 Further, the complaint stated that:

Until February 2016, Plaintiffs were erroneously paid less than minimum wage (as little as 

$2.00 per hour) under the guise of certificates issued to Seneca by the United States 

Department of Labor to Seneca [sic] pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 214(c) (i.e., “14(c) 

certificate”). As part of the 14(c) certificate program, under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”), Seneca is permitted to pay only individuals with disabilities who are “disabled 

for the work performed” subminimum wages.246

After they were found to be in violation of 14(c) by misclassifying the Plaintiffs, Defendants 

allegedly capped their wages at the level of the Ohio minimum wage, based on their status as 

persons with disabilities, rather than permitting them to earn higher wages—and the average wage

for other workers in their company was nearly double minimum wage.247 Defendants answered by 

denying the allegations,248 and at the time of this writing, the litigation is still ongoing.249

Barkoff also noted that “[o]ther litigants have challenged unfair hiring practices by sheltered 

workshops using state human rights law, including an individual in Minnesota whose sheltered 

242 Complaint at ¶ 2, Steward, Magers, and Felton v. Roppe Corp., Seneca Re-ad Industries, Inc. and Seneca Cty. 

Bd. of Developmental Disabilities, No. 3:18-cv-2905, ¶¶ 2 (type of business), (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 18, 2018), 17 

(employing persons with disabilities) and 34 (segregated sampling division) (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 18, 2018), 

https://www.disabilityrightsohio.org/assets/documents/seneca_ada_complaint_with_exhibits_dec2018.pdf.

243 Id. at ¶ 103 (emphasis added).

244 Id. at ¶ 36.

245 Id. at ¶ 38.

246 Id. at ¶ 46; see also, ALJ’s Decision and Order, In Re: Magers, Steward, and Felton v. Seneca Re-Ad Industries, 

No. 2016-FLS-3 (Dep’t. of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges, Feb. 2, 2016), 

https://www.disabilityrightsohio.org/assets/documents/decision_and_order_from_the_alj_re_seneca-read.pdf?pdf=seneca_decision.

247 Complaint at ¶ 50, Steward, Magers and Felton v. Roppe Corp., Seneca Re-ad Industries, Inc. and Seneca Cty. 

Bd. of Developmental Disabilities, No. 3:18-cv-2905, ¶ 50 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 18, 2018), 

https://www.disabilityrightsohio.org/assets/documents/seneca_ada_complaint_with_exhibits_dec2018.pdf.).

248 See, e.g., Answer of Roppe Corporation, Steward, et. al. v. Roppe Corp., et. al., No. 3:18-cv-2905 (N.D. Ohio, 

Mar. 8, 2019) (on file).

249 See PACER, Civil Docket for Case No. No. 3:18-cv-2905 (N.D. Ohio), (last accessed 1/24/20).
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 27

workshop refused to consider him for a promotion, claiming he was a ‘client’ and not an 

‘employee.’”250

Similarly, in 2017, Michael Denoewer, a person with a disability, filed a lawsuit against Union 

County Industries, a 14(c) certificate holder in Marysville, Ohio; the Union County Board of 

Developmental Disabilities; the Columbus Center for Human Services; and Honda of America 

Manufacturing, Inc.251 Denoewer alleged in his complaint that these defendants had consistently 

assigned him to lower paying jobs based on his perceived disability without engaging in any 

individualized analysis of his ability to perform higher paying work, even though the job 

description for the production associate job that Denoewer held included work on higher paying 

assembly lines.252 Denoewer was paid a subminimum wage for the entire duration of his 

employment; “[i]n 2012, Mr. Denoewer’s average wage per hour, after taxes, was approximately 

$1.74. In 2013, it was just $1.67 per hour.”253 To date, Denoewer is pending before the federal 

district court in Ohio.254

At the Commission’s briefing, John Anton from the Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress also 

spoke about the need to pay all people with disabilities a competitive wage, stating that:

I'd like to address the subminimum wages which are currently legal and it's the asset to 

companies with a huge drawback to those of us who need to make a living. We pay rent, 

utilities, pay for transportation and buy food, clothing, and other expenses as well as we 

are able to have a social life like all of you. We cannot live a full life on a subminimum 

wage paycheck. We cannot be respected, valued employees, and members of our 

community.255

Attorney Derek Manners, who also testified at the Commission’s briefing, spoke about how low 

expectations for people with disabilities had impacted his life, as follows:

My current salary, not to brag, is $250,000 a year. My sub-minimum wage hourly rate was 

$2.25 an hour. I've had the same level of vision in that job and in my current job. . . . my 

guidance counselor at my high school thought that because I was a person with a disability, 

that I would not be able to go to college, and that it was a good idea for me to get experience 

250 Alison Barkoff, Responses to Follow-Up Questions from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Jan. 10, 2020) 

(on file), citing Chris Seres, Minnesota man with disability wins round in fight for job promotion, Star Tribune, July 

18, 2018, http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-man-with-disability-wins-round-in-fight-for-jobpromotion/387357271.

251 See, Complaint, Denoewer v. UCO Indus., Inc., 2:17-cv-00660 (S.D. Ohio 2017).

252 Id; see also, Regina Kline, Response to USCCR Follow-Up Questions at 5.

253 Id, at 5.

254 Civil Docket, Denoewer v. UCO Indus., Inc., 2:17-cv-00660 (S.D. Ohio 2017).

255 John Anton Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 129.
28 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

in the workplace. And so I was placed with a sub-minimum wage employer because she 

thought that's all that I would be capable of doing. I enjoyed that job. If you had polled me 

and asked me how I felt in that job, I would have said I felt rewarded. I would have said 

that I had friends there. I would have said that that $2.25 an hour was fair and that I enjoyed 

my job. . . . The idea that the repeal of 14(c) is somehow a violation of civil rights for 

people with disabilities is laughable and ignorant. . . . When I was at Harvard Law School, 

I thought I would be for sure the first blind person to ever go to Harvard . . . To my surprise, 

there were six. . . . There were also people with other disabilities. The range of capabilities 

for people with disabilities is not something that you can draw from a statistic.256

Finn Gardiner, Communications Specialist at the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy at Brandeis 

University stated that:

The problem with sub-minimum-wage work is that it engenders stereotyping. It sends the 

message, as several other panelists have said, that if you are a worker with a disability, who 

is deemed to be somehow less productive than other members of society, then you are only 

worth being paid pennies on the dollar257

On the other hand, the Commission received testimony in support of 14(c), indicating that the 

productivity of persons with disabilities may be lower than that of persons without disabilities, and 

that this lower productivity may justify subminimum wages. For example, U.S. Representative 

Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin stated that:

[I]f you can only move one arm, if you have to hold somebody's head up, if you have a 

personality thing where you might have a fit or something like that, it's hard to find an 

employer who is going to pay $7.50 an hour for that. But in a work center you can pay 

them $1.50, two bucks, four bucks an hour, and together with subsidizing with 

[Supplemental Security Income] or [Social Security Disability Insurance], they can do 

okay.258

In her written testimony to the Commission, Dr. Julie Christensen, Director of Policy and 

Advocacy at the Association of People Supporting Employment First, challenged the perception 

that people with disabilities have reduced productivity stating that:

I am often asked whether it is “fair to make an employer” pay the full minimum wage when 

an employee is not working at 100% productivity. I have several answers to this question. 

Given what we now know and have available to us in 2019, I fundamentally question the 

256 Derek Manners Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 354-55.

257 Gardiner Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 138.

258 Grothman Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 257-58.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 29

notion that someone simply cannot work competitively. If someone is truly not performing 

at 100%, my assumption is that something is missing or out of place:

• Perhaps the individual needs better or different training.

• Maybe the correct supports have not yet been put in place to ensure the individual’s 

success.

• Is it possible that there is a reasonable accommodation, perhaps the use of assistive or 

other technology, that is missing?

• At the end of the day – maybe it’s just not a good job match for that individual.259

Ruby Moore, Executive Director of the Georgia Advocacy Office, wrote in her testimony to the 

Commission about how with the right supports, people with disabilities are capable of contributing 

to the places they work:

One commonly held misunderstanding is that people making subminimum wages in 

sheltered workshops are different than their peers with disabilities who work in 

competitive, integrated employment making the same wages as their non-disabled 

coworkers, with the same benefits, opportunities for advancement, and the same level of 

interaction with non-disabled peers as their coworkers that don' t have disabilities. This is 

simply not true. What IS different are the beliefs held about the individuals with 

disabilities, and the expectations and resulting opportunities and supports offered. We have 

many decades of research and demonstration of what people with disabilities are capable 

of when given the chance. There are countless stories of people who were long in l4c 

situations and are now competitively employed.260

Anil Lewis of the National Federal of the Blind described the harm of subminimum wage 

employment, particularly in segregated settings, in this way:

We must openly and honestly admit that there are strong harmful results to the 

institutionalization of anyone within an environment that eventually convinces them that 

they have no capacity and have reached their full potential. Moreover, we mask the 

systemic failures that cause this harm by convincing the parents and family members that 

it is the disability that prohibits success, and not the lack of professional intervention and 

implementation of proven strategies to facilitate competitive integrated employment.261

259 Christensen Statement at 4.

260 Moore Statement, at 2-3 (emphasis in original).

261 Anil Lewis, Written Statement, p. 4.
30 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000

Congress passed the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act in 2000.262 The 

Act affirms that individuals with developmental disabilities have the right to integrated services 

consistent with their needs, through legislative language stating that:

The treatment, services, and habitation for an individual with developmental disabilities 

should be designed to maximize the potential of the individual and should be provided in 

the setting that is least restrictive of the individual’s personal liberty.263

The Act provides funding to establish state councils on developmental disabilities.

264 These state 

councils are directed to build capacity within states to serve people with developmental disabilities 

and to promote programs that seek systems change to encourage integrated services.265 It requires 

that:

[a]s a condition of providing assistance under this title, the Secretary [of Health and Human 

Services] shall require that each recipient of such assistance take affirmative action to 

employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities. . . .

266

Furthermore, the Act requires that membership on state councils on developmental disabilities be 

comprised of at leastsixty percent individuals with developmental disabilities, parents or guardians 

of individuals with developmental disabilities, or immediate relatives of adults with developmental 

disabilities.267

The Act also provides for the establishment of a national network of university centers for 

excellence in developmental disabilities education, research, and service.268 This network of 

centers for excellence is tasked with advising federal, state, and local officials about people with 

developmental disabilities and to advocate for increased opportunities for people with 

developmental disabilities.269 A Commission Subcommittee visited one center for excellence, the 

University of Vermont’s Center on Disability and Community Inclusion, during the Commission’s 

262 Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15001 et seq., Pub. L. 106-402, 114 

Stat. 1677 (2000).

263 42 U.S.C. § 15009(a)(2).

264 See 42 U.S.C. § 15021 et seq.

265 Id.

266 42 U.S.C. § 15007.

267 42 U.S.C. § 15025(b)(3).

268 42 U.S.C. § 15061 et seq.

269 42 U.S.C. § 15063(a)(1).
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 31

site visit to Vermont in March 2020.270 The Subcommittee’s observations about this promising 

program are discussed in Chapter 4.271

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014

Congress passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act in 2014.272 The Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act was designed to accomplish broad job training and education 

services to assist unemployed or underemployed individuals secure employment in twenty-first 

century jobs. The Act includes amendments that created Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act to 

expand vocational rehabilitation services for people with disabilities.273 The primary goals of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act’s reforms to the Rehabilitation Act were to end the 

pipeline of students with disabilities from schools to sheltered workshops, and to encourage the 

transition of people with disabilities in secondary and post-secondary education to competitive 

integrated employment.274 The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act also intended to make 

a transition from secondary and/or postsecondary education to competitive integrated employment

the primary federal policy goal through expanding supported employment services for individuals 

with disabilities.275 As federal law, these requirements apply in states with 14(c) programs as well 

as in states that have transitioned away from 14(c) and prohibited subminimum wages.276

The Commission recognized the importance of providing job training to people with disabilities 

in the 2000 report entitled Sharing the Dream: Is the ADA Accommodating All? The Commission 

found that organizations were successful in moving people with disabilities from temporary or 

part-time employment to full-time employment when people with disabilities are given the 

opportunity to receive job training or vocational services.277

In addition to the above, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act also placed restrictions 

on the payment of subminimum wages to individuals with disabilities age 24 and younger, unless 

270 See infra notes 1088-1099.

271 Ibid.

272 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, 29 U.S.C. § 795g, Pub. L. 113-128, 128 Stat. 1425 (2014).

273 29 U.S.C. §723 (as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Pub. L. 113-128, 128 Stat. 1425 

(2014).

274 Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities at 28 (Sept. 15, 2016).

275 29 U.S.C. § 795g

276 See infra note 296 (job training & career counseling requirements as applied in 14(c) programs) and note 297

(job training & career counseling applied in Vermont).

277 U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Sharing the Dream: Is the ADA Accommodating All? at 22 (2000) 

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/main.htm.
32 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

at least one of two conditions is met.278 The first is if the individual with a disability (age 24 and 

younger) is already employed by an entity holding a valid 14(c) certificate at the time the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act was enacted.279 The second exception is if before 

beginning work at a subminimum wage, the individual with a disability (age 24 and younger)

provides documentation proving that the individual has received pre-employment services or 

school to work transition services. The documentation must prove that the individual has applied 

for vocational rehabilitation services and has either been found ineligible or the individual had a 

plan for employment, worked toward their employment outcome without success, and the 

vocational rehabilitation case was closed; also, they must have been provided with career 

counseling.280

Finally, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act requires that every 14(c) certificate holder 

verify and review documentation from all employees with disabilities earning a subminimum wage 

that they have received career counseling, information and referrals from the designated state 

unit.

281 The 14(c) employer must also provide employees with disabilities earning a subminimum 

wage with information and referrals to federal and state programs, as well as other resources in the 

geographic area that offer services and supports designed to enable the employee to attain 

competitive integrated employment.282 The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act requires 

that individuals with disabilities earning subminimum wages must receive the career counseling, 

information and referrals and be informed of opportunities for competitive integrated employment 

at least once every six months during their first year of employment, and at least once every year 

thereafter.283 Section 511 requires all workers with disabilities earning a subminimum wage to be 

provided with services on a recurring basis by the state’s vocational rehabilitation agency and the 

worker’s employer.284 Within the time intervals described below, vocational rehabilitation 

agencies must provide each subminimum wage worker with career counseling, information, and 

referrals to federal and state programs and other resources that support the individual to explore 

and attain competitive integrated employment. Career counseling and referrals must:

1. Be understandable to the individual, and

2. Facilitate informed choice and independent decision-making regarding employment.285

278 29 U.S.C. § 794g(a).

279 29 U.S.C. § 794g(a)(1) (the provisions of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act went into effect on July 

22, 2016).

280 29 U.S.C. § 794g(a)(2).

281 29 U.S.C. § 794g(c)(1).

282 29 U.S.C. § 794g(c)(1).

283 29 U.S.C. § 794g(c)(2).

284 29 U.S.C. § 794g(c).

285 34 C.F.R. § 397.40(a)(2).
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 33

Employers must provide each subminimum wage worker with information about self-advocacy, 

self-determination, and peer mentoring training opportunities available within the worker’s 

geographic area. These training opportunities may be provided by a federal or state program or 

other entity but may not be provided by any entity that holds a 14(c) certificate.

In testimony to the Commission, the Wage and Hour Division confirmed that the agency includes 

a review of Section 511 compliance in every Section 14(c) investigation.

286 However, according 

to Alison Barkoff from the Center for Public Representation, the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration is the agency within the Department of Education responsible for overseeing 

Section 511 and its regulations. After the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act’s enactment, 

the Rehabilitation Services Administration promulgated Section 511’s implementing regulations 

and created guidance clarifying the requirements and the meaning of “competitive integrated 

employment.” Barkoff noted in her written testimony to the Commission that pressure from 

providers who could not meet the integration requirements led the Department of Education to 

announce in 2017 that it intended to reopen the regulations. Despite broad opposition to changing 

the regulations, including a report issued by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

Committee finding that the regulations should not be changed, the Department of Education’s most 

recent unified agenda continues to indicate that the Rehabilitation Services Administration is 

considering doing so.287 The Rehabilitation Services Administration is also responsible for 

providing technical assistance with regard to Section 511, and for collecting and analyzing data on 

Section 511’s implementation. To date, the Rehabilitation Services Administration has not made 

any such data publicly available.288 Barkoff also stressed this in her verbal testimony, stating that 

there is a lack of data from the Department of Education on how state vocational rehabilitation 

agencies are coming into compliance with Section 511’s requirements.289

As Michele Ford, Chief Executive Officer of Inroads to Opportunities, a Community 

Rehabilitation Program, testified to the Commission, the form the required counseling takes can 

vary between 14(c) providers.290 Ford testified that Inroads to Opportunities offers counseling to 

employees working under 14(c) certificates in the form of fifteen to twenty minute meetings with 

an employment counselor.291

Dr. John Butterworth testified that compliance with Section 511’s counseling requirements “varies 

from a group of people being gathered to watch a video, to focused individual counseling 

286 Ziegler Statement, at 7. See, U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2016-2, 

p.2, (July 27, 2016) https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/fab2016_2.pdf.

287 Barkoff Statement, at 7-8.

288 Ibid., 8.

289 Barkoff Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 63-64.

290 Ford Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 145-147.

291 Ibid., 147.
34 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

sessions.”292 Butterworth described a disparity between states with regard to the effectiveness of 

these counseling activities, saying that in some, “very few people say that they want to work after 

having that experience,” while in others “as many as 85 percent of people who are working in 

workshops say that they want to work after having that experience.”293 However, both Butterworth 

and another briefing panelist, Dr. Teresa Grossi, Director of Strategic Developments at the Indiana 

Institute on Disability and Community at Indiana University, stressed that there is a lack of data 

with regard to the effectiveness of Section 511 implementation efforts. Butterworth said: “there's 

not strong data on the relationship between implementation of pre-employment transition services 

and outcomes available at this point.”294 Butterworth later added that there is a lack of sufficient 

or trustworthy data from schools regarding employment outcomes.295

However, in contrast, Commission staff interviews with employees with disabilities in Virginia 

and Vermont revealed that they perceived they received little job training or career counseling. In 

particular, in Virginia, employees described watching videos as the main form of job training or 

career counseling.296 In Vermont, interviewees discussed more complex career counseling, but 

most job or skills training appeared to be received on-the-job in both states.

297

In addition to new requirements placed upon 14(c) certificate holders, the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act of 2014 approved federal funds to study the impact of the 14(c) program on 

individuals with disabilities. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act established the 

Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities to make recommendations to the Department of Labor and to Congress.

298 The 

bipartisan Advisory Committee was comprised of advocates for individuals with intellectual or 

developmental disabilities, employment service providers, representatives of national disability 

advocacy organizations, academics with expertise in wage and policy issues for people with 

disabilities, representatives from the employer community, representatives from organizations 

with expertise in expanding opportunities for people with disabilities, and federal government 

officials.299 The legislative purpose of the Advisory Committee was to study the following:

292 Butterworth Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 105.

293 Ibid.

294 Ibid., 107.

295 Ibid., 108-109.

296 See infra notes 916-917, 946, and 950.

297 See infra notes 1175-1176, 1188, 1198-1199, 1212, 1225, and 1246.

298 29 U.S.C. § 795n.

29929 U.S.C. § 795n(c); Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for 

Individuals with Disabilities at ix-xi (Sept. 15, 2016), 

https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/pdf/ACICIEID_Final_Report_9-8-16.pdf.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 35

(1) Ways to increase the employment opportunities for individuals with intellectual or 

developmental disabilities or other individuals with significant disabilities in competitive 

integrated employment;

(2) The use of the certificate program carried out under [Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act] for the employment of individuals with intellectual or developmental 

disabilities, or other individuals with significant disabilities; and

(3) Ways to improve oversight of the use of such certificates.300

In its final report in September 2016,

301 the Advisory Committee made several findings and 

recommendations to the Secretary of Labor, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions, and the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the 

Workforce, with regard to subminimum wages and the use of 14(c) certificates.302 The report found 

that in January of 2015, the estimated number of workers under all 14(c) certificates was 

228,600.303 Those employees with disabilities worked at 2,820 certificate holders, 89 percent of 

which were Community Rehabilitation Programs in 2015.

304 In 2014, 75 percent of individuals 

with intellectual or developmental disabilities (in Community Rehabilitation Programs) were 

receiving day or employment services in a segregated settings.

305 Overall, the Advisory Committee 

found that current 14(c) regulations and policies do not align with modern federal disability 

policy.

306

The Advisory Committee’s recommendations with regard to the employment of people with 

disabilities and the 14(c) program had three primary areas of focus. First, the committee 

recommended that Congress should amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to allow for multi-year 

phase-out of 14(c) including well planned measures to mitigate any lapse in services people with 

300 29 U.S.C. § 795n(f).

301 As stated in the disclaimer to the Advisory Committee’s final report, neither the report nor its final 

recommendations were “cleared or approved by the Secretary of Labor, the U.S. Department of Labor, nor the 

Administration, and, as such, the views expressed in this report should not be regarded as those of the Secretary, the 

Department, or the Administration.” See Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated 

Employment for Individuals with Disabilities at iii.

302 Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities, pp. 29-31.

303 Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities, p. 28.

304 Ibid.; See supra, note 12.

305 Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities, p. 28.

306 Ibid., p. 29.
36 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

disabilities receive from certificate holders.307 Second, the Wage and Hour Division should engage 

in stronger oversight of certificate holders and use stricter standards for issuance and review of 

certificates.308 Third, the federal government should assist states in building capacity to support 

transition to competitive integrated employment as an alternative to continuing sheltered 

employment.309

The Advisory Committee recommendations also emphasized that the federal government should 

ensure that the transition away from the use of 14(c) certificates should be gradual, and that any 

phase-out would not negatively impact the provision of services to people with disabilities working 

for 14(c) certificate holders.310 Further, they recommended that the Department of Labor should 

incorporate input from federal partners including Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the 

Administration on Community Living, the Rehabilitation Services Administration, and the 

Department of Justice to ensure that any phase out of the 14(c) program is accomplished in the 

least disruptive manner.311

In addition, the Advisory Committee recommended that before the 14(c) certificate program is 

fully phased out, the Wage and Hour Division should only issue 14(c) certificates after the state in 

which the entity requesting the certificate is located certifies to the Wage and Hour Division that 

there is a current lack of employment opportunities for people in that state.312 They stated that the 

Department of Labor should coordinate with the Department of Health and Human Services, the 

Department of Education, and the Social Security Administration to provide technical assistance 

to states encouraging the transition of 14(c) certificate holders to employment agencies that offer 

competitive integrated employment opportunities.313

The Committee further recommended that technical assistance should include redesigning 

business plans of Community Rehabilitation Programs, staff training, restructuring staff roles, 

information on delivery of services, repurposing of facilities. Similarly, entities applying or 

renewing their 14(c) certificates should be required to submit evidence that the certificate is 

“necessary to prevent the curtailment of opportunities for employment” for people with 

307 Ibid., p. 29.

308 Ibid.

309 Ibid.

310 Ibid.

311 Ibid., p. 30.

312 Ibid.: see also, 29 C.F.R. § 525.9 (criteria for employment of workers with disabilities at subminimum wages 

includes issuing certificates “...in order to prevent the curtailment of opportunities for employment...” of people 

with disabilities).

313 Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities, p.30.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 37

disabilities.314 The Advisory Committee also recommended that the Wage and Hour Division 

should require certificate holders to take more concrete steps to assist people with disabilities in 

obtaining jobs in competitive integrated employment, as required by the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act.

315 Finally, the Advisory Committee recommended that the federal 

government and service providers should ensure that people with disabilities have the information 

needed to make informed choices about their employment options.316 The Wage and Hour Division 

told the Commission that it reviews Section 511 compliance, including whether 14(c) employees 

are receiving required information about competitive integrated employment opportunities, in each 

investigation it conducts.317

Alternative Policies and Reforms to Section 14(c)

In recent years, efforts to reform or otherwise phase out 14(c) have been fruitful at the state level, 

but they have not yet been passed at the federal level. As Congressman Bobby Scott noted in his 

testimony to the Commission, “In 2016, both major party platforms included support for legislation 

ending the payment of subminimum wages to people with disabilities.”318 While no significant 

federal reforms to the 14(c) program have occurred since Congress passed the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act in 2014, bills currently pending before both houses of Congress 

offer insight into how the federal government may achieve a phase-out of 14(c) certificates or 

improve the program. One approach would gradually eradicate subminimum wagesthrough phaseout programs,

319 and another would leave 14(c) in place, and also encourage integrated 

employment programs for persons with disabilities through tax credits and other incentives.320

Another approach is “Employment First,” which is a push towards increasing competitive 

integrated employment opportunities for persons with disabilities in community employment 

settings before considering other employment options such as subminimum wage employment or 

non-employment day services.

321 Elements of all of these models have been tried at the state level 

in recent years—and while discussion of specific states is reserved for Chapter 4, this section 

includes some analysis of how policy alternatives are playing out in the states.

314 Ibid.

315 Ibid.

316 Ibid., 29-30; Infra, Notes 717-719.

317 See supra, Notes 281-289 (discussing requirements under Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act to provide 

information about competitive integrated employment).

318 Scott Statement, at 5.

319 See infra notes 322-351.

320 See infra notes 390-396.

321 See, Association of People Supporting Employment First, APSE Statement on Employment First, pp. 1-2 (Oct. 

11, 2010), https://apse.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/APSE-Employment-First-Statement.pdf.
38 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Phasing Out 14(c) with Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act

This policy alternative phases out Section 14(c) by providing supports for states and current 14(c) 

employers to help train persons with disabilities for competitive integrated employment. At the 

Commission’s briefing, Julie Christensen, Policy Director at the Association of People Supporting 

Employment First, testified that these types of supports may be needed precisely because

employees with disabilities have been sheltered and have not been able to develop their skills.322

Moreover, these types of programs would help alleviate the concern that people would lose their 

jobs if 14(c) were abruptly ended.323 This type of policy parallels state policies that are in the 

process of or have transitioned from 14(c) to competitive integrated employment.324

At the federal level, the bipartisan Transformation to Competitive Employment Act of 2019 would

phase out 14(c) by assisting states and 14(c) certificate holders with transitioning away from 

subminimum wage employment of people with disabilities.325 The main vehicles proposed are 

through grants and technical assistance to states and entities to encourage the transition to 

competitive integrated employment of people with disabilities.326 Representative Bobby Scott (DVA), who introduced the Act in the House, testified at the Commission’s briefing about how the 

Act seeks to enable a transition to competitive employment for people with disabilities:

This bill provides states and employers across the country with resources to work with the 

disability community towards creating fully integrated competitive employment 

opportunities for individuals with disabilities.327

Specifically, the bill establishes the competitive state grant program to help providers with 

14(c) certificates change their business models and assist workers with disabilities to make 

the transition to competitive integrated employment. Even in states that resist efforts to 

eliminate subminimum wage for workers with disabilities, the bill will also provide grants 

directly to providers.328

Scott highlighted the importance of a well-planned phase out of the 14(c) program to ensure that 

people with disabilities are not left without necessary supports, testifying that:

322 Christensen Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 239.

323 See infra notes 557-558.

324 See infra notes 1136-1146.

325 Transformation to Competitive Employment Act, S. 260/H.R. 873 § 3(1), 116th Cong. (Introduced concurrently 

in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives on Jan. 29. 2019).

326 Id.

327 U.S. Representative Robert C. Scott Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 17; Transformation to 

Competitive Employment Act, S. 260/H.R. 873 § 101, 116th Cong. (2019).

328 Id.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 39

I think phasing in [the Transformation to Competitive Employment Act] makes it easier to 

get the job done. When you have an abrupt change, sometimes the adjustment is very 

difficult. But by phasing [Section 14(c)] out, that gives people a lot of time to adjust to 

make sure the supports are there. And you don't have the problem of an abrupt change 

where people may be left in the lurch.329

Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), a lead co-sponsor of the bill, wrote to the 

Commission to describe the impact the bill would have. “This legislation would phase out this 

inequitable program over a six-year period and would provide funds to ensure individuals and the 

organizations they work for can successfully phase out Section 14(c) certificates.”330

U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) submitted a public comment to the Commission about the 

Transformation to Competitive Employment Act.331 Senator Hassan is the former Governor of 

New Hampshire, who signed into law her state bill eliminating subminimum wages, which she 

states was supported by disability advocates as well as business leaders.332 Senator Hassan wrote

that “it is imperative that the federal government eliminate this antiquated and unjust practice of 

paying individuals who experience disabilities less than their peers.”333 Her bill would include 

supports because she believes that:

As a country, we must make the necessary investments in services so that individuals who 

have worked at these workshops have the opportunity and support necessary to achieve 

competitive integrated employment. That is why in the U.S. Senate I am a cosponsor of the 

Transformation to Competitive Employment Act that would phase out the payment of 

subminimum wages nationally and provide funding so that individuals who have been 

employed at sheltered workshops receive the necessary supports to transition to 

competitive integrated employment.334

The Transformation to Competitive Employment Act would authorize the Secretary of Labor to 

issue grants to states to assist 14(c) certificate holders in transitioning to a model of employment 

for people with disabilities centered on competitive integrated employment.335 States would have 

the ability to apply for grants from the federal government ranging from $2,000,000 to 

329 U.S. Representative Robert C. Scott Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 22.

330 U.S. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Written Statement for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before 

the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Nov. 15, 2019, at 1.

331 U.S. Senator Margaret Wood Hassan, Public Comment for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. 

Comm’n on Civil Rights.

332 Ibid.

333 Ibid.

334 Ibid.

335 Transformation to Competitive Employment Act, S. 260/H.R. 873 § 101, 116th Cong. (2019).
40 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

$10,000,000.336 Any state interested in receiving a grant would be required to submit an 

application to the Department of Labor for consideration with information about local 14(c) 

programs, and any state receiving a grant would be required to commit to a phase-out of all 14(c) 

certificates in the state over a six-year period.337 Under the proposed legislation, individuals with 

the most significant intellectual and developmental disabilities would be given priority in receiving 

necessary supports and services to succeed during and after the transition.338 Each state receiving 

a grant would be required to create an advisory council consisting of various stakeholders to 

monitor and guide the transition,339 and least 25 percent of the advisory council members would 

have to be people with disabilities.340

The Act would also assist current 14(c) employers in the transition to competitive integrated 

employment.341 The application to receive a federal grant would include a description of how the 

applicant would provide competitive integrated employment to people with disabilities, including 

a description of evidence-based integrated services.342 A projection of how many people with 

disabilities will be employed after the transition to competitive integrated employment and the 

date upon which the entity will discontinue the use of its 14(c) certificate would also be required. 

Finally, the applicant would be required to explain how the entity will coordinate with federal, 

state, and local programs and agencies to facilitate the transition to competitive integrated 

employment for people with disabilities.343 Grants to 14(c) certificate holders would be for a period 

of three years,344 and for awards between $100,000 and $500,000,345 in partnership with at least 

two entities with experience providing support with individuals with disabilities in competitive 

integrated employment.346

The Act would also provide for the gradual phase out of 14(c) certificates by prohibiting the 

issuance of any new certificates after the Transformation to Competitive Employment Act is 

336 Id. at § 102(e).

337 Id. at § 102.

338 Id.

339 Id. at § 102(a)(2)(E)(vii).

340 Id. at § 102(a)(3)(A).

341 Id. at § 103.

342 Id. at § 103(b).

343 Id.

344 Id. at § 103(e).

345 Id. at § 103(g).

346 Id. at § 103(h)(2).
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 41

enacted by Congress.347 Any previously issued, existing 14(c) certificates would be invalidated six 

years after the date of enactment.348

Federal technical assistance to states and entities to facilitate the transition of people with 

disabilities from employment under 14(c) certificates to competitive integrated employment would 

also be provided.

349 The Act would also require the Secretary of Labor to enter into a contract with 

a nonprofit entity no later than six months after the enactment to conduct a multi-year evaluation 

on the impacts, including changes in wages and employment,350 including the number of 

employees with disabilities who have transitioned from subminimum wage employment to 

competitive integrated employment.351 At the time of this writing, the bill awaits further 

consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.352

During the Commission’s briefing, several panelists raised continued concerns about the continued 

existence of the 14(c) program, specifically with regard to sheltered workshops. As Finn Gardiner 

of the Lurie Institute at Brandeis University noted, “sheltered workshops have not increased 

employment prospects among autistic workers or workers with intellectual disabilities.”353

Gardiner also stated that:

Opposition to segregated work environments and subminimum wages is nothing new: 

nearly sixty years ago, the founder of the National Federation for the Blind, Jacobus

tenBroek, wrote an article called “The Character and Function of Sheltered Workshops.” 

In this piece, he directly likened sheltered workshops to prisons and other institutions that 

are designed to keep designated groups away from the rest of society, rather than 

integrating them as full members. In 2011, the National Disability Rights Network 

produced a report, Segregated and Exploited, that identified some of these power dynamics 

and ways that policymakers could redress these inequities.

This is borne out by research data: a 2009 study about disability and employment found 

that people who acquired disabilities as adults, or received diagnoses for lifelong 

347 Id. at § 202.

348 Id. at § 202.

349 Id. at § 301.

350 Id. at § 401(a)(1).

351 Id. at § 402(1)-(4).

352 See, Congress.gov, Actions Overview S.260 — 116th Congress (2019-2020), 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/260/actions?KWICView=false (last accessed May 29, 

2020); Congress.gov, Actions Overview H.R.873 — 116th Congress (2019-2020), 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/873/actions?KWICView=false (last accessed May 29, 

2020).

353 Finn Gardiner Testimony, Subminimum Wage Briefing, p. 137.
42 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

disabilities later in life, had fewer doubts about their competence as workers because they 

did not internalize stereotyping during childhood.354

John Anton of the Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress testified to the Commission about his 

experience working for subminimum wages, stating that:

I attended the local sheltered workshop which had a [14(c)] waiver. They had us doing jobs 

such as packing items, piecework. It was very boring and unsatisfying for me. My friends 

would be sitting around playing cards, watching videos, and hanging out with nothing to 

work on.

In addition, I got paid very little for the work. It was only a few dollars a week sometimes. 

I went to the supervisor and said I wanted to do something more challenging. He told me 

it was not possible. So I quit.355

Kate McSweeny, Vice President of Government Affairs and General Counsel of ACCSES, 

testified to the Commission that efforts to abolish subminimum wages are misguided and are not 

considering the job prospects of people with disabilities after subminimum wages are abolished, 

stating that:

It is a significant concern that so many federal and state entities are looking at 14(c), 

because few are looking at it through the right lens. It is easy to be high minded about 

someone else's job – but before getting rid of a valuable, viable work option for people 

who want that choice, please have an understanding of what that job means to the person 

and what losing that opportunity will mean for them.356

McSweeny also testified to the value that Community Rehabilitation Programs offer to people with 

disabilities in finding and maintaining employment, stating that:

The value of a job in or through [Community Rehabilitation Program]-run work centers 

that provide employment opportunities and training cannot be overstated. In short, if 

[Community Rehabilitation Programs] and the jobs they provide were eliminated, they 

would have to be reinvented. The network of [Community Rehabilitation Programs] across 

this country, staffed by people with substantial knowledge and extensive experience, are a 

vital component of providing and maintaining work opportunities for people with the most 

354 Finn Gardiner, Communications Specialist, Lurie Institute for Disability Policy, Brandeis University, Written 

Statement for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Nov. 15, 2019, at 2 

(hereinafter Gardiner Statement) (internal citation omitted).

355 John Anton Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 127-128.

356 Kate McSweeny, Vice President Government Affairs and General Counsel, ACCSES, Written Statement for the 

Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Nov. 15, 2019, at 4 (hereinafter McSweeny 

Statement).
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 43

significant disabilities. [Community Rehabilitation Programs] will play a major role in 

future disability policy, too, because there can be no growth without them. [Community 

Rehabilitation Programs] not only provide training, work opportunities, transportation, and 

job supports, they also work with the people they serve to provide supported employment 

and job coaches in competitive jobs.357

At the Commission’s briefing, Congressman Grothman (R-WI) testified that he represents 10 

counties that have active 14(c) work centers.358 Grothman testified that he has toured 11 sheltered 

workshops in Wisconsin, and that it is very important to tour them.359 He opined that:

There are tremendous things to look at because you see people who most of us would think 

of have been dealt a tough lot in life, and they’re smiling and happy and proud to have lives 

like their siblings and friends—to go to work every day, to earn a paycheck, use that.

Usually they’re subsidized in other ways because they have different abilities[.] But we 

have SSI or SSDI programs, so they don’t have to earn enough to pay for a $700-a-month 

apartment or anything like that.360

Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) wrote a letter to the Commission stating that:

Section 14(c) certificates are utilized by Community Rehabilitation Programs who provide 

exceptional work environments and ample opportunities for Americans with disabilities to 

gain dignified employment opportunities. These are individuals who are typically 

otherwise left out of the workforce and are unable to fulfill the requirements necessary to 

achieve standard employment opportunities. It is imperative that Section 14(c) is 

maintained so individuals with disabilities have options and access to employment 

opportunities to maintain the quality of life that every American deserves. Without it, I fear 

that [Community Rehabilitation Programs] will close their door and thousands of 

individuals with disabilities will be out of work.361

Representative Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) also wrote to the Commission, stating that:

These sheltered workshops serve as steppingstones. For some, a job at a workshop is their 

only opportunity to gain work experience in order to seek competitive employment. For 

others, sheltered workshops assist in training and preparing those employees who want to 

357 McSweeny Statement, at 4-5.

358 Congressman Grothman Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 255.

359 Ibid.

360 Ibid.

361 U.S. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Written Statement for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the 

U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Dec. 14, 2019.
44 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

seek competitive employment as well as providing income and job satisfaction to 

individuals preferring to continue extended employment.362

During the open public comment session following the Commission’s briefing, the Commission 

heard testimony from Linda Hau, whose son works at a 14(c) workshop in Wisconsin.363 Hau 

stated that “[s]heltered workshops have allowed those loved ones to work in an environment where 

they feel safe, loved and accepted, while having the pride of holding a paying job,” and “[w]e have 

also learned that inclusion is often the cruelest form of isolation.”364 Hau testified that the financial 

and societal costs of ending the 14(c) certificate program will be too high, stating that:

If we lose our chosen workplaces, it will leave our loved ones faced with forced community 

employment at a taxpayer cost of $40 per hour for a job coach, day service at a cost of $10 

per client, per hour, or simply no employment, which would require residential services at 

varying costs.

Many of these individuals are unable to function in a typical workplace due to behavioral, 

medical, or physical limitations. They are generally socially ostracized, as they have 

nothing in common with their coworkers.365

The National Council on Disability explained the concern that 14(c) repeal would eliminate vital 

employment for people with disabilities in its 2018 report recommending such repeal:

Opponents of eliminating the use of 14(c) certificates frequently argue that 14(c) employers 

would not be able to employ the people with disabilities that they do at minimum wages or 

above without going out of business. Several national experts and numerous employment 

providers that we spoke with, reflecting upon this assertion, stated that it is an 

acknowledgment that, even with substantial set aside contracts and federal, state, and local 

funding, the workshop business model is largely unsustainable unless people are paid subminimum wages. Or, plainly stated, subminimum wage is not a bug of the workshop model, 

it is its primary feature.366

362 U.S. Representative Vicky Hartzler, Written Statement for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. 

Comm’n on Civil Rights, Dec. 12, 2019.

363 Hau Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 339.

364 Ibid.

365 Ibid., p. 340.

366 Nat’l Council on Disability, National Disability Employment Policy, From the New Deal to the Real Deal: 

Joining the Industries of the Future, pp. 52-53 (Oct. 2018).
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 45

As several experts testified to the Commission, 14(c) repeal would not require the elimination of 

Community Rehabilitation Programs.367 Most federal and state funding available to Community 

Rehabilitation Programs to provide services to individuals with disabilities disincentivizes the 

payment of subminimum wages, either directly, as requirements that vocational rehabilitation 

funding be used for “competitive integrated employment,” or indirectly, as with Medicaid 

requirements for integrated services, as many 14(c) workshops are also sheltered. Annual federal 

funding for services for people with disabilities for two funding sources specifically tied to 

employment (AbilityOne368 and the Rehabilitation Act369), amounts to just over $6 billion, while 

Medicaid Home and Community Based Services, which provides for services regardless of 

employment status, is annually funded at over $90 billion.

370

As Governor Tom Ridge explained:

There are some well-intentioned advocates that express concern that the elimination of 

14(c) would severely limit opportunities for new Americans with disabilities, who may use 

these workshops as both a place for meaningful social intervention and a respite for 

caregivers. We understand these concerns, but remind them that there are other options 

available. 14(c) is not a funding program, it is a certificate. Federal funding will still be 

available to support individuals with disabilities in other ways.371

Raising Subminimum Wages Over Time

Some advocates propose gradually raising the subminimum wage until it meets the federal 

minimum wage. The Raise the Wage Act that passed the U.S. House of Representatives on July 

18, 2019372 awaits further consideration by the Senate. The main purpose of this bill is to gradually 

raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour over a period of six years after the effective date 

of the bill,373 and the bill also contains provisions for the gradual phase out of subminimum wages 

367 See Ridge Testimony, Briefing Transcript at p. 184-85, Mathis Testimony, Briefing Transcript at p. 200-04, 

Christensen Testimony, Briefing Transcript at p. 207-211, Teninty Testimony at p. 216-17, Musheno Public 

Comment, Briefing Transcript at p. 346.

368 U.S. AbilityOne Commission, Fiscal Year 2017 Performance and Accountability Report, p. 3, 

https://abilityone.gov/commission/documents/U.S.%20AbilityOne%20Commission%20FY%202017%20PARFinal.pdf.

369 See Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services, Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request, 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget20/justifications/i-rehab.pdf.

370 Steve Eiken, Kate Sredl, Brian Burwell, and Angie Amos, Medicaid Expenditures for Long-Term Services and 

Supports in FY 2016 (IBM Watson Health, 2018).

371 Ridge Testimony, Briefing Transcript, p. 184.

372 Raise the Wage Act, S. 105/H.R. 582, 116th Cong. (Introduced in the U.S. Senate on Jan. 16, 2019, passed the 

U.S. House of Representatives on July 18, 2019).; U.S. House of Representatives Roll Call Vote No. 496, 116th 

Cong. (July 18, 2019), http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll496.xml.

373 Raise the Wage Act, S. 105/H.R. 582 § 2, 116th Cong.
46 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

paid to people with disabilities by raising the minimum allowed wage paid under a 14(c) certificate 

over a period of six years.374 The eventual minimum wage for people with disabilities would be 

the same as the minimum wage for all workers employed in the United States at the end of the six 

year period.

Congressman Scott, the House sponsor of the Raise the Wage Act, testified that: “This bill also 

ensures that all covered workers will make the full minimum wage. The Raise the Wage Act 

gradually phases out the 14(c) subminimum wage for the, in the Fair Labor Standards Act.”375

U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) wrote to the Commission about the Raise the Wage Act. In 

her letter to the Commission, Senator Murray described the policy reasons for phasing out 14(c), 

and the benefits that people with disabilities stand to gain by engaging in competitive integrated 

employment, stating that:

We must immediately move away from Section 14(c) and toward [competitive integrated 

employment] for all workers with disabilities. Research demonstrates that through 

supported employment, workers with disabilities can be placed in [competitive integrated 

employment] that better matches their skills and interest in less time and in a more efficient 

manner than it takes to train a worker with a disability for a job in a sheltered workshop 

with skills that are unlikely to be used in a different setting. Additionally, [competitive 

integrated employment] has many positive benefits outside of work, including more 

community engagement for the worker, higher job satisfaction, and greater independence. 

Our fundamental premise regarding workers with disabilities must shift to one that believes 

and expects that all people are capable of work, with appropriate accommodations and 

modifications, and deserve a uniform and nondiscriminatory minimum wage.376

The Raise the Wage Act includes provisions that mirror provisions of the Transformation to 

Competitive Employment Act. The Raise the Wage Act would prohibit issuance of any new 14(c) 

certificates and any previously issued, existing 14(c) certificates would cease to be effective six 

years after the enactment.377 The Act would also direct the Secretary of Labor to provide technical 

assistance upon request to employers issued a 14(c) certificate for the purposes of transitioning 

employees with disabilities to competitive integrated employment, and for providing information 

to individuals earning a subminimum wage including referrals to appropriate federal and state 

374 Raise the Wage Act, S. 105/H.R. 582 § 6(a)(1), 116th Cong.

375 U.S. Representative Robert C. Scott Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 14.

376 U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Public Comment for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on 

Civil Rights (citations omitted).

377 Raise the Wage Act, S. 105/H.R. 582 § 6(a)(2), 116th Cong.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 47

entities with experience in competitive integrated employment.378 However, the Raise the Wage 

Act does not provide grants or other financial assistance.379

At the Commission’s briefing, several panelists raised the concern that current proposals in 

Congress will force employers to pay people with disabilities and do not take into account whether 

employers have the financial capacity to pay people with disabilities minimum wage or above.

Congressman Grothman provided testimony stating that one Community Rehabilitation Programs

was serving 500 people with disabilities when operating under a 14(c) certificate, but after 

transitioning away from subminimum wages, was only able to serve 65 people.380 Grothman also 

testified that while he knows of no studies about the potential negative impact of the Act:

Common sense will tell you, study or not, that if you go up from $7.50 an hour to $15 an 

hour at the same time you get rid of 14(c), it's going to be devastating to the disability 

community. And people know exactly what they're doing, because we tried to amend it 

out.

In that minimum wage bill today, which depends on what happens politically in the next 

election, if the people who pushed that bill get what they want, it's $15 for disabled people. 

And I think it's just going to be devastating for them.381

Michele Ford, Chief Executive Officer of Inroads to Opportunities, a Community Rehabilitation 

Program, also testified at the Commission’s briefing about the difficulties posed by raising wages:

[W]e in New Jersey continue to try, community rehabilitation programs continue to try to 

brainstorm, and grow, and think of different ways to help people to become employed. But 

I know there is a huge concern because we are on our way to the $15 minimum wage. And 

already we are seeing our employment numbers, we have gone from, I guess, $8.84 to 

$10.00 in July. We're going to $11.00 in January. And we are already seeing more difficult 

times with our employment folks getting people employed.382

Congressman James R. Langevin (D-RI) wrote to the Commission in support of the Raise the 

Wage Act and elimination of subminimum wages for people with disabilities. He explained his 

view that allowing the continuation of the 14(c) program is detrimental to people with disabilities, 

stating:

378 Id. § 6(a)(2)(8).

379 See generally, Raise the Wage Act, S. 105/H.R. 582 § 6, 116th Cong.

380 U.S. Representative Glenn Grothman, Written Statement for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. 

Comm’n on Civil Rights, Nov. 15, 2019, at 3. (hereinafter Grothman Statement).

381 U.S. Representative Glenn Grothman Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 309.

382 Ford Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 125-126.
48 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

By allowing individuals with disabilities to be paid less than their able-bodied counterparts, 

the law assumes that such individuals are not capable of full employment. This narrative 

reinforces negative stereotypes and is blatantly false.....Individuals with disabilities should 

be afforded equal opportunity, full community participation, and economic selfsufficiency.383

With respect to providing minimum wages, some employers have done so without federal 

assistance. At the Commission’s briefing, Brian Collins, Senior Manager at Microsoft, testified 

that:

Microsoft does not pay less than the applicable minimum wage. We require our suppliers 

to do the same because we believe in fair wages for all. In July 2019, additional language 

was added to our supplier code of conduct to reconfirm the obligation to pay at least 

applicable minimum wage to everyone: Employment of people with disabilities, including 

those with intellectual disabilities, is the right thing to do, and it's a business imperative.

It's good for the bottom line. Research shows that companies that champion disability 

inclusion are more profitable.384

Collins further explained Microsoft’s philosophy behind its initiative to hire more people with 

disabilities, stating that “we believe that people with disabilities are a strength for our company, 

and a talent pool that adds not just diversity, but expertise that make our products, our services, 

and our culture better.”385 Since 2013, Microsoft’s Supported Employment Program has helped 

over 280 people with intellectual and developmental disabilities find jobs at Microsoft campuses 

worldwide.386 Collins stated that employing people with intellectual and developmental disabilities 

in integrated jobs at competitive wages and employer benefits aligns with Microsoft’s “mission to 

empower everyone, and our values of inclusion.”387 Further, the program targets those who may 

have been most excluded, as the mission of the program is “to make a substantial difference in the 

lives of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities who have historically been 

overlooked in the jobs market.”388

Collins explained how people with disabilities have contributed to Microsoft, stating that:

383 U.S. Representative James R. Langevin, Public Comment for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. 

Comm’n on Civil Rights.

384 Brian Collins, briefing transcript at 274-75.

385 Collins Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 272.

386 Ibid., 272-73.

387 Ibid., 274.

388 Ibid., p. 274.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 49

People with disabilities are a strength. There are many examples of employees with 

disabilities who are more loyal, reducing the cost of turnover, the cost of recruitment, and 

the cost of onboarding. We've seen employees with disabilities who are more innovative. 

They challenge the status quo. They invent inclusive solutions. We've seen employees with 

disabilities teaching their colleagues about communication, inclusion, and empathy.389

Federal Tax Credits or Other Federal Funding

Proponents of encouraging alternative employment options to 14(c) have also proposed leveraging

current federal funding supporting persons with disabilities or increasing such funding or tax 

credits. This approach differs from the Transformation to Competitive Employment Act in that it 

encourages employers and service providers to seek community employment at minimum wage or 

above for people with disabilities while preserving 14(c) employment as an option. For example, 

the Disability Employment Incentive Act, introduced in 2019, does not seek to end or phase out 

the use of 14(c) certificates to employ people with disabilities at subminimum wages. Instead, it 

proposes to increase the work opportunity credit available through Social Security Disability 

Insurance by amending the Internal Revenue Code to fund opportunity credits for vocational 

rehabilitation referrals.390 The Act provides an incentive for employers to hire people with 

disabilities who are referred from a vocational rehabilitation agency.391 The hiring entities are 

offered a tax credit defraying some of the hiring entity’s tax liability in exchange for the hiring of a 

person with a disability referred by a vocational rehabilitation agency.392 This model is similar to 

other models, such as AbilityOne (discussed further in Chapter 3), which relies on the employee’s 

Medicaid funding in order to provide supports needed to employ them at minimum wage.393 These 

models take into account that some persons with disabilities may need supports for their 

employment, or assistance in learning skills and finding jobs.

The proposed federal Disability Employment Incentive Act would also expand the available tax 

deduction for the removal of architectural and transportation barriers by allowing deductions for 

improvements to internet and telecommunications operations and raising the deduction limit from 

$15,000 to $30,000.394 The Commission received a letter from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (DMO) stating that transportation was unavailable to persons with disabilities in the rural parts of 

389 Ibid., p. 276.

390 Disability Employment Incentive Act, S. 255/H.R. 3992 § 3, 116th Cong. (Introduced in the U.S. Senate on Jan. 

29, 2019, and in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 25, 2019).

391 Id.

392 Id.

393 See infra notes 799-804.

394 Disability Employment Incentive Act, S. 255/H.R. 3992 § 5, 116th Cong. (Introduced in the U.S. Senate on Jan. 

29, 2019, and in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 25, 2019).
50 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Missouri, except through 14(c) employers.395 Several of the employees with disabilities 

interviewed in the Commission Subcommittee’s site visits in both Virginia and Vermont stated

that accessible public transportation was a problem limiting their employment opportunities, and 

that employer-provided transportation was a useful assistance to them.396

At the Commission’s briefing, panelists testified about similar alternatives to 14(c) employment

that have proven successful not only for employees, but also, profits. For example, Carol Ann 

DeSantis, Chief Executive Officer of Melwood, an AbilityOne program contractor, explained in 

written testimony to the Commission that Melwood voluntarily gave up its 14(c) certificate and 

now pays all of its employees minimum wage or above.397 When DeSantis testified before the 

Commission in November 2019, the average wage for a worker with disabilities at Melwood was 

$15.68 per hour.398 Melwood’s employees are all entitled to employee benefits such as health 

insurance and retirement contributions.399 Melwood is a non-profit organization with the mission 

of employing people with disabilities in the areas of “janitorial, recycling, warehousing, logistics, 

fulfillment, administrative and office services, building and facilities operations and management, 

and others.”400 In her testimony to the Commission, DeSantis explained how requirements of the 

14(c) program, such as time studies, negatively impacted Melwood’s employees with disabilities: 

“time trials caused our employees to feel extremely anxious and stressed, as employees knew that 

their performance could reduce their wages and harm their ability to live happy independent 

lives.”401 Furthermore, “the average employee lost five hours of productive time as a result of each 

time trial, not including the loss of productivity due to the anxiety distraction.”402

In January 2016, DeSantis recommended to Melwood’s board of directors that the agency phase 

out payment of subminimum wages and relinquish its 14(c) certificate.403 Since then, Melwood 

has grown from a $90 million organization to a $110 million organization.404 DeSantis explained 

how paying people with disabilities above the minimum wage has made a positive impact on

Melwood’s business and the community:

395 U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver, II, Written Statement for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. 

Comm’n on Civil Rights, Dec. 15, 2019, at 1.

396 See infra, notes 972, 1180, 1217, 1235, and 1237.

397 DeSantis Statement, at 4.

398 Carol Ann DeSantis, Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 211.

399 Ibid.

400 DeSantis Statement, at 1.

401 Carol Ann DeSantis, Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 209.

402 Ibid; see supra notes 135-141 (discussing legal requirements for time trials).

403 Carol Ann DeSantis, Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 211.

404 Ibid.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 51

We increased employee morale and employee satisfaction, and we now operate at more 

than 60 contract sites in Maryland, D.C., and Virginia, and soon, North Carolina, as we 

continue to develop new business opportunities and serve even more people.

According to the 2017 Melwood economic impact report, Melwood workers of differing 

abilities earned more than $27.7 million in wages and paid approximately $6 million in 

federal, state, and local taxes.

Through their spending in their communities, Melwood's workers have generated an 

additional 135 jobs in other businesses in the region, for a total induced economic output 

of nearly $19 million in the [Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia region]. In 2017, 

Melwood’s employees with disabilities earned a combined $27.7 million in wages and paid 

approximately $6 million in taxes.405

Employment First Initiatives

In recent years, the federal government has prioritized integrated support services for people with 

disabilities, as indicated in part by Congress including a mandate in the Americans with 

Disabilities Act that people with disabilities receive services, including employment services, in 

the most integrated setting possible.406 One way the federal government has attempted to promote 

integration of people with disabilities is through an Employment First model regarding 

employment and employment services for people with disabilities.407 The Department of Labor’s 

Office of Disability Employment Policy defines Employment First as “a framework for systems 

change that is centered on the premise that all citizens, including individuals with significant 

disabilities, are capable of full participation in integrated employment and community life.”408 The 

Wage and Hour Division stated in response to agency review of the Commission’s draft report

that, since 2012, the Office of Disability Employment Policy has provided targeted support and 

technical assistance to 27 states to help align policy and funding to increase competitive integrated 

employment opportunities within an Employment First framework.409 Moreover, since 2017 the 

Office of Disability Employment Policy expanded policy assistance to service providers that hold 

405 Ibid., 212.

406 42 U.S.C. § 12132; see also supra notes 192-195 (discussing the ADA’s integration mandate); see generally, 29 

U.S.C. §723 (as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Pub. L. 113-128, 128 Stat. 1425 

(2014)); and, U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities at 48 (1983) 

https://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr11081.pdf (discussing how the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 funded efforts to assist people with disabilities to achieve community living, including community 

employment).

407 Office of Disability Employment Policy, Employment First, 

https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/EmploymentFirst.htm (Last visited Apr. 1, 2020).

408 Office of Disability Employment Policy, Employment First, 

https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/EmploymentFirst.htm (Last visited Apr. 1, 2020) (emphasis in original).

409 Wage and Hour Division, Response to USCCR Affected Agency Review (May 19, 2020) (on file).
52 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Section 14(c) certificates to help them move toward competitive integrated employment, and more 

than 300 providers have participated nationally.410 In addition, all 50 states and more than 2,700 

state representatives and stakeholders participate in the Office of Disability Employment Policy’s 

Employment First Community of Practice to share strategies.411 Also, the Department of Labor’s 

Employment and Training Administration, Civil Rights Center, and the Office of Disability 

Employment Policy have worked to increase the accessibility of American Job Centers and the 

ability of the public workforce system to serve individuals with significant disabilities.412 In 

addition, the Office of Disability Employment Policy has recently launched its National Expansion 

of Employment Opportunities Network initiative.413 The effort aims to increase competitive 

integrated employment for people with disabilities by working directly with national provider 

organizations.414 The selected organizations will each receive intensive policy consulting, 

technical support, and peer mentoring to strengthen their service provider network’s capacity to 

help workers with disabilities prepare for and obtain competitive integrated employment.415 In the 

National Expansion of Employment Opportunities Network initiative’s first year, the national 

provider organization will work with subject matter experts to develop an action plan to guide 

work in future years, and each national provider organization will also receive support to help five 

of their Local Provider Organization members develop individual action plans for increasing 

competitive integrated employment opportunities for the individuals they serve.416

In her testimony to the Commission, Regina Kline explained how the ADA presumes that all 

people can work in community environments, stating that:

It is axiomatic, under the ADA, that the mainstream work environment may have barriers 

that can be removed with accommodations, if it is reasonable and not an undue burden for 

the employer to do so. Meaning, under the ADA, a barrier—not the person with a 

disability—should be removed from the work environment. Likewise, the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”) and corresponding vocational rehabilitation system has long 

recognized that some people may need individualized supports, in addition to those that 

410 Ibid.

411 Ibid.

412 Ibid.

413 Ibid.

414 Ibid.

415 Ibid.

416 Ibid.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 53

would be reasonable for an employer to provide, for the purpose of removing additional 

barriers on the job in the mainstream market.417

Alison Barkoff of the Center For Public Representation explained that the dialogue surrounding 

payment of subminimum wages should be centered on rights granted by federal law, including that 

people with disabilities have the right under the ADA to receive services in “the most integrated 

setting.”418 Barkoff further emphasized that “Federal courts have consistently and uniformly 

rejected attempts to reinterpret the ADA to mean a right to a choice of segregated settings,” and 

have held instead that people with disabilities should have the right to employment in an integrated 

setting.419

Many states across the country have adopted “Employment First” initiatives that emphasize that 

integrated employment in community settings for wages at or above the minimum wage should be 

the first preferential outcome when offering employment services to people with disabilities.420

Employment First begins with the presumption that all people can work in competitive integrated 

employment settings, regardless of ability.421 As Jennifer Mathis explained in her testimony, 

“Employment First policies [recognize] that competitive integrated employment should be the 

default option for people with disabilities.”422 The Department of Labor’s Office of Disability 

Employment Policy also explains how states that have adopted Employment First policies change 

their practices, as follows:

Under this approach, publicly-financed systems are urged to align policies, service delivery 

practices, and reimbursement structures to commit to integrated employment as the priority 

option with respect to the use of publicly-financed day and employment services for youth 

and adults with significant disabilities.423

417 Regina Kline, Partner, Brown, Goldstein & Levy, Written Statement for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before 

the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Nov. 15, 2019, at 2. (hereinafter Kline Statement).

418 Alison Barkoff, Supplemental Testimony to USCCR at 3; 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).

419 Alison Barkoff, Supplemental Testimony to USCCR at 3 (discussing Illinois League of Advocates for 

Developmentally Disabled v. Quinn, 2013 WL 3168758, at *5 (N.D. Il. 2013), aff’d 803 F.3d 872 (7th Cir 2015); 

Sciarrillo v. Christie, 2013 WL 6586569 (D.N.J. Dec. 13, 2013)); see also infra, notes 557-559 (discussing public 

comments highlighting choice).

420 SELN, Employment First Resource List at 1 (April 2019) 

http://static.smallworldlabs.com/umass/content/SELN%20Employment%20First%20resource%20list-spring2019.pdf.

421 Association of People Supporting Employment First, APSE Fact Sheet: Employment First at 1, 

https://www.apse.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/Employment%20First%20-%20Legislator%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.

422 Mathis Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing pp. 191-92.

423 U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, Employment First, 

https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/employmentfirst.htm (last accessed Feb. 14, 2020).
54 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

States that have adopted Employment First policies have committed to prioritizing competitive 

integrated employment for people with disabilities over other employment options such as 

sheltered employment in 14(c) workshops.424 When a state adopts Employment First as statewide 

policy, it does not necessarily mean that the state has prohibited the payment of subminimum 

wages or the use of 14(c) certificates within the state.

As of January 2020, 38 states have adopted Employment First policies in some form aimed at 

increasing employment opportunities for people with disabilities.425 Of those 38 states, 23 have 

passed legislation that formally made integrated employment outcomes the preferred state policy 

for people with disabilities.426 17 states plus DC have enacted Employment First polices by 

executive order or directive.

427 The remaining 10 states may have Employment First established 

as state policy by a state agency that serves people with disabilities, but do not have any executive 

action or legislation.428

Figure 1.1 shows which states have enacted differing levels of Employment First policies as of 

January 2020, and whether those states have active or pending 14(c) certificates, are phasing out 

14(c), or do not currently have any 14(c) certificate holders in the state.

424 See, e.g. Ariz. Exec. Order No. 2017-08, “The Establishment of Arizona as an Employment First State” (Nov. 15, 

2017) https://azgovernor.gov/sites/default/files/excutive_order_2017-08_employment_first_state_0.pdf. (“Arizona 

seeks to improve and coordinate efforts to increase community employment opportunities for Arizonans who have 

disabilities,” but “[n]othing in this Order shall be construed to limit the ability of a person who has a disability to 

select an employment option that they determine to be the best option for themselves”).

425 Association of People Supporting Employment First, Employment First Map, Jan. 2020 

https://apse.org/employment-first-map/.

426 Ibid.

427 Ibid.

428 Ibid.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 55

Figure 1.1: Employment First and 14(c) Status by State

Source: Association of People Supporting Employment First, Employment First Map, https://apse.org/employmentfirst-map/, and Commission Research, Figure Generated by Commission Staff.

A 2013 report from the National Governors Association recommended strategies for how state 

executives could bring Employment First policies to their states and make the employment of 

people with disabilities a central tenet of state workforce development strategies, including through 

executive orders and the introduction of legislation.429 Furthermore, the Association stated 

governors can encourage Employment First initiatives by directing state agencies to better include 

people with disabilities in economic development programs, and through better tracking of 

employment outcomes for people with disabilities, and through encouraging the development of 

public-private partnerships.430

429 National Governors Association, A Better Bottom Line: Employing People with Disabilities at 5 (2013) 

https://askearn.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/nga_2013_better_bottom_line.pdf.

430 Ibid.
56 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Michele Ford of Inroads to Opportunities testified about the impact that a state shifting to an 

Employment First policy can have on Community Rehabilitation Programs in that state, sharing 

that:

In 2012, New Jersey became an Employment First state. Some programs funded through 

Medicaid and serving individuals with developmental disabilities that were previously 

working with commensurate wages no longer do it. They stopped. So, we kind of have a 

unique situation. We have half of programs still operating under 14(c) under the state and 

[New Jersey Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services], and the programs funded 

through Medicaid, and specifically [I/DD] clients not doing it any longer.

But we have seen, my sister agencies, a growth in day programming, meaning day 

habilitation, people in the development world are going to day programs more often than 

not.431

Ford also explained some of the challenges in supporting people with disabilities in integrated 

employment, and one of the initiatives that Inroads to Opportunities has taken in recent years to 

employ people with disabilities in an integrated setting, opining that:

I think the struggle is finding employers. That's a huge thing that I haven't heard. It's about 

engagement, people wanting to work. But the employer pool is very, very difficult. Doing 

employment is very, very difficult. And we have a lot of individuals always looking for 

work; we don't always have employers willing to work with us.

So, I think that really is a very, very serious issue.

Many other agencies in our state, including us, have had to develop social enterprises and 

different business models to try to help create new opportunities for job seekers. So, we 

have a café which is regular, it's competitive, it's integrated in the community, and we use 

that a lot of times to help trial to give people experience, you know, to get an understanding. 

And they work in that bakery café.432

Enhancing 14(c)

The Commission also received some information indicating that the existing protections of Section 

14(c) could be enhanced, rather than eliminating the entire program. For example, in Missouri, the 

state Department of Education is required to evaluate and certify for each individual entering a 

14(c) program that such placement is appropriate; this, advocates say, helps ensure that placement 

431 Michele Ford Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 121-122.

432 Ibid., 123.
Chapter 1: Applicable Law & Policy Considerations 57

in a sheltered workshop is appropriate and has led to fewer graduating high school seniors choosing 

a sheltered workshop rather than competitive integrated employment.433

At a briefing held by the Arizona State Advisory Committee to the Commission, two employers 

from community service agencies advocated for reexamining who is eligible to work under a 14(c) 

certificate, and imposing limits on use of 14(c) employment to ensure that it is a training program 

and not an end destination for employment.434 One testified that she supported the elimination of 

sheltered employment settings, but not the elimination of Section 14(c), arguing that people 

working for subminimum wages experience limited progress and sheltered employment is 

ineffective in developing employment skills for people with disabilities.435 However, she is not in 

favor of ending subminimum wages, and stated that they are needed because some of the 

individuals served who earn a special minimum wage would end up with no wages.436

The Commission also received many public comments in favor of maintaining Section 14(c), some 

of which included ideas on how protections could be better enforced. One commenter suggested 

that the federal government “could reduce the approvals for 14(c) employers over time and gain 

data as to where people go, how it affects their lives and how to respect choice.”437 The implication 

is that future policy choices could be made from this type of precise data.

The Commission also received thousands of public comments urging that 14(c) should be retained, 

and the critical data received from these comments are included in the following chapter.438

433 See infra note 1013; c.f. supra notes 281-285; but see infra, notes 704-705 (discussing Advisory Committee for 

Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment recommendation that the Wage and Hour Division verify there is a 

lack of competitive integrated employment opportunities in a state before issuing any 14(c) certificates in that state).

434 Mark Jacoby, Testimony, Arizona Briefing, pp. 87-91.

435 Jennifer Baier, Testimony, Arizona Briefing, p. 95; See infra notes, 997-998.

436 Jennifer Baier, Testimony, Arizona Briefing, p. 95.

437 Public Comment No. 796 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

438 See infra notes 556-573.
58 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

[This page is left intentionally blank]
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 59

CHAPTER 2: DATA AND ANALYSIS

This chapter summarizes and evaluates available quantitative and qualitative data relevant to 

understanding the civil rights implications of Section 14(c). It also summarizes and analyzes a new 

dataset, which is the thousands of public comments received by the Commission in the 30-day 

public comment period after the Commission briefing.

Summary of Currently Available Data

Estimates of the number of people with disabilities earning a subminimum wage vary widely, as 

there is no reliable, national census of the exact number of people with disabilities working in 

14(c) sheltered workshops.

439 A recent media report estimated that roughly 420,000 people with 

disabilities were earning subminimum wages.440 Government estimates of the number of people 

with disabilities earning subminimum wages are more modest. In 2018, a National Council on 

Disability report relying on data collected by the Department of Labor found that there were 

approximately 321,131 people with disabilities working under 14(c) certificates for subminimum 

wages.441 Data reported through an initiative funded by the Department of Labor’s Office of 

Disability Employment Policy used data collected by the Wage and Hour Division that showed

the number of people with disabilities employed under 14(c) certificates was smaller and has 

declined over the past three years. This is in part because they used a snapshot rather than the 

cumulative method of the National Council on Disability.442 According to the Wage and Hour 

Division, in 2017, there were a reported 164,347 people with disabilities working for 14(c) 

certificate holding entities, and then 130,951 in 2018, declining to 111,471 employees earning 

subminimum wages in 2019.443 As of April 2019, the Division’s records indicated that there were 

approximately 109,000 people with disabilities identified on 14(c) certificate applications as being 

paid a subminimum wage by a certificate holder.444 The National Council on Disability explained 

the wide discrepancy in 2018 numbers in its report, stating that:

Based on the available estimated number, however, [Wage and Hour Division] currently 

reports a total of 141,081 people paid under 14(c) certificates in 2018, approximately only 

439 Zeigler Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 68-69.

440 Rachel West, Everyone Is Overlooking a Key Part of the New $15 Minimum Wage Bill, talk poverty (Jun. 19, 

2019) https://talkpoverty.org/2019/06/19/everyone-overlooking-key-part-new-15-minimum-wage-bill/.

441 National Council on Disability, National Disability Employment Policy, From the New Deal to the Real Deal: 

Joining the Industries of the Future at 26-27 (2018).

442 See infra note 445, and accompanying text explaining the difference in methods.

443 The Lead Center, Data and Resources to Inspire a Vision of Employment, National Data, 

http://www.drivedisabilityemployment.org/national-data (last visited Jan. 22, 2020).

444 Butterworth Testimony, Subminimum Wage Briefing, p. 95.
60 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

a third of the number of 14(c) workers reported by the [Government Accountability Office]

17 years ago. However, in the same month that it supplied [the National Council on 

Disability] with this data, it provided a wildly different estimate to Congress of 

approximately 321,131 workers employed by 14(c) certificate-holders, closer to [the 

Government Accountability Office’s] original estimate. [Wage and Hour Division] has 

clarified that the 141,081 estimate represents only those workers employed at the 

certificate-holder’s main establishment, whereas 321,131 represents the estimated total of 

workers employed at all establishments associated with the certificate-holder.445

As discussed herein, among other information, Wage and Hour Division data shows that 14(c) 

certificates are currently issued in 46 states and the District of Columbia, and that there is a 

significant number and percent of violations of the provisions protecting workers in 14(c) settings.

Census data is another key data set providing valuable information about employment of persons 

with disabilities. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau surveys the following types of disabilities: 

hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, 

and independent living difficulty.

446 According to Dr. John Butterworth, Director of Employment 

Systems Change and Evaluation Senior Research Fellow at University of Massachusetts Boston’s 

Institute for Community Inclusion, studies conducted by the institute show over 96 percent of 

people with disabilities working for a 14(c) certificate holder work for a Community Rehabilitation 

Program, and more than 80 percent of those employees have an intellectual or developmental 

disability (defined by the Census as “cognitive difficulty”447) as of April 2019.448 This means that 

an estimated 83.3 percent of persons working in 14(c) settings have intellectual or developmental 

disabilities.449 Census data also show that very generally speaking, persons with intellectual or 

developmental disabilities may have the hardest time finding employment.450 However further 

445 National Council on Disability, National Disability Employment Policy, From the New Deal to the Real Deal: 

Joining the Industries of the Future at 27 (2018).

446 U.S. Census, How Disability Data Are Collected by the American Community Survey, 

https://www.census.gov/topics/health/disability/guidance/data-collection-acs.html (“Disability data come from the 

American Community Survey (ACS), the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), and the Current 

Population Survey (CPS). All three surveys ask about six disability types: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, 

cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. Respondents who 

report anyone of the six disability types are considered to have a disability.”).

447 Ibid. (“The questions introduced in 2008 remain the same questions found in the current ACS questionnaires. 

They cover six disability types (and their PUMS variable): . . . Cognitive difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, 

or emotional problem, having difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions (DREM).”).

448 Butterworth Testimony, Subminimum Wage Briefing, p 95.

449 80% of 96 = 83.3%

450 See infra note 472 (discussing Census data of employment statistics by type of disability).
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 61

data and testimony reviewed by the Commission indicates that when given the opportunity and 

support needed, the persons in this category are capable of competitive integrated employment.451

Several panelists at the Commission’s November 2019 briefing testified about how lack of data 

collection by the government hinders efforts to understand the 14(c) program and the population 

whom it serves.452 For example, Professor Butterworth of UMass Boston’s Institute on 

Community Inclusion is part of a group of researchers who collect national data about employment 

opportunities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Butterworth noted in his 

written testimony to the Commission that no federal national data exist on individuals with 

disabilities who are paid a subminimum wage.453 In fact, his data collection efforts rely on data 

provided by state agencies or independent surveys, rather than data from the federal 

government.454 According to a national survey of people with disabilities conducted in part by 

Butterworth, between 2017 and 2018, the average wage of a person with a disability working under 

a 14(c) certificate was $3.34 per hour,

455 and the average number of hours worked was 16 hours 

per week.456 This means that the average person with a disability working at a 14(c) certificate 

holding entity earned just $53.44 per week, or $213.76 per month.

As Mary Zeigler of the Wage and Hour Division described during her testimony, data published 

by the Wage and Hour Division, including the number of people with disabilities working for 14(c) 

certificate holders, is a “snapshot” in time and is not intended to be a comprehensive national 

census of all people with disabilities working for 14(c) certificate holders.457 Instead, these data 

consist of what 14(c) certificate holders reported to the federal government on their applications 

when asked to state how many persons with disabilities they have employed during the most recent 

fiscal quarter, but the total number of employees over the course of a year is typically higher.458

Wage and Hour reports the number of people with disabilities working for a 14(c) certificate holder 

based on what is stated in the application, however that number is not static and may change over 

time.459 Wage and Hour Division characterized their data as a “snapshot” for several other reasons. 

451 See infra notes 542-547 (discussing further data and testimony).

452 Romano Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 38-39; Butterworth Testimony, Subminimum Wages 

Briefing, pp. 98, 111.

453 Butterworth Statement at 2.

454 Butterworth Testimony, Subminimum Wage Briefing, pp. 94-95.

455 Butterworth Statement at 3.

456 Ibid.

457 Zeigler Testimony, Subminimum Wage Briefing, p 69.

458 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 9 at 4-5.

459 Applicants must only report the number of people with disabilities employed and earning a subminimum wage 

during the preceding fiscal quarter, see, Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 9 at 4.
62 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

First, 14(c) certificates expire 1-2 years after they are issued;460 however 14(c) certificate holders 

are not required to provide updates to Wage and Hour between renewal applications.461 Second, 

as each 14(c) certificate is issued following the date of application, they are issued at different 

times rather than on a certain date, making the total number of 14(c) employees a set of “snapshots” 

from different dates.462 Moreover, Wage and Hour only updates the list of current and pending 

14(c) certificates twice annually, in January and July, meaning that any data reported is staggered 

and not continuously updated.463 Finally, entities with pending 14(c) certificate renewals are 

permitted to continue operations while their application is reviewed, however Wage and Hour does 

not report the number of people with disabilities working for that entity during the most recent 

fiscal quarter until an application has been approved.464 For example, Wage and Hour provides 

data on their website about the 1,281 currently issued certificates and 277 pending certificates (13 

initial applications and 264 renewal applications), but does not provide any information about the 

number of people employed at entities seeking a renewal of their certificate.465 From this data, 

trends can be examined, but some workers with disabilities may be left out, and that is why in 

2108, National Council on Disability estimated there were 321,131 14(c) employees when Wage 

and Hour Division’s snapshot of data only counted 130,951.466

There are other national studies that the Commission took into account. For example, despite data 

showing low labor force participation rates for people with disabilities, a national study by 

Massachusetts’ Institute for Community Inclusion found that 47 percent of unemployed people 

with disabilities want a job in the community.467 During the same time period, the number of 14(c) 

certificate holders also declined from 1,772 in 2017 to 1,390 in 2019.468 In addition, although it is 

a different type of data because it is based on highly voluntary participation, the Commission 

460 Wage and Hour Division, Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 9 at 4-5; Wage and Hour Division, Field 

Operations Handbook Chapter 64 § 64d01(a) (“Work Center and Patient Worker certificates are issued for 2-year 

periods. Business Establishment (Special Worker) certificates, including SE and SWEP certificates, are issued for a 

1-year period.”); See supra, Note 457.

461 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 9 at 4-5.

462 Ibid.

463 See infra notes 598-600.

464 29 C.F.R. § 525.13(b) (“If an application for renewal has been properly and timely filed, an existing special 

minimum wage certificate shall remain in effect until the application for renewal has been granted or denied”).

465 U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders, 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders (last accessed Apr. 7, 

2020) (data is as of Jan. 1, 2020).

466 See supra note 443.

467 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2016. University of Massachusetts 

Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 3.

468 The Lead Center, Data and Resources to Inspire a Vision of Employment, National Data, 

http://www.drivedisabilityemployment.org/national-data (last visited Jan. 22, 2020).
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 63

appreciated the thousands of public comments received in the 30 days after the briefing and 

analyzes the resulting dataset herein. The Commission also took into account testimony received, 

and questions asked and answered during and after the briefing. Each of these datasets are 

discussed in turn below.

Data Focusing on People with Disabilities and Their Employment

In 2018, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated based on its 1-year American Community Survey that 

there were approximately 40,637,764 people with disabilities in the United States, making up 12.6 

percent of a total estimated U.S. population of 322,249,485.

469 Looking at this data over time 

shows that the number of persons who self-identify as persons with disabilities has been 

increasing.470 For example, in 2010, the same 1-year American Community Survey found that 

approximately 11.9 percent of the total estimated population identified themselves as persons with 

disabilities.471 Reviewing Census data, the University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability 

found that:

• As the US population ages, the percentage of people with disabilities increases. In the US 

in 2016, less than 1.0% of the under 5 years old population had a disability.

• For those ages 5-17, the rate was 5.6%. For ages 18-64, the rate was 10.6%. For people 

ages 65 and older, 35.2% had a disability.

• In 2016, of the US population with disabilities, over half (51.0%) were people in the 

working ages of 18-64, while 41.4% were 65 and older.

• Disability in children and youth accounted for only 7.3% (ages 5-17) and 0.4% (under 5 

years old).

• From 2008 to 2016, the percentages of people with each type of disability have remained 

relatively unchanged. The percentage of people with ambulatory disabilities, cognitive 

disabilities, and independent living disabilities rose by 0.2 to 0.3 points over the period, 

while people with hearing, vision, and self-care disabilities rose 0.1 point or less.

469 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2018), Disability Characteristics, Table S1810, 

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=S18&d=ACS%201-

Year%20Estimates%20Subject%20Tables&tid=ACSST1Y2018.S1810&hidePreview=true&y=2018&moe=false.

470 The U.S. Census uses self-identification (also known as survey data) as its main method of research. See, U.S. 

Census Bureau, American Community Survey Design and Methodology, (Jan. 30, 2014) 

https://www2.census.gov/programssurveys/acs/methodology/design_and_methodology/acs_design_methodology_report_2014.pdf.

471 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2010), Disability Characteristics, Table S1810, 

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSST1Y2010.S1810&t=Disability&vintage=2018&hidePreview=true&ci

d=S1810_C01_001E.
64 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

• In the US in 2016, 35.9% of people with disabilities ages 18-64 living in the community 

were employed. The employment percentage was more than double for people without 

disabilities, 76.6%.

• The employment gap, difference between the employment percentage for people with 

disabilities (35.9%) and people without disabilities (76.6%), was 40.7 percentage points.472

There was a slight but statistically insignificant decrease in the percentage of persons with 

disabilities between the 2017 and 2018 American Community Survey.473

Employment and Labor Force Participation Rates of People with Disabilities

The American Community Survey found that the number of employed persons with a disability 

fluctuated between 2008 and 2017, decreasing between 2008 and 2010, before trending upward 

during the economic recovery that occurred in the United States post-2010.474

Chart 2.1

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, Population Data from the American 

Community Survey

472 University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability, 2017 Disability Statistics Annual Report, p. 2, 

https://disabilitycompendium.org/sites/default/files/user-uploads/2017_AnnualReport_2017_FINAL.pdf.

473 Ibid., 3-4.

474 Statedata.info. (2020). Population Data from the American Community Survey (Post 2007), Any Disability. U.S. 

Total: Number of people employed, retrieved 02/04/2020 from http://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/814103.

5,800,000

6,000,000

6,200,000

6,400,000

6,600,000

6,800,000

7,000,000

7,200,000

7,400,000

7,600,000

7,800,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of People with a Disability Employed
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 65

While the employment rate of people with disabilities has increased over the past decade, the 

participation rate of people with disabilities in the workforce is low when compared to the general 

U.S. population. As shown in Chart 2.2, between 2014 and 2016, the workforce participation rate 

for people with disabilities hovered around 30 percent, while the labor force participation rate for 

people without disabilities was approximately 76 percent.475

Chart 2.2

Source: Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics News Release. (2014, 2015,2016). Retrieved May 13, 

2020, from https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/home.htm

A survey of state vocational rehabilitation agencies showed the majority of people with disabilities 

who attended a vocational rehabilitation services program between 2007 and 2016 identify as 

white and male.476 The survey also found that the percentage of non-white people with disabilities 

475 The LEAD Center, Data and Resources to Inspire a Vision of Employment, National Data, 

http://www.drivedisabilityemployment.org/national-data#quicktabs-national_big_screen=0. Persons with a 

Disability: Labor Force Characteristics News Release. (2014, 2015,2016). Retrieved May 13, 2020, from 

https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/home.htm see also supra note 474 (discussing 2008 market decline and 

subsequent recovery).

476 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2016. Boston, MA: University of 

Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 25.

30.20% 30.50% 31.20%

76.20% 76.10% 76.40%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

2014 2015 2016

Labor Force Participation Rate for People with Disabilities 

compared to People without Disabilities 

National Labor Force Participation Rate (all disabilities)

National Labor Force Participation Rate (NO disabilities)
66 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

has been increasing since 2007.477 In 2016, 62 percent of people with disabilities were white, 24 

percent were black, 12 percent were Latino, and 3 percent identified as another ethnicity.478 Fiftysix percent were male, and 44 percent were female.479

People of color with disabilities may experience dual or intersectional forms of discrimination. For 

example, in 2019, the Commission’s research found intersectional disparities in education, 

“show[ing] that many schools throughout the United States utilize and rely upon discipline policies 

that allow for disproportionate removal of students of color with disabilities from classrooms, often 

for minor infractions of school rules and often in ways that are inappropriately applied by teachers, 

non-administrative staff, and school officials.”480 The Commission found that these intersectional 

disparities were “stark,” for example, black students with disabilities lost approximately 77 more 

days of instruction compared to white students with disabilities.481

Available Intersectional Data

Finn Gardiner of Brandeis University testified that the intersectional data on race and disability is 

currently insufficient to fully understand the way people with disabilities enter and exit 

subminimum wage or sheltered employment, stating:

For example, people of color who may have reduced employment opportunities because of 

systemic racism may find themselves being shunted into these work centers, these sheltered 

workshops, because of both a combination of systemic prejudice based on both their race 

and their disability and I feel that having that kind of intersectional approach regarding 

employment and disability and race is also important.482

477 Ibid., p.25; State Vocational Rehabilitation services are authorized and funded by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

29 U.S.C. §§ 720-21, as amended. Vocational Rehabilitation services aim to advance the employment of individuals 

with disabilities, see, 29 U.S.C. § 721(a)(6)(B).

478 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2016. Boston, MA: University of 

Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 25-26.

479 Ibid.

480 U.S. Com’n on Civil Rights, Beyond Suspension: Examining School Discipline Policies and Connections to the 

School-to-Prison Pipeline for Students of Color with Disabilities, July 2019 https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/07-

23-Beyond-Suspensions.pdf, p. 9.

481 Ibid. at 163.

482 Gardiner Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 165.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 67

Table 2.1: 2018 Labor Force Participation of People with Disabilities by Race

Race Labor Force Participation Rate (percent)

White 21.0

Black 18.4

Asian 18.4

Hispanic or Latino/a 23.1

Source: Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics News Release. (2014, 2015, 2016). Retrieved May 

13, 2020, from https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/home.htm.

When focused on people with intellectual or developmental disabilities (“ID” in Table 2.2), the 

percentage of people with disabilities who identify as white falls by about eight percent, from 62 

percent to 56 percent.483

Table 2.2: Demographic Trends of People with Disabilities 2007-2016

Source: Institute for Community Inclusion, Rehabilitation Services Administration

483 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2016. Boston, MA: University of 

Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 25-26.
68 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Failure to collect sufficient data about employment outcomes for people with disabilities is a 

persistent issue across federal and state government agencies.484 The Final Report from the 

Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities recommended that the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human 

Services, along with the Social Security Administration coordinate data collection with the goal of 

providing recommendations to states to enhance data collection at the state and local level.485

The Wage and Hour Division does not collect data on average subminimum wages paid to people 

with disabilities, or how subminimum wages paid to people with disabilities have changed over 

time, nor do they collect data about race.

486 Some studies have attempted to gather an 

understanding of national trends based on data compiled by state agencies.487 However, data 

collected from states is incomplete, as not all states report metrics about people with disabilities in 

a consistent manner, if at all.488

Data about 14(c) Certificate Holders and Employees with Disabilities

Data and Resources to Inspire a Vision of Employment, ,an initiative by the LEAD Center at the 

National Disability Institute funded by the Office of Disability Employment Policy, collects some 

aggregate data about 14(c) employment of people with disabilities based on information submitted 

in 14(c) applications.489 The Center reported a decline over the last three years in the number of 

people with disabilities reportedly working for subminimum wages under a 14(c) certificate from 

484 Romano Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 38; Barkoff Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 

45-46; Butterworth Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 105-06, 112-13, 118; Gardiner Testimony, 

Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 164-65; Christensen Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 210; Kline 

Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 305-06; Lewis Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 284, 306-

07.

485 Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities at 17, 100 (Sept. 15, 2016).

486 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory Nos. 16-17 at 7.

487 See e.g. Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes. through 2016. Boston, MA: University of 

Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion.

488 Butterworth Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 112; See, Butterworth Response to USCCR Follow-Up 

Question No. 2 at 1-2.

489 The LEAD Center, Data and Resources to Inspire a Vision of Employment, National Data, 

http://www.drivedisabilityemployment.org/national-data#quicktabs-national_big_screen=0. This summary statistic 

is available on the DRIVE website (http://www.drivedisabilityemployment.org/national-data), which aggregates 

publicly available information on 14(c) certificate holders made available by DOL’s Wage and Hour Division 

(https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders)
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 69

164,347 people with disabilities working for a 14(c) certificate holder in 2017 to 111,471 people 

with disabilities working for a 14(c) certificate holder in 2019, as shown in the chart below.

490

Chart 2.3

Source: The LEAD Center, Data and Resources to Inspire a Vision of Employment

The decline in the number of people with disabilities working in 14(c) workshops has been 

accompanied by a similar decline in the overall number of 14(c) certificate holders. Chart 2.4 

shows the number of 14(c) certificate holding entities declined from 1,772 in 2017 to 1,433 in 

2019, a drop of 339 entities. Data presented in written testimony to the Commission by Indiana 

University’s Dr. Teresa Grossi suggests an even more stark reduction of 1,026 14(c) certificates, 

and a reduction of 145,229 individuals with disabilities employed under a 14(c) certificate since 

2016.491

490 This summary statistic is available on the DRIVE website (http://www.drivedisabilityemployment.org/nationaldata), which aggregates publicly available information on 14(c) certificate holders made available by DOL’s Wage 

and Hour Division (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/certificateholders)Ibid.

491 Grossi Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing, at 3.

164,347

130,951

111,471

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

2017 2018 2019

Total reported number of people with disabilities working under 

14(c) certificate holding entities.
70 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Chart 2.4

Source: Wage and Hour Division

The publicly available national data tracked by the Department of Labor is limited by what the 

Wage and Hour Division collects on 14(c) applications or 14(c) renewal applications. While the 

Wage and Hour Division has recently shifted to allowing entities to apply for a 14(c) certificate 

using a digital application, the information collected remains the same.

492 As discussed, this 

limited information is ,

493 unable to provide complete data on the number of people with 

disabilities working for subminimum wages beyond the snapshot in time that Wage and Hour 

Division already collects, namely the number of employees with disabilities working for 

subminimum wages during the most recent fiscal quarter before a 14(c) certificate holder applies 

for a certificate renewal.

494

Wage and Hour Division has been undertaking a modernization of its Section 14(c) systems, 

including its certificate application processing and the new online certificate application.495

Because the Wage and Hour Division is in the process of migrating to these digital systems, the 

Division has not yet been able to effectively analyze how the digital application will impact data 

492 Wage and Hour Division, Response to USCCR Affected Agency Review (May 19, 2020) (on file).

493 Wage and Hour Division, Response to USCCR Affected Agency Review (May 19, 2020) (on file).

494 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 19 at 8; See supra, notes 458-465 (describing 

the limited data WHD collects from 14(c) certificate applications).

495 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 19 at 8; See infra, notes 458-462 (describing the 

limited data Wage and Hour Division collects from 14(c) certificate applications).

1,772

1,576

1,433

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2017 2018 2019

Total Number of 14(c) certificate holding entities.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 71

collection and analysis, or how the Wage and Hour Division can use this electronically collected

data to inform its administration of the 14(c) program.496 Also, unfortunately, despite the 

expectation that it might provide additional data,497 the data collected on the new online application 

is the same as the limited data from the old paper application.498

Data collected by the Wage and Hour Division through 14(c) certificate applications includes:

• the total number of establishments and work sites covered by the certificate;

• the number of workers with disabilities covered by the certificate at the end of the most 

recent fiscal quarter;

• whether the certificate holder has certain government contracts, such as those subject to the 

Service Contract Act;

• information about prevailing wage studies the applicant has conducted for workers earning 

an hourly wage;

• information about work measurement or time studies conducted by the applicant for 

workers earning an hourly wage;

• information about prevailing wage studies conducted for workers earning a piece rate;

• information about work measurement or time studies conducted by the applicant for 

workers earning a piece rate;

• the number of workers with disabilities for whom the applicant was a representative payee 

for Social Security Benefits; and

• information about whether the applicant addressed the requirements under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act.

499

Starkly missing from this dataset is any demographic information, information about how long 

employees stay on or move on to competitive integrated employment, nor any detail about the type 

of job training and information about opportunities to pursue competitive integrated employment 

496 Zeigler Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 51-52; Wage and Hour Division, Response to USCCR 

Affected Agency Review (May 19, 2020) (on file).

497 See, National Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, pp. 26-27 

(Oct. 16, 2018) https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/NCD_Deal_Report_508.pdf; See also, Wage and Hour 

Division, Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 18 at 7-8.

498 Wage and Hour Division, Response to Affected Agency Review (May 19, 2020) (on file).

499 U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Form WH-226: Application for Authority to Employ Workers 

with Disabilities at Subminimum Wages (Revised Dec. 2016) https://www.dol.gov/whd/forms/wh226.pdf; Wage 

and Hour Division, Response to USCCR Affected Agency Review (May 19, 2020) (on file).
72 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

provided under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.500 Many individuals who 

submitted public comments to the Commission expressed concern that there are not yet enough 

data to formulate a clear picture of who people being paid subminimum wages are, and what the 

employment outcomes are for people with disabilities who transition to competitive 

employment.501 Additionally, the National Council on Disability called on the Secretary of Labor 

to update the 14(c) application to collect more data about 14(c) certificate holders and people with 

disabilities, including the number of workers with disabilities earning subminimum wages and the 

number who have transitioned to competitive integrated employment.502 The Commission

received testimony that argued that while more data about people with disabilities could be 

collected, the data currently available is sufficient to understand that it is time to remedy the 

inequities caused by the Section 14(c) certificate program.503

Data about Transitioning to Competitive Integrated Employment

While data show the number of people employed in 14(c) workshops decreasing over time, the 

number of people with disabilities working in competitive employment as reported by state 

intellectual and developmental disabilities agencies has increased dramatically over the past few 

decades, from approximately 33,092 in 1988 to approximately 130,402 in 2017.504 This reporting 

increase may be because the total population of persons with disabilities has also increased in 

recent years.505 State data also shows that the percentage of people with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities working in competitive integrated employment has remained low, as 

just 19 percent of working age adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities who are 

supported by state agencies had a competitive, integrated job.506 As discussed, because of federal 

500 Ibid. For example, the question asking for information about “Requirements under the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act” only asks: “Did the employer review, verify, and maintain documentation showing that the worker 

received all services and counseling required by WIOA before paying the worker a subminimum wage?,” which is 

followed by blanks for employee names and dates, with no request for nor any room for any additional information. 

Ibid., 16(b).

501 See, e.g. U.S. Representative Sam Graves, Written Statement for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the 

U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Jan. 10, 2020 at 1 (on file).

502 Nat’l Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, p. 102 (Oct. 

2018) https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/NCD_Deal_Report_508.pdf.

503 See, e.g., U.S. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Written Statement for the Subminimum Wages Briefing 

before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Jan. 15, 2020 at 1 (on file).

504 UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info. State IDD Agencies. U.S. Total: Integrated 

employment, number.

http://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/686484 (last accessed Feb. 1, 2020).

505 See supra notes 469-472.

506 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2016. Boston, MA: University of 

Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 3; see infra notes 512-513.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 73

funding structures for Community Rehabilitation Programs, there is relatively more data about 

persons in this category.507

Chart 2.5

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, State IDD Agencies. U.S. Total: 

Integrated employment, number. Retrieved 02/01/2020 from http://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/686484.

Researchers have also found that:

In the [intellectual/developmental disabilities] system, national estimates suggest that there 

has been only modest growth in the number of individuals in integrated employment 

services since 1988. The estimated percentage of individuals participating in integrated 

employment services was 18.8% in FY2016, while investment in non-work services 

continues to expand. FY2016 data do suggest slight growth in the number of people in

integrated employment services over the last five years. Several states each reported an 

increase of more than 500 individuals in integrated employment services over that fiveyear period.508

Data regarding all persons with disabilities (not just those with intellectual/developmental 

disabilities) show similar trends of less employment than the general population. For example, 

Census data show that in 2016, 67.3 percent of working age people without a disability were 

507 See supra note 101.

508 Ibid., 2.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1988 1990 1993 1996 1999 2001 2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of People with Disabilities Working in Integrated 

Employment as Reported by State I/DD Agencies
74 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

employed509 compared to only 35.5 percent of working age people with disabilities.510

Employment rates can vary depending on type of disability.511 For example, among the six 

categories that the Census uses for type of disability, those with hearing disabilities were employed 

at 51.7 percent, while 43.5 percent of those with vision disabilities were employed, followed by 

26.3 percent of persons with cognitive disabilities, 24.8 percent of those with ambulatory 

disabilities, 17.0 percent of those unable to live independently, and 15.5 percent of those with selfcare challenges.512 Some believe that those with intellectual/developmental disabilities have the 

most challenges in being able to work productively. The most comparable Census category is 

persons with cognitive disabilities, and they reported 26.3 percent employment rates, not the 

lowest and actually, among the five Census categories, they had the second-highest employment 

rates.513

Even though the number of people with disabilities working in 14(c) workshops has decreased in 

recent years, and the number of people with disabilities working in competitive integrated 

employment is increasing, it is difficult to determine whether people with disabilities are moving 

from segregated employment in 14(c) workshops to competitive integrated employment. As Grossi 

noted in her testimony, national data does not exist that tracks how long people with disabilities 

remain in 14(c) employment, what happens after an individual is no longer working for a 14(c) 

employer, the wages that a person with a disability earns whether working under a 14(c) certificate 

or in competitive integrated employment, or demographic information including type of 

disability.514 Regardless of ability to track the movement of people with disabilities in and out of 

14(c) workshops, Grossi testified that the data does show people with disabilities and their families 

express an opinion that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities can work in the 

community, and would consider competitive integrated employment if presented with the 

option.515

In a random survey of people with disabilities by 44 states voluntarily participating in the National 

Core Indicators tracking of disability services, 45 percent of individuals with intellectual or 

509 UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info. (2020). Population Data from the American 

Community Survey (Post 2007), Any Disability. U.S. Total: Percent of Working-Age People Who Are Employed. 

Retrieved 02/13/2020 from http://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/505500.

510 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Employment Status by Disability and Type (2016) 

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=B18120%3A%20EMPLOYMENT%20STATUS%20BY%20DISABILITY%

20STATUS%20AND%20TYPE&hidePreview=true&tid=ACSDT1Y2016.B18120.

511 See infra notes 512-518.

512 Kraus, L., Lauer, E., Coleman, R., and Houtenville, A., University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability, 

2017 Disability Statistics Annual Report p. 18 (2018), https://disabilitycompendium.org/sites/default/files/useruploads/2017_AnnualReport_2017_FINAL.pdf.

513 Ibid.

514 Grossi Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing at 3.

515 Ibid., 3-4.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 75

developmental disabilities who did not have a job indicated they wanted a competitive job.516

However, only 43 percent of those who wanted a competitive job had an employment goal in their 

employment service plan to achieve such an outcome.517 Butterworth also noted in his testimony 

before the Commission that people with disabilities not working in a community job want more 

job options, noting “[a]lmost half of them say they want a job in the community. And this speaks 

directly to unrealized goals and dreams.”518

In his testimony before the Commission, Anil Lewis, Executive Director of Blindness Initiatives

at National Federation of the Blind, discussed data the government should be collecting to better 

facilitate opportunities for competitive integrated employment for people with disabilities.

The data we should be looking at is: what is going to be that cost to implement those 

innovative systems that create opportunity for those individuals who were previously 

deemed unemployable to obtain competitive employment? Because there are so many 

examples of people who have been labeled unemployable, that when they're put in an 

environment with individuals that believe in their capacity, set their expectations, provide 

the proper training and support, they obtain competitive, integrated employment.519

There is some data about Community Rehabilitation Programs, which represent 93 percent of 14(c) 

certificate holders as of January 1, 2020 according to the Wage and Hour Division’s snapshot of 

current and pending certificate holders.

520 This data shows that in recent years, the types of services 

provided by Community Rehabilitation Programs have been gradually shifting from offering 

purely facility-based services, to providing a mix of facility based and integrated services.521 In 

2002-2003, eighteen percent (18%) of individuals receiving services from a Community 

Rehabilitation Program received services in an integrated setting.522 In 2010-2011, that number 

rose to 28 percent, and in 2014-2015, the number rose again to 38 percent of individuals receiving 

at least some services in an integrated setting.523 However, as Butterworth cautioned in his 

516 National Core Indicators, National Core Indicators At-A-Glance Report: 2017-2018, p. 4 (2018), 

https://www.nationalcoreindicators.org/upload/core-indicators/NCI_AtAGlanceReport_1718_Final_May2019.pdf.

517 Grossi, Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing at 4 (state vocational rehabilitation and/or agencies that work 

with people with intellectual and developmental disabilities develop service plans that include employment goals 

and steps the individual and service provider will take to achieve those goals).

518 Butterworth Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 97.

519 Anil Lewis Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 294.

520 See infra note 599.

521 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes. through 2016. Boston, MA: University of 

Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 3.

522 Ibid.

523 Ibid.
76 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

testimony to the Commission, services defined as integrated may include small group employment 

that still pays a subminimum wage to people with disabilities.524

Figure 2.1 shows that as of 2017, the overwhelming majority of people with intellectual or 

developmental disabilities were still receiving employment services in a segregated setting.

524 Butterworth Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 96; Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, 

A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). StateData: The national report on employment services and 

outcomes. through 2016. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 3.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 77

Figure 2.1

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, StateData.info
78 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

The data show a large gap in weekly wages earned by the general population as compared to 

individuals with intellectual disabilities, the largest population served by 14(c) certificate holders 

($865 per week for the general population compared to $200 per week for individuals with 

intellectual disabilities in 2014).525

Figure 2.2

Source: Institute for Community Inclusion

As shown by Chart 2.6, between 2008 and 2016, the average number of hours that people with 

intellectual and developmental disabilities worked on a weekly basis declined slightly from 2008 

when they worked an average of 32.8 hours per week to a low of 31.8 hours per week in 2011. 

The average number of hours worked per week by people with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities (termed “cognitive disabilities”) increased between 2011 and 2016 to an average of 33 

hours per week, slightly more than the average number of hours worked in 2008.

525 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2016. Boston, MA: University of 

Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 24.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 79

Chart 2.6

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, Cognitive Disability. U.S. Total: Weekly 

hours worked.

Retrieved 02/05/2020 from http://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/905726

Data from the 2016 American Community Survey conducted by the Census Bureau and analyzed 

by the Institute for Community Inclusion found that people with cognitive disabilities worked 

fewer weeks during a 12-month period on average than people without disabilities.526 People with 

cognitive disabilities also worked fewer weeks on average than people with other types of 

disabilities, and as compared with people in the workforce without disabilities.527

526 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2016. Boston, MA: University of 

Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 30.

527 Ibid., p.30.

32.8

32.19

32.06

31.76

31.99

32.06 32.06 32

33

31

31.2

31.4

31.6

31.8

32

32.2

32.4

32.6

32.8

33

33.2

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Average Weekly Hours Worked 2008-2016, People with Cognitive 

Disabilities
80 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Figure 2.3

Source: Institute for Community Inclusion

As Butterworth identified in his written testimony to the Commission, there are significant gaps in 

the data about individual outcomes as people with disabilities transition out of subminimum wage 

jobs.528 In response to a question during the Commission’s November 2019 briefing, Butterworth 

stated that possibly the only data on movement of people with disabilities from subminimum wage 

employment to competitive integrated employment suggests that three to five percent of people 

working in Community Rehabilitation Programs transition to competitive integrated employment; 

however that data comes from a study published in 1979.529

Butterworth testified that there has not been a study compiling data on the number of people with 

disabilities who have transitioned from Community Rehabilitation Programs to competitive 

528 Ibid., 5.

529 Butterworth and Grossi Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 114-115.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 81

integrated employment since the 1979 study.530 Furthermore, there is no national data available 

that tracks what happens to people with disabilities who were working for 14(c) certificate holders 

in states that have abolished the payment of subminimum wages.531 Additionally, the federal 

government does not collect consistent, national data of people working in sheltered workshops, 

including their disability, their wages, their hours, and how long they have been employed under 

a 14(c) certificate.532

However, the National Council on Disability and others have collected relevant economic data. 

According to data summarized by the National Council on Disability, a productivity or profitability 

analysis does not apply to 14(c), as most employees receive some form of supported employment 

benefits:

The 14(c) subminimum wage program is utilized primarily by nonprofit or state-operated 

social services providers— specifically, sheltered workshops—rather than private, forprofit businesses. According to GAO, 95 percent of all workers with disabilities being paid 

less than minimum wage under the 14(c) program were employed by sheltered 

workshops.533

Also:

People with disabilities in supported employment who had previously been served in 

sheltered workshop settings do not show a higher rate of employment as compared to those 

who had gone straight to supported employment without ever being in a sheltered 

workshop. However, research indicates that those who had previously been in sheltered 

workshops had higher support costs and lower wages than comparable people who had 

never been in sheltered workshop settings.534

Further, as discussed herein, companies such as Microsoft and Melwood have seen financial 

benefits as a result of paying people with disabilities minimum wage or above.535 For example: 

530 Ibid., 108.

531 Ibid., 112.

532 Butterworth Statement, at 5.

533 Nat’l Council on Disability, Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment p. 11 (Aug. 23, 2012) 

https://www.ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Sub%20Wage_508.pdf.

534 Ibid., 11.

535 Collins Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 275 (Research shows companies that promote disability 

inclusion are more profitable and are four times more likely to have a total shareholder return that outperforms their 

peers); DeSantis Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 3-4 (an economic impact report found that “Melwood 

workers of differing abilities earned more than $27.7 million in wages and paid approximately $6 million in federal, 

state and local taxes. Through their spending in their communities, Melwood’s employees of differing abilities have 

helped generate an additional 135 jobs in other businesses in the region and their total induced economic output was 

nearly $19 million in the [Washington, DC metro area]”).
82 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

“Research indicates that employees receiving supported employment services generate lower 

cumulative costs than employees receiving sheltered workshop services and that, whereas the costtrend of supported employees shifts downward over time, the opposite is the case for people 

receiving sheltered workshop services.”536

Transitions to competitive integrated employment may also be aided by the provision of services 

to assist the employee in their work, and/or to complement their workday with non-work activities. 

The same is true of 14(c) workshops, where considerable supports may be provided,537 as over 93

percent of certificate holders are Community Rehabilitation Programs.538

Figure 2.4

Source: Written Testimony of John Butterworth to USCCR; Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., 

Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). StateData: The national report on employment services and 

outcomes through 2016. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 16.

536 Nat’l Council on Disability, Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment p. 11 (Aug. 23, 2012) 

https://www.ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Sub%20Wage_508.pdf. (citing sources).

537 See infra notes 851-896 (MVLE roundtable discussion).

538 See infra note 599.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 83

As shown by Figure 2.4 above, state intellectual and developmental disability agencies provide 

various types of services for people with disabilities, including placements in integrated 

employment opportunities, facility-based work settings, and other, non-work related supports and 

services. Since 1990, the number of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities who 

receive some kind of service from a relevant state agency has roughly doubled from approximately 

300,000 people in 1990 to over 600,000 people in 2017. Of those, the number of people who 

participated in non-work services grew from 115,000 in 1990 to 413,000 in 2017.539 Still, while 

the overall number of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities has grown over the 

past three decades, the data also show that the number of people receiving facility-based work 

services has been relatively stagnant since 2000, meaning that employment in sheltered workshops 

has not seen growth consistent with an increase in the population of people with I/DD.

540 During 

this same time period, the number of people with intellectual or developmental disabilities in 

integrated employment has increased and the number in non-work settings has also increased.541

States that have either ended subminimum wages for people with disabilities, or enacted legislation 

to phase out subminimum wages have seen some improvements in employment outcomes for 

people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For the Commission’s briefing, Dr. Julie 

Christensen submitted written testimony discussing the data below. Her data set forth in Table 2.3

shows the employment rates for non-institutionalized people with disabilities between the ages of 

21-64 in four of the states that Christensen categorizes as having ended or having begun phasing 

out payment of subminimum wages to people with disabilities before 2017. In all four of these 

states, and particularly in Vermont, the employment rate of people with cognitive disabilities 

increased between 2016 and 2017.542

539 Butterworth Statement at 4.

540 Ibid.

541 See Figure 2.4

542 But Cf. infra notes 1004-1006, 1015-1016; and Charts 4.6 (AZ Integrated employment rate), 4.7 (MO Integrated 

employment rate), and 4.5 (VA Integrated employment rate).
84 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Table 2.3: Change in Employment Rates of People with Disabilities in States that have 

Ended or Begun Phasing-Out Payment of Subminimum Wages

New Hampshire 2016 2017

All disabilities 45.6% 45.0%

Cognitive disabilities 32.8% 34.9%

Maryland 2016 2017

All disabilities 42.2% 42.6%

Cognitive disabilities 31.7% 33.7%

Maine 2016 2017

All disabilities 32.4% 32.9%

Cognitive disabilities 23.3% 24.1%

Vermont 2016 2017

All disabilities 41.4% 45.9%

Cognitive disabilities 24.4% 41.3%

Source: Adapted from Christensen Statement at 7, data from American Community Survey, Employment Rate 

Estimates, retrieved from Cornell University Disability Statistics website: www.disabilitystatistics.org (most recent 

data available from 2017).

However, the Commission’s study of the same dataset across a different set of states, including 

states that retain 14(c), also show increases in employment rates for persons with disabilities in 

some of those states.543

According to Christensen, differences in state funding for integrated employment services may 

account for varied success in increasing integrated employment for people with disabilities.

544

Table 2.3 indicates that the employment rate for people with cognitive disabilities in Maryland 

increased marginally between 2016 and 2017, while the employment rate of people with cognitive 

disabilities in Vermont increased by a much larger margin. Between 2016 and 2017, Maryland cut

the state’s funding for integrated employment services by $16 million, and New Hampshire 

reduced funding by roughly $1 million.545 Data regarding Maine’s funding for integrated 

employment services was not available for 2016, however state funding declined from $4.6 million 

in 2013 to approximately $3.8 million in 2015, to approximately $3.3 million in 2017.546

543 See infra notes 819-824.

544 See, Christensen Statement at 7.

545 Ibid.; UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info. (2020). State IDD Agencies. Maryland, 

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont: Integrated employment funding. Retrieved 02/06/2020 from. 

http://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/573739.

546 UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info. (2020). State IDD Agencies. Maryland, Maine, 

New Hampshire, Vermont: Integrated employment funding. Retrieved 02/06/2020 from 

http://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/573739.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 85

Meanwhile between 2016 and 2017, Vermont increased its funding for integrated employment 

services by approximately $2 million.547

Chart 2.7 shows how wages for people with cognitive disabilities have changed between 2008 and 

2017 in the four states that ended payment of subminimum wages to people with disabilities before 

2017. In all four states, wages increased overall during the nine-year period. In New Hampshire, 

median annual wages increased since the state began phasing out subminimum wages in 2015. 

Similarly, in Maryland, wages increased since the phase-out of subminimum wages began in 2016. 

In Vermont and Maine, which both ended the payment of subminimum wages through changes to 

state Medicaid funding structures beginning in 2003 and 2005 respectively, wages increased, albeit 

less dramatically over time, and with a plunge from 2016 to 2017.

Chart 2.7

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, Cognitive Disability. Maryland, Maine, 

New Hampshire, Vermont: Mean annual earnings from work (in thousands of dollars). Retrieved 02/06/2020 from 

http://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/918872.

547 Christensen Statement at 7; UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info. (2020). State IDD 

Agencies. Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont: Integrated employment funding. Retrieved 02/06/2020 

from http://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/573739.

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Mean Annual Earnings From Work for People with Cognitive 

Disabilities in States that Eliminated Subminimum Wages 

Prior to 2017

Maryland Maine New Hampshire Vermont

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Mean Annual Earnings From Work for People with Cognitive 

Disabilities in States that Eliminated Subminimum Wages 

Prior to 2017

Maryland Maine New Hampshire Vermont
86 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

However, the Commission’s study of the same dataset across a different set of states, including 

states that retain 14(c), also show increases in earnings of persons with disabilities in some of those 

states.548

Available data regarding the number of people with disabilities who have moved from segregated 

employment to integrated employment after a state has eliminated 14(c) certificates varies stateto-state, as there is no national data tracking these transitions.549 Some data about the number of 

people with disabilities working in integrated employment can be obtained from state agencies 

that provide employment services to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Chart 

2.8 shows the total number of people with cognitive disabilities working in integrated employment 

in states that have begun phasing out or have completed their transition away from 14(c) 

certificates before 2017. What the data do not show is who the people with disabilities moving 

into or out of integrated employment are, and why they are doing so, including whether people 

with disabilities who are leaving subminimum wage employment are entering competitive 

integrated employment. As discussed herein, state budgets may provide one explanation for 

fluctuating employment numbers.550

548 See infra note 824.

549 Briefing Transcript at 88-119 (testimony of data experts).

550 See supra, note 544.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 87

Chart 2.8

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info. State IDD Agencies. Maryland, Maine, 

New Hampshire, Vermont: Integrated employment, number. Retrieved 02/07/2020 from 

http://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/683574.

However, the Commission’s study of the same dataset across a different set of states, including 

states that allow subminimum wages, also show some increases in integration for persons with 

disabilities in some of those states.551 Without a broader study, and considering the caveats of local 

economic conditions, whether or not there are support programs for transition, and communitylevel factors such as access to educational opportunities and accessible transportation, the data 

shows trends indicating that transitioning from 14(c) may be helpful, but they are only trends with 

a number of caveats to consider

Data Received From Public Comments

The Commission invited members of the public to share their opinion about the 14(c) certificate 

program during the open public comment period which ran from November 15, 2019 to December 

551 See infra notes 826-827.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2001 2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of People with Cognitive Disabilities Working in 

Integrated Employment States that Eliminated Subminimum 

Wages Prior to 2017

Maryland Maine New Hampshire Vermont

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2001 2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of People with Cognitive Disabilities Working in 

Integrated Employment States that Eliminated Subminimum 

Wages Prior to 2017

Maryland Maine New Hampshire Vermont
88 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

15, 2019. During that time, the Commission received over 9,700 public comments from individuals 

in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa, as well as from people 

in Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Israel, Poland, Serbia, and Trinidad & Tobago. 1,631 

individuals from Pennsylvania sent comments to the Commission, followed by 563 from 

Wisconsin, 505 from Arkansas, 360 from Missouri, and 312 from North Carolina.

Figure 2.5

Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 89

Chart 2.9

Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The Commission received comments from various different stakeholders with interest in the 14(c) 

program.552 Thirty-three (33%) percent of the comments received came from an advocate. Thirtyone percent (31%) of comments received were sent by a family member of a person with a 

disability, seventeen percent (17%) came from staff members of 14(c) certificate holders. Selfidentified individuals with disabilities made up ten percent (10%) of all public comments the 

Commission received. Nine percent of individuals who submitted public comments did not fit into 

any of the aforementioned categories.

Ninety-eight percent (98%) of people who sent a comment to the Commission expressed the 

opinion that the government should keep the 14(c) program. One percent (1%) of comments 

received advocated for the repeal or phase-out of 14(c), and another one percent (1%) of public 

comments did not express an opinion on whether to maintain 14(c) or do away with the program.

552 Stakeholders who sent public comments to the Commission may be identified by multiple categories.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

AR CA IL MO NC NJ PA SD TX WI

Ten States with Greatest Number of Public Comments 

Sent
90 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Chart 2.10

Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The majority of the public shared their opinion with the Commission by adding their signatures to 

online petitions. Many of the petition signatures came from A-Team, a grassroots organization that 

supports the continued use of 14(c) certificates. One A-Team petition consisting of 4,687 

signatures simply stated, “Support people with disabilities to choose where they want to work.”553

Another petition circulated by A-Team to supporters of 14(c) consisting of approximately 1,452 

signatures cautioned that, “If Section 14c were to be eliminated from the [[Fair Labor Standards 

Act], individuals with the most significant disabilities will lose their work opportunities and will 

be subject to staying at home, eventually succumbing to the desolation that can result from being 

inactive and unemployed. Everyone has a right to work.”554 The A-Team petitions included 

signatures from people in all 50 states. The Commission also received a petition organized by 

Lighthouse Vocational Services, a 14(c) workshop located in Pennsylvania signed by 1,296 

individuals that stated, “Support Employment CHOICE for People with Disabilities.”555

553 A-Team Petition received Dec. 2019 (4,687 signatures).

554 A-Team Petition received Dec. 2019 (1,452 signatures).

555 Lighthouse Vocational Services Petition received Dec. 2019 (1,296 signatures).

33%

31%

17%

10%

9%

PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED BY STAKEHOLDER TYPE

Advocate Family Member Staff Member of a 14(c) Employer Person with a Disability Other
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 91

Public Comments Favoring Section 14(c)

Common sentiments expressed in letters that support keeping 14(c) include the value in knowing 

that a loved one has a place to go each day, and the sense of value that one receives from being 

employed and receiving a paycheck, no matter how small. Family members of people with 

disabilities in particular argued that they and their relatives with disabilities should be able to 

choose where to work, and that working in 14(c) workshops is a choice that should not be taken 

away by federal legislative action. Many fear that after eliminating subminimum wage 

employment, people with disabilities will not be able to effectively compete in the open market 

and will end up unemployed. One commenter expressed that:

[Sheltered workshops] provide much more than a salary for people with I/DD. They 

provide an opportunity for an enriching life. Please do not eliminate sheltered workshops. 

These workshops serve a very needed and important role in the lives of people with 

disabilities. Many of these people do not understand the concept of money. Taking away 

the environment in which they thrive and feel comfortable would do more damage than 

increased wages would do good.556

Chart 2.11

Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

556 Public Comment No. 509 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

1%

98%

1%

POLICY PREFERENCES OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO 

SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS

Repeal or Replace 14(c) Keep 14(c) Did Not Specify
92 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Chart 2.12

Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Many of the public comments the Commission received from people with disabilities expressed 

concern about losing a job or stated that the commenter enjoyed his or her job and did not want it 

to disappear. Some people with disabilities expressed that having the 14(c) program as an 

employment option protects their rights, and that it would be a violation of their civil rights to take 

away the choice to work for a 14(c) employer at a subminimum wage. One person with a disability 

emphasized the importance of choice, stating “I am here because I choose to be here and because 

this job matters to me. When you write your report on places like where I work, please remember 

me and don't take away my right to choose where I work.”557 Another commenter stated that “I 

like being able to work and don’t want to work at different places and feel like repealing [14(c)] 

would not let me continue working.”558 People with disabilities also shared their concern that they 

may end up making less money if 14(c) were to be eliminated or phased out either due to not being 

able to work as many hours as before, or due to losing their employment completely.559

557 Public Comment No. 6,444 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

558 Public Comment No. 480 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

559 See e.g., Comment Nos. 273, 1,200, 1,330, 2,095, for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n 

on Civil Rights.

8%

89%

3%

POLICY PREFERENCES OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO 

SUBMITTED NON-PETITION PUBLIC COMMENTS

Repeal or Replace 14(c) Keep 14(c) Did not Specify
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 93

Chart 2.13

Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Chart 2.14

Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

5%

90%

5%

POLICY PREFERENCES EXPRESSED BY PEOPLE WITH 

DISABILITIES WHO SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS

Repeal or Replace 14(c) Keep 14(c) Did Not Specify

9%

83%

8%

POLICY PREFERENCES OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES WHO 

SUBMITTED NON-PETITION PUBLIC COMMENTS

Repeal or Replace 14(c) Keep 14(c) Did not Specify
94 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Another person with a disability discussed the social benefits received from work, stating, “I have 

been working 6 months but before I had no social life and was bored. The repeal of 14c would 

result in me losing friends and being unhappy.”560 One person with a disability wrote about how 

employment at a 14(c) site adds value beyond a paycheck:

I like working at the workshop because I feel safe. It is easy to make friends. I like the 

different jobs we do (some better than others).

I use the money I earn to pay my share of rent at my brothers [sic] house. I am also able to 

take vacations with my family.

I think it would be hard to work at a normal job and compete with other high school 

graduates. IF [sic] I were not able to work and earn money, I would be sad because I could 

not afford things and I would be bored sitting around all day.561

Some people with disabilities who wrote to the Commission did not feel that the 14(c) program 

violated their rights. One commenter stated, “no one where I work feels as though their rights are 

being violated, or that they are being segregated in any way.”562

Family members or relatives of people with disabilities are an important constituency to include 

when debating the future of the 14(c) program. As discussed herein, studies show that family 

members are integral to change in 14(c) programs, often expressing concern or fear that their child 

or relative with a disability will not adapt well to integrated employment opportunities, or that they 

will not be able to find any employment in the competitive market.563 The Commission received 

hundreds of comments from family members of people with disabilities, the majority of whom

supported the continuation of the 14(c) program. Many family members of people with disabilities 

expressed the concern that their family members with disabilities were either unable to work in 

the community because of their disability, or that they had tried to obtain a job in the community 

and were unable to find employment. The parents of two people with disabilities wrote to the 

Commission explaining that:

[W]e depend on section 14C certificates to provide them the opportunity to work and earn 

a wage. Our children are unable to work in the community because of so many safety issues 

and the need for constant supervision. They have been working in a sheltered workshop 

560 Public Comment No. 1,047 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

561 Public Comment No. 408 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

562 Public Comment No. 838 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

563 See, infra note 1068.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 95

for approximately 20 years, and they are so happy to be able to work there, and they are 

thrilled to receive a paycheck every two weeks.564

Chart 2.15

Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

564 Public Comment No. 337 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

3%

96%

1%

POLICY PREFERENCES OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF PEOPLE WITH 

DISABILITIES WHO SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS

Repeal or Replace 14(c) Keep 14(c) Did Not Specify

3%

96%

1%

POLICY PREFERENCES OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF PEOPLE 

WITH DISABILITIES

Repeal or Replace 14(c) Keep 14(c) Did Not Specify
96 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Chart 2.16

Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Another parent who wrote to the Commission was skeptical that many people with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities would be able to find a job in the community, stating that:

Where are [14(c)] participants going to find jobs out in the community where they can just 

show up when they want, work part time, work whenever they feel like it, and get paid the 

same as other people who can work at a 100% production rate vs. a 23% production rate 

or a 9% production rate? The answer is nowhere. Nobody is going to employ them unless 

they can perform at the same rate a person without disabilities could perform to.565

A parent of a person with a disability told the Commission about how the person had left 

employment in a 14(c) workshop, and how the parent wished that the person could return to the 

workshop:

There is a segment of the population that [sic] will never be able to get a minimum wage 

job in the community and needs the atmosphere of a productive workshop. It’s very 

important to them and their caregivers. Please do not support any proposal that eliminates 

sub minimum wage jobs. The alternative in my son’s life has played out and I wish he 

565 Public Comment No. 361 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

4%

95%

1%

POLICY PREFERENCES OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF PEOPLE 

WITH DISABILITIES WHO SUBMITTED NON-PETITION 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Repeal or Replace 14(c) Keep 14(c) Did not Specify
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 97

could go back to the productive workshop environment he needs and was so satisfying to 

him.566

Other parents emphasized that the choice to work in subminimum wage employment is the 

decision of the person with a disability and should not be eliminated. One parent compared the 

choice to work for a 14(c) certificate holder to the choice to pursue different types of higher 

education or training opportunities:

This diehard belief in competitive employment, to the exclusion of all other employment 

options for people with disabilities, is also unfair because it robs people with disabilities of 

options in life that people without disabilities have available to them. For example, some 

young adults decide to enroll in highly competitive Ivy League universities, others choose 

vocational programs at their area community college and still others pursue highly-skilled 

apprenticeships in the building trades.567

Many family members of people with disabilities also wrote that their relatives with disabilities 

should have the choice to work in 14(c) employment if they so wished, with some arguing that 

there is a right to work for a subminimum wage or in a sheltered workshop.568 Parents of one 

person with a disability wrote, “[w]e are not concerned with lower pay. We are concerned that the 

rights of [our child] to work in a fulfilling, safe, stable job where she enjoys being part of a 

community is [sic] at risk due to wage debate.”569

Family members were also very concerned about whether there are adequate alternate 

opportunities for employment if 14(c) were to be eliminated. Many people who sent comments to 

the Commission shared that some 14(c) employers provide transportation for people with 

disabilities to and from their jobs, and that there are not sufficient transportation options available 

to transport people with disabilities to a job if 14(c) were to be eliminated. One family member of 

a person with a disability stated, “these programs provide more supervision, which protects a 

population vulnerable to abuse. Many provide transportation and close to full-time hours, which 

is extremely helpful for families.”570 Another highlighted that 14(c) certificate holders often 

provide more than employment, stating that:

Programs that use 14c generally provide more supervision than typical workplaces. This 

helps workers with disabilities be more productive, but it also makes their environment 

more safe and secure for them. This is a population that traditionally is very vulnerable and 

566 Public Comment No. 454 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

567 Public Comment No. 433 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

568 Commission analysis of public comments shows that 165 comments specifically mention choice as the principal 

reason to keep the 14(c) program.

569 Public Comment No. 1,222 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

570 Public Comment No. 362 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
98 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

has suffered very high percentages of abuse. Many 14c programs provide transportation 

services for their employees. This is a huge benefit. Transportation is one of the largest 

barriers to employment for people with disabilities.571

Furthermore, commenters stated that some expressed that since many 14(c) certificate holders 

offer services to people with disabilities other than employment, many of these services would not 

be provided in their community if 14(c) is eliminated without funding and planning for alternative 

service providers.572 One commenter from New York stated: “People with disabilities want to and 

can work in mainstream jobs in their community and earn the same as their nondisabled peers but 

it’s not possible due to the fear of losing benefits and services.”573

Comments Against 14(c)

Those advocating for the repeal or phase-out of 14(c) generally emphasize that services for people 

with disabilities should start with the presumption that all people are capable of work, and that no 

person should be paid less than the minimum wage because of who they are. A person with a 

disability who submitted a public comment to the Commission summarized the person’s rationale 

for ending the 14(c) program:

The subminimum wage is abusive and exploitative, as it encourages businesses to deem 

employees not productive so they can pay them less. The minimum wage should be just 

that -- the minimum -- and every human being doing a job should receive at least that much 

for their efforts. Allowing any people with disabilities to be paid under minimum wage is 

a message to society that we are less valuable because of our disabilities.574

Some people with disabilities also wrote to the Commission advocating for the elimination or 

phase out of 14(c). One commenter, discussing the inequities of 14(c), shared his experience 

working for subminimum wage:

Those who are opposed to the removal of sub-minimum wage will say that people 

deserving of this wage are happy to have a place to go and love their jobs. This is false and 

holds no merit in the necessity of the discussion at hand. I have worked in multiple 

sheltered workshops in multiple states, and the commonality is evident. The least respected 

of their assets are the people that [sic] work for them daily. In the last workshop I worked 

in, I made $1.54 per hour and was told that I should be happy because I was the highest 

paid employee. In the midst of feeling completely disrespected, I worked on things that I 

571 Public Comment No. 293 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

572 See e.g., Public Comment Nos. 390, 506, 771, 2,031 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. 

Comm’n on Civil Rights.

573 Public Comment No. 1,345 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

574 Public Comment No. 786 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 99

saw needed to be done. The grinder needed to be taken apart and have the blades replaced, 

and so, I offered to do this. A conveyor belt motor came in with it wired to run in reverse. 

I rewired the motor and saved down time. There were some electrical problems and I knew 

what to do to fix it, and I was permitted to make the repairs. All of these jobs that would 

have cost them over $100 per hour, I did for $1.54 per hour and was told that I should be 

grateful to have a job because I couldn’t work anywhere else. I worked on a line directly 

across from the supervisor that [sic] made over $100,000 per year, and I was producing 2 

products to his 1. I was still paid $1.54.575

He further discussed how upon leaving subminimum wage employment, he was able to find 

multiple jobs in the community:

I fortunately had someone who saw what I could do that [sic] gave me a chance. I have had 

several jobs since leaving the workshop scene. There have been times of prosperity and 

times of challenge. There have been times of success and times of failure. Most 

importantly, however, my experiences mirror that of my fellow Americans without a label 

of disability. So, I say again this discussion is truly about whether or not we see people 

with disabilities as sub-citizens deserving of less compensation, less dignity and less 

respect.576

Other people with disabilities who wrote to the Commission mirrored the sentiment that all people, 

regardless of ability, should be afforded the same opportunities. One current student wrote to the 

Commission about how she wants to have the same opportunities as others in the future, and wants 

the ability to live independently in the community:

When I get older, I would like to have a job so I can have my own apartment. I would like 

to choose where I work. I would like to work at a job where I receive a fair wage. I could 

not live in my own apartment if I received a sub-minimum wage. Please vote to end section 

14(C) [sic] waiver program. I deserve to have the opportunity to reach my dreams.577

Charlotte Woodward, who testified in person at the Commission’s briefing, spoke about how she 

feels 14(c) violates the rights of people with disabilities, “To pay people with disabilities including 

those with Down syndrome subminimum wage in sheltered workshops is a serious violation of 

their human rights.”578

575 Public Comment No. 1,279 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

576 Ibid.

577 Public Comment No. 428 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

578 Charlotte Woodward, Public Comment for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil 

Rights.
100 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Comments Regarding Transition or Other Policies

Many members of the public expressed nuanced opinions about the 14(c) program, recommending 

reform, better enforcement, or a gradual phase-out of the program. One commenter from Nebraska 

told the Commission that the protections of 14(c) should be better enforced, stating that: “When 

individual rights protected under 14c are violated those violations should be pursued 

aggressively.”579 One family member from Pennsylvania suggested that the government “could 

reduce the approvals for 14c employers over time and gain data as to where people go, how it 

affects their lives and how to respect choice.”580

One disability rights group, the Survival Coalition of Wisconsin Disability Organizations, 

commented to the Commission to suggest that 14(c) certificate holders need more support before 

a successful phase-out of the 14(c) program can be effectuated, stating that:

Providers need a transparent rate process that incentives outcomes, and adequate support 

and training to transform their business and service delivery models. People with 

disabilities . . . need early expectations of employment and career in the community, ample 

opportunities to practice and gain skills, and service systems that are equipped to support 

them in those efforts.581

The Arc, a national disability rights organization, similarly stated in their public comment to the 

Commission that in phasing out 14(c) the organization advocates to:

Build infrastructure and supports needed to phase out the issuance of sub minimum wage 

certificates, increase opportunities for competitive integrated employment, and put in place 

safeguards to protect the interests of any people affected by this shift. In order to build 

capacity within the community, there must be a true understanding of, and commitment to, 

community employment for all individuals, including those with the most severe 

disabilities, from government agencies and from employers. Additionally, we must remove 

the barriers to community-based employment and build capacity in the community. 

Barriers to employment include, first and foremost, low societal expectations that foster 

job discrimination. Systemically, public resources fund service hours rather than outcomes 

and are often neither sufficient nor flexible enough to allow collaboration and blending of 

employment funding streams. Lack of other services like transportation or of 

accommodations such as assistive technology can also hinder success.582

579 Public Comment No. 1,282 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

580 Public Comment No. 796 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

581 Survival Coalition of Wisconsin Disability Organizations, Public Comment for the Subminimum Wages Briefing 

before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

582 The Arc, Public Comment for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
Chapter 2: Data and Analysis 101

The Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council, an independent state agency, stated in their 

public comment to the Commission that:

Aggressive funding is needed for technical assistance and rate restructuring for 

employment service providers to shift towards competitive integrated employment. 

[Persons with disabilities’] civil rights are violated by unfair and unjust employment 

placement, practices, and compensation due to the ability of employers to pay a 

subminimum wage under a 14(c) certificate and the placement of [persons with disabilities] 

in isolated settings.583

One individual wrote to the Commission with his suggestion that the government offer incentives 

to disability service providers and businesses to hire people with disabilities, stating that:

I would propose that the solution should involve robust incentives for community 

employment, both for employers and service providers who help people who have 

disabilities access the community labor market. Such incentives could be combined with 

benchmarks that tie the incentives to responsible reductions in the use of 14c provisions. 

Of course, any solution should have a responsible timeframe for compliance.584

583 Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council, Public Comment for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the 

U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

584 Public Comment No. 469 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
102 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

[This page is left intentionally blank]
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 103

CHAPTER 3: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ROLE AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES

This chapter examines federal agencies that have responsibilities related to the 14(c) certificate 

program. The first section describes the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, the 

federal agency that administers the 14(c) program, processes certificate applications and renewals, 

and monitors 14(c) certificate holders for compliance with the provisions of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act. As discussed herein, the Wage and Hour Division’s jurisdiction is limited.

585 This 

chapter also examines the authority of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission to ensure that people with disabilities are not being discriminated against 

in the employment context and are receiving services in the most integrated setting possible under 

the Americans with Disabilities Act. Finally, this chapter examines the importance of Medicaid 

funding to people with disabilities in employment settings, as well as the impact of the AbilityOne 

Commission on 14(c) employment of people with disabilities. This chapter also describes the 

limitations in oversight that may have led to gaps in civil rights protections of people with 

disabilities.

Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division

Congress created the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor with the passage 

of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.586 The Division is led by an Administrator, who is 

appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.587 The Secretary of 

Labor designated the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor as the agency 

responsible for the administration of the Fair Labor Standards Act Section 14(c) certificate

program.588 Associate Administrator for Policy Mary Ziegler, who retired in the interim, told the 

Commission that the Wage and Hour Division defined itself as “a federal law enforcement agency 

with the mission to promote and achieve compliance with the labor standards that protect and 

enhance the welfare of workers in the United States.”589 In response to Commission interrogatories

and document requests, the Wage and Hour Division stated that one of its goals is to “obtain and 

585 See infra note 589.

586 29 U.S.C. § 204(a).

587 Id.

588 Sec’y of Labor’s Order No. 01-2014, Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the 

Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, 79 Fed. Reg. 77,527 (Dec. 24, 2014) (Sec’y of Labor’s Order No. 01-2014 

added authority to the Wage and Hour Division to enforce Ex. Order 13,658, Establishing a Minimum Wage for 

Contractors, 79 Fed. Reg. 9,849 (Feb. 12, 2014); the Wage and Hour Division had previously had responsibility for 

administration and enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 75 Fed. Reg. 55,352).

589 Mary Ziegler, Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p.25.
104 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

maintain compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Section 14(c)

program.”590

Before an employer is permitted to pay a subminimum wage to any individual, it must apply for 

and obtain a certificate from the Wage and Hour Division. Employers must complete an 

Application for Authority to Employ Workers with Disabilities (a Subminimum Wages form) and 

send the completed form to the Wage and Hour Division.591 Recently, the Wage and Hour Division 

has permitted 14(c) certificate applicants to complete their application using an online form.592 As 

discussed above, one of Wage and Hour’s stated goals in redesigning the paper application form 

in 2016 was to be able to collect more data from 14(c) certificate holders about individuals working 

under 14(c) certificates, and better use that data in administering the program.593 The Wage and 

Hour division also began moving applications to a digital format in 2018.

594 As discussed above, 

the Wage and Hour Division later told the Commission that the new digital form is the same as the 

old paper form.

595

According to the Wage and Hour Division’s response to the Commission’s interrogatories and 

document requests, all new applications and renewal applications for a 14(c) certificate are 

processed by the Wage and Hour Division’s national certification team located in the Midwest 

regional office.596 The national certification team is a group of five full time employees who review 

all applications.597 During the last 10 years, the number of active and pending 14(c) certificates

declined from 3,756 in 2009 to 1,558 in January of 2020.

598 As of January 2020, 93 percent of 

14(c) certificates were issued to Community Rehabilitation Programs, and as of April 2019, over 

590 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 20 at 9.

591 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 19 at 8; See also, U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and 

Hour Division, Form WH-226 Application for Authority to Employ Workers with Disabilities at Subminimum 

Wages, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/wh226.pdf.

592 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 19 at 8.

593 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 18 at 8; Wage and Hour Division, Response to 

Affected Agency Review, (May 19, 2020) (on file).

594 Id.

595 Wage and Hour Division, Response to Affected Agency Review, (May 19, 2020) (on file).

596 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 19 at 8.

597 Mary Zeigler written testimony at 3

598 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 25 at 16.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 105

80 percent of people served by a Community Rehabilitation Program were people with intellectual 

or developmental disabilities.599

Figure 3.1

Source: Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-withdisabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders (Data as of Jan. 1, 2020). Figure by U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The certification team is charged with reviewing applications to identify any issues such as false 

or incomplete information that may appear on the face of the application.600 An applicant for a 

14(c) certificate must complete one form for each physical location where workers will be 

599 U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders, 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders (last accessed Apr. 6, 

2020); Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2019) 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2017. University of Massachusetts 

Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 4; See supra, Note 448.

600 Zeigler Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing, at 3.

*States in grey have no issued or pending 14(c) certificates as of January 1, 2020
106 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

employed at subminimum wages.601 Mary Ziegler, the Wage and Hour Division’s Associate 

Administrator for Policy at the time, specifically noted at the Commission’s November 2019 

briefing that issuance of a 14(c) certificate is not a statement from the Wage and Hour Division 

that a certificate holder is in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.602

Instead, the application requires the employer to certify by submitting a signed application that:

1. Workers employed under the authority in 29 C.F.R. part 525 have disabilities for the 

work to be performed;

2. Wage rates paid to workers with disabilities under the authority in 29 C.F.R. part 525 

are commensurate with those paid experienced workers, who do not have disabilities, in 

industry in the vicinity for essentially the same type, quality, and quantity of work;

3. The operations are and will continue to be in compliance with the [Fair Labor Standards 

Act], [Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act], [McNamara-O’Hara Service Contracts Act], 

and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA), an overtime statute for 

Federal contract work, as applicable;

4. No deductions will be made from the commensurate wages earned by a patient worker 

to cover the cost of room, board or other services provided by the facility;

5. Records required under 29 C.F.R. part 525 with respect to documentation of disability, 

productivity, work measurements or time studies, and prevailing wage surveys will be 

maintained;

6. The wage rates of all hourly-rated employees paid in accordance with FLSA Section 

14(c) will be reviewed at least every six months; and

7. Wages paid to all employees under FLSA Section 14(c) will be adjusted at periodic 

intervals, at least once a year, to reflect changes in the prevailing wage paid to experienced 

workers, who do not have disabilities, employed in the vicinity for essentially the same 

type of work.603

Further, the instructions to the application form remind 14(c) applicants that they must comply 

with all statutory and regulatory provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act,604 all applicable 

Federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, the Supreme Court’s 

601 WHD Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 19 at 8.

602 Zeigler Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 29.

603 U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Form WH-226 Application for Authority to Employ Workers with 

Disabilities at Subminimum Wages, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/wh226.pdf.

604 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; 29 C.F.R. §§ 525.1-525.24.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 107

Olmstead decision,605 Executive Order 13658,606 the Rehabilitation Act, as amended,607 and any 

applicable state or local requirements.608

The Wage and Hour Division may deny an initial or renewal application for a 14(c) certificate for 

several reasons, including that the application has incomplete information, the application contains 

false statements, or the applicant has not included sufficient supporting documentation.609 An 

applicant is given the opportunity to respond and remedy any identified deficiencies before a denial 

of the application by the Wage and Hour Division.610

If the Wage and Hour Division’s concerns are not addressed in the applicant’s response, or the 

applicant does not respond, the Division reports the application will be denied.611 Any denied 

applicant has the right to petition the Wage and Hour Division for a review of the denial.612

Although the Department of Justice and the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission may 

litigate matters under their jurisdiction that pertain to 14(c) employers, such as alleged violations 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act,

613 the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division has

legal authority to conduct oversight of 14(c) certificate holding entities for compliance with the 

Fair Labor Standards Act.614 In response to Commission interrogatories, the Wage and Hour 

Division stated it was the “sole” federal agency with responsibility for conducting oversight of 

14(c) certificate holders for compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.615 The Wage and Hour 

Division stated in response to Commission interrogatories that it employs a multi-pronged 

approach to “maximize the effectiveness of our resources,” including “complaint-based and 

planned investigations; outreach and education to employers and employees and partnerships with 

605 Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999); see infra, note 651 (“Wage and Hour Division will work with the 

Department of Justice and will refer cases for further legal action to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act or 

other civil rights laws when appropriate”).

606 Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, 83 Fed. Reg. 44906 (Sept. 4, 2018) (implementing Ex. Order 

13658).

607 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.

608 See, U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Form WH-226 Application for Authority to Employ Workers 

with Disabilities at Subminimum Wages, at 6 https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/wh226.pdf.

609 29 C.F.R. §§ 525.11, 525.13, 525.17(a)(1); Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 19 

at 8.

610 29 C.F.R. §§ 525.11, 525.13(d); Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 19 at 8.

611 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 19 at 8. .

612 29 C.F.R. §§ 525.11, 525.18; Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 19 at 8-9.

613 See infra notes 734-736 (DOJ) and 760-764 (EEOC).

614 29 U.S.C. § 204.

615 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 2 at 2.
108 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

other agencies, community organizations, business associations and other stakeholders; and 

increasing public awareness through media activities.”616

It stated that, as part of its compliance efforts, the Wage and Hour Division enforces the provisions 

of Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act through investigations of employers who hold a 

Section 14(c) certificate.

617 The Division is authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act and by 

regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor to conduct investigations of employers, 

including Section 14(c) certificate holders.618 Furthermore, a person with disabilities working 

under a 14(c) certificate, or that person’s parent or guardian, is able to petition Wage and Hour 

Division to review whether the wage paid to the person is justified.619 Wage and Hour Division 

elaborated in its interrogatory responses that:

[Wage and Hour Division] enforces and effectuates compliance with the statutory and 

regulatory requirements of Section 14(c) through the issuance of guidance materials, 

review of applications for 14(c) certificates, outreach to stakeholders, and the investigation 

of 14(c) certificate holders.620

The Division further stated that, when initiating an investigation into a 14(c) certificate holder, the 

Wage and Hour Division investigator reviews the certificate holder’s relevant records and the 

methodologies that the employer is using to maintain compliance with the Fair Labor Standards 

Act Section 14(c).621 According to the Division, at the onset of the investigation, the investigator 

must notify the 14(c) certification team to ensure that the certificate holder in question is not 

recertified while a Wage and Hour Division investigation is pending, and to avoid duplication of 

efforts between investigators and the certification team.622

According to the Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook, the Division should review 

whether the certificate holder is properly calculating the prevailing wage for work performed at 

the work site, conducting necessary time studies in the proper manner, and calculating 

616 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 20 at 9.

617 Ibid.

618 29 U.S.C. § 211(a); see also, 29 C.F.R. § 525.19.

619 29 C.F.R. § 525.22.

620 Wage and Hour Division response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 2 at 2. These are some of the main categories of 

compliance efforts that the Commission found to be essential to federal civil rights enforcement. See, U.S. Comm’n 

on Civil Rights, Are Rights a Reality? Evaluating Federal Civil Rights Enforcement, pp. 15-66 (Nov. 21, 2019) 

(discussing components of an effective federal civil rights enforcement program).

621 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 20 at 9; Wage and Hour Division, Field 

Operations Handbook Chapter 64 § 64f02(b) 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/FOH_Ch64.pdf (hereinafter WHD Field Operations 

Handbook).

622 Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook § 64f00(c).
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 109

commensurate wage rates properly.623 The handbook states that the certificate holder is required 

to keep and provide sufficient documentation of each worker’s disability that impairs the worker’s 

productivity, and documentation for all steps of how the employer has calculated each worker’s 

commensurate wage so that the Wage and Hour Division can conduct a comprehensive review of 

the certificate holder’s practices.624 The certificate holder must also maintain time and wage 

records for all employees consistent with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.625

According to the Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook, if the Wage and Hour 

Division investigator encounters a deficiency during an investigation, the investigator “will” 

inform the employer of the deficiency during a final conference.626 The handbook requires 

investigators to work with the employer to remedy the violation and bring the employer into 

compliance with the requirements of Section 14(c).627 If voluntary compliance cannot be achieved 

by the investigator, the handbook instructs the district director or assistant district director, along 

with the regional enforcement coordinator and regional administrator, to determine appropriate 

further action.628

Investigations include, in most instances, an announced site inspection by the Wage and Hour 

Division investigator. According to the operations handbook, the investigator will send an 

appointment letter to the employer prior to visiting to ensure the presence of the executive director 

or his or her representative during the investigation.629 According to the handbook, the 

appointment letter “shall specify the documents and records the [investigator] will need for 

reviewing and/or copying, and shall advise the employer that the [investigator] will be requesting 

a tour of the facility.”630 Unannounced site visits only occur in unusual or emergency situations 

(e.g. allegations of dangerous child labor violations), as follows:

For investigations involving work centers or patient workers, the WHI [Wage and Hour 

Investigator] shall send an appointment letter to the employer prior to visiting the 

establishment to ensure the presence of the executive director or his or her representative 

623 29 C.F.R. §§ 525.9, 525.10, 525.12(d)-(j); Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 20 at 

9; Wage and Hour Division, Field Operations Handbook Chapter 64 § 64g03(j) 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/FOH_Ch64.pdf

624 29 U.S.C. § 211(c); See, 29 C.F.R. Part 516; WHD Field Operations Handbook § 64f01(a); Wage and Hour 

Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 20 at 9.

625 29 C.F.R. § 525.16.

626 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 20 at 9; Wage and Hour Division Field 

Operations Handbook §64h01(a).

627 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 20 at 9-10; Wage and Hour Division Field 

Operations Handbook § 64h01(b).

628 29 C.F.R. § 525.17(b); Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook § 64h01(c)

629 Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook § 64f01

630 Ibid., § 64f01(b).
110 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

during the investigation. Unannounced visits prior to the initiation of an investigation 

should generally occur only in unusual, emergency-type situations, such as after receiving 

allegations of minors being placed at risk because their employment violates the child labor 

provisions.631

The Field Operations Handbook also states that during site visits, investigators should evaluate 

several factors, including the “apparent functioning level” of the workers with disabilities, and 

ensure that all workers being paid a subminimum wage have a documented disability for the work 

they are doing.

632 Investigators should also evaluate the production method(s) used for all major 

contracts held by the employer.633

If a 14(c) certificate holder refuses to remedy violations identified by a Wage and Hour investigator

after having had an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with all legal requirements, 

the Wage and Hour Division may revoke a 14(c) certificate.634 The first known revocation of a 

14(c) certificate occurred in 2013, in relation to two Rhode Island programs, a work center and a 

school program that fed to the work center.635 The revocation also required payment of back wages 

at applicable minimum wage for the entire period the certificates were revoked.

636 Wage and Hour 

Division told the Commission that it has only revoked 14(c) certificates of six employers. 637 The 

Division provided information about these revocations and settlement agreements reached with 

five of the employers; these five settlement agreements are attached as Appendix A to this 

report.638

Under federal regulations, Section 14(c) certificates may be revoked under the following 

circumstances:

§ 525.17 Revocation of certificates.

(a) A special minimum wage certificate may be revoked for cause at any time. A 

certificate may be revoked:

631 Ibid., § 64f02(a)(1).

632 Ibid., § 64f02(a)(1).

633 Ibid., § 64f02(a)(2).

634 29 C.F.R. § 525.17.

635 Zeigler Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing, at 7.

636 Ibid., 8.

637 Ibid.

638 See, Appendix A.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 111

(1) As of the date of issuance, if it is found that misrepresentations or false statements have 

been made in obtaining the certificate or in permitting a worker with a disability to be 

employed thereunder;

(2) As of the date of violation, if it is found that any of the provisions of FLSA or of the 

terms of the certificate have been violated; or

(3) As of the date of notice of revocation, if it is found that the certificate is no longer 

necessary in order to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment, or that the 

requirements of these regulations other than those referred to in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section have not been complied with.

(b) Except in cases of willfulness or those in which the public interest requires otherwise, 

before any certificate shall be revoked, facts or conduct which may warrant such action 

shall be called to the attention of the employer in writing and such employer shall be 

afforded an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with all legal 

requirements.639

The following table summarizes Commission staff’s review of the terms of the settlement 

agreements Wage and Hour Division has reached when revoking 14(c) certificates.

639 29 C.F.R. 525.17.
112 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Table 3.1: Section 4(e) Certificates Revoked by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor and Features of 

Relevant Settlement Agreements Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

CertificateHolding EmployerLocation of 

Employer 

(City, State)

Dates of 

Alleged 

Violations

Date of 

Settlement 

Agreement

Amount of 

Back Wages 

Owed

Other Remedies Agreed To (in Addition to 

Revocation and Back Wages)

Additional Observations

Harold A. Birch 

Vocational Center 

and School640

Providence, 

Rhode Island

06/01/2010-

04/12/2013

Jan. 2014 $250,859.98 • Compliance with all applicable provisions of the Act 

in the future (“Future Compliance”)

• Back-pay of relevant public benefits such as social 

security, financial counseling and planning 

information to affected employees (“Public Benefits 

and Counseling”)

WHD determined the Employer willfully 

violated Section 4(c), sent letter of revocation, 

and determined employer is liable for back 

wages under Section 6 of the Act (“Willful 

Violation”)

Parties agree noncompliance enforceable in 

federal court

Becky Home 

Health Care

Surprise, 

Arizona

Unknown Not 

applicable

Unknown Unknown No settlement agreement was entered into 

regarding revocation of certificate(s)641

BuckhannonUpshur Work 

Adjustment Center, 

Inc.642

Buckhannon, 

West Virginia

03/13/2013-

03/06/2016

May 2016 $48,165.936 • Civil money penalty of $4,488.00

• Future Compliance

• Public Benefits; Counseling

• Use of WHD Online Calculators

• Review of WHD Power Point Materials

• Attending Training

Willful Violation

Parties agree noncompliance enforceable in 

federal court

James L. Maher 

Center643

Middletown, 

Rhode Island

01/17/2015-

01/14/2017

Sept. 2019 $380,541.16 • Public Benefits; Counseling

• If representation of being currently in compliance is 

false, DOL may seek additional damages including 

civil money penalties

Willful Violation

Employer did not intend to apply for another 

Section 4(c) certificate in the future

640 Settlement Agr., U.S. Sec’y of Labor and Providence Public School Dep’t (Jan. 30, 2014) (attached in Appendix A).

641 Wage and Hour Division, Response to USCCR Follow-Up Question No. 1 at 1 (April 14, 2020) (on file).

642 Settlement Agr., U.S. Sec’y of Labor and Buckhannon-Upshur Work Adjustment Center (May 5, 2016) (attached in Appendix A) (Buckhannon Upshur-Work 

Adjustment Center, Inc. is a certified 14(c) employer as of January 1, 2020, see, Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders, 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders (last accessed May 29, 2020).

643 Settlement Agr., U.S. Sec’y of Labor and James L. Maher Center (Sept. 23, 2019) (attached in Appendix A).
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 113

Parties agree noncompliance enforceable in 

federal court

Training Thru 

Placement644

Providence, 

Rhode Island

06/01/2010-

01/31/2013

Nov. 2014 $300,000.00 Same as for Maher Center. Willful Violation

Parties agree noncompliance enforceable in 

federal court

Rock River Valley 

Self Help 

Enterprises, Inc.645

Sterling, 

Illinois

04/18/2016-

04/18/2018

May 2018 $573,836.90 • Public Benefits; Counseling

• Employer to take “any and all steps necessary” to 

ensure proper payment of employees in compliance 

with Labor Act

• Future applications or renewals for 4(c) certificates 

will be done at least annually

• Improved prevailing wage survey & commensurate 

wage calculation procedures

• Payment of at least federal minimum wage for 

employees not paid pursuant to a subminimum wage 

certificate

• Mandatory training for all staff, managers, and 

executives on 14(c) compliance

• Improved record-keeping

• Know Your Rights information for employees

• Full compliance with Section 511 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, including career counseling, 

information and referrals, and information about selfadvocacy, self-reliance, and peer mentoring training 

opportunities; documentation of additional services 

for youth under 24 

Revocation through DOL findings and letter, 

followed by Employer petitioning for review by 

WHD Administrator, who referred the matter to 

an Administrative Law Judge to make factual 

findings and recommendations; parties agreed 

to settle.

Employer assurances no known pending 

employee actions under Section 16(b) of the 

Labor Act; DOL representations no current or 

pending investigations.

Hanging Consent Judgement attached to 

settlement agreement

Source: Wage and Hour Division

644 Settlement Agr., U.S. Sec’y of Labor and Training Thru Placement, Inc. (Nov. 10, 2014) (attached in Appendix A).

645 Settlement Agr., U.S. Sec’y of Labor and Rock River Self Help Enterprises, Inc. (May 28, 2019) (attached in Appendix A).
114 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

These settlement agreements reflect that revocation has only been undertaken upon findings of 

willful violations, except in the case of Rock River Valley Self Help, which agreed to settle when 

their petition of the Wage and Hour Division’s findings was referred to an Administrative Law 

Judge.

646 Another pattern among this small set of revocations is that civil money penalties, or the 

threat of civil money penalties, have only been agreed to in two of the matters.647 Further, although 

there are promises for future compliance and the parties have agreed to enforce the terms of the 

settlement in court, the means by which such future compliance is guaranteed is not uniformly 

comprehensive. Only two of the settlement agreements specifically require training,648 and the 

Rock River settlement agreement is much more precise and comprehensive in its terms than the 

others. Clearly, all require back pay, which is an important remedy, but not all precisely require 

systems to be put into place to help avoid future violations. Also, the Rock River settlement 

agreement includes terms for compliance with Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act, which 

requires that 14(c) certificate holders provide career counseling, information and referrals, and 

information about self-advocacy, self-reliance, and peer mentoring training opportunities, along 

with additional services for youth under 24 years old.

649

14(c) certificate holders may be required by Title I of the ADA to provide reasonable 

accommodations to people with disabilities; however, the Wage and Hour Division of the

Department of Labor does not have the legal authority to ensure that people with disabilities are 

receiving proper accommodations.

650 In testimony to the Commission, Mary Ziegler stated that 

the Wage and Hour Division will work with the Department of Justice and will refer cases for 

further legal action to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act or other civil rights laws when 

appropriate.651 The Wage and Hour Division Field Operations manual also states that as one 

possible course of action when a certificate holder refuses to come into compliance with the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, the Division may refer the matter to the Solicitor of Labor for litigation.652

The Wage and Hour Division referred the Rhode Island matter to the Department of Justice, which 

646 Settlement Agr., U.S. Sec’y of Labor and Rock River Self Help Enterprises, Inc. (May 28, 2019) (attached in 

Appendix A).

647 Id. and see Settlement Agr., U.S. Sec’y of Labor and Buckhannon-Upshur Work Adjustment Center (May 5, 

2016) (attached in Appendix A).

648 Id. (Buckhannon and Rock River Settlement Agreements).

649 Settlement Agr., U.S. Sec’y of Labor and Rock River Self Help Enterprises, Inc. (May 28, 2019) (attached in 

Appendix A).

650 29 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)-(B) (ADA requirement to provide reasonable accommodation in employment); Neil 

Romano, Response to USCCR Follow-Up Question No. 13 at 8; see also, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, (Oct. 17, 2002), https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html; see generally 29 U.S.C. § 

214(c) (describing legal requirements of the 14(c) program and Department of Labor’s authority to enforce 

provisions).

651 Zeigler Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing, at 9; See, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219; 29 C.F.R. §§ 525.1-525.24.

652 Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook § 64h01(c).
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 115

resulted in the Department of Justice securing a 10-year settlement agreement with the state of 

Rhode Island and City of Providence, Rhode Island.653 At the Commission’s briefing, Ziegler 

stated that, “we do, within the law, we do what we can. Of course, if the law were to change, we 

would change our enforcement and administration accordingly.”654 In responses to interrogatories, 

the Wage and Hour Division stated that most of its investigations are concluded administratively, 

and that cases are closed if the Wage and Hour Division considers that it has remedied any and all 

violations identified during the investigation.655

As shown in Table 3.2, during Fiscal Years 2009-2019, the Wage and Hour Division increased the 

number of 14(c) certificate holders investigated. (As shown in Table 3.3., during the same time 

period, the percent investigated also increased, from 3.54 to 13.95 percent.) There was also a 

substantial increase in the percentage of investigations that found a violation of the requirements 

of Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.656 The Wage and Hour Division does not 

disaggregate the number of investigations by basis or cause, so the Commission is unable to 

determine the most common cause behind the staggering percentage of investigations that find a 

violation of Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.657 However, the data is clear that most 

investigations do not lead to certificate revocation—in fact the first known revocation of a 14(c) 

certificate happened in 2013, one of only six certificate revocation actions to have been taken.

658

The data also show that the main remedy is back pay, and that each year, thousands of employees 

with disabilities have been owed back pay from 14(c) employers. For example, in FY 2018, for 

each case concluded, there was an average of 50 employees who were owed back pay by that 14(c) 

certificate holder.659

653 See, Settlement Agreement, United States v. Rhode Island and City of Providence, No. 1:13-cv-00442 (D. RI. 

2013) (The district court terminated the settlement agreement with the City of Providence in 2019 after an 

independent court monitor found the City had complied with the terms of the agreement. The Agreement with the 

State of Rhode Island remains in effect).

654 Zeigler Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 81.

655 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 25 at 16.

656 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 25 at 15.

657 WHD Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 21 at 10; See, Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook 

§64e00(c) (listing most common violations found during 14(c) investigations) 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/FOH_Ch64.pdf.

658 Ziegler Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing, at 8.

659 See Table 3.2, FY 2018: 9,647 employees owed back pay/193 cases completed x 100 = 49.98%.
116 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Table 3.2: Wage and Hour Division 14(c) Certificate Holders Investigated per Fiscal Year

Year Concluded 

Cases

Registered 

Cases

Percent 

Violation 

Cases

Number of 

Employees of 

14(c) Certificate 

Holders Owed 

Back Wages

Average 

Days Open

FY 2009 133 256 73% 3,369 156

FY 2010 153 326 61% 4,196 259

FY 2011 360 226 83% 11,571 340

FY 2012 258 308 85% 9,556 219

FY 2013 238 266 82% 7,445 220

FY 2014 284 325 82% 8,986 229

FY 2015 189 193 80% 7,842 322

FY 2016 201 252 83% 9,133 356

FY 2017 217 224 90% 7,302 358

FY 2018 193 198 91% 9,647 403

FY 2019 227 213 86% 9,005 407

Source: Wage and Hour Division

The number of investigations in each fiscal year as reported by the Wage and Hour Division to the 

Commission includes all types of certificate holders (Business Establishment certificates, Patient 

Worker certificates, School Experience Work Program certificates, and Community Rehabilitation 

Programs).660 The pattern of violations is not limited to one sector but instead spread across the 

range of types of 14(c) certificate holders.

Over a ten-year period from FY 2009 to FY 2019, the Wage and Hour Division increased the 

number of concluded investigations of certificate holders from 133 in FY 2009 to 227 in FY 2019, 

with a fiscal-year high of 360 investigations concluded in FY 2011.

661 As evidenced by Table 3.3, 

660 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 21 at 10.

661 Id.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 117

below, that same period was accompanied by a drop in the overall number of certificate holders 

nationwide from 3,756 certificate holders in FY 2009 to 1,627 certificate holders in FY 2019.662

Table 3.3: Percentage of 14(c) Certificate Holders Investigated in FY 2009-2019

Source: Wage and Hour Division, response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 25 at 16 (on file).

In Fiscal Year 2019, the Wage and Hour Division concluded 227 investigations, amounting to 

nearly 14 percent of all Section 14(c) certificate holders.663 Wage and Hour Division investigations 

during FY 2019 recovered nearly $2.5 million in back wages owed by 14(c) certificate holders to 

employees with disabilities.664 The Wage and Hour Division initiates compliance investigations

“both in response to complaints and data-driven, agency-initiated investigations.”665 Wage and 

662 Although this data is only a “snapshot” over time, see supra notes 457- 463, the ten-year trend clearly shows a 

drop in the overall number of certificate holders. See Table 3.2.

663 Zeigler Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing, at 6.

664 Ibid.

665 Ibid.

Fiscal Year Cases Regulated 

Community 

 Ratio 

Investigated 

2009 133 3,756 3.54%

2010 153 3,350 4.57%

2011 360 3,285 10.96%

2012 258 3,235 7.98%

2013 238 3,112 7.65%

2014 284 2,985 9.51%

2015 189 2,741 6.90%

2016 201 2,638 7.62%

2017 217 2,545 8.53%

2018 193 1,785 10.81%

2019 227 1,627 13.95%
118 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Hour Division did not provide information to the Commission regarding what data it uses to begin 

agency-initiated investigations.666

At the end of FY 2019, the Wage and Hour Division employed 780 investigators nationwide,

667 to 

cover its five regions and 54 district offices located throughout the country.

668 The investigators 

are not 14(c) specialists, as they are responsible for investigating alleged violations of any laws 

covered under the Wage and Hour Division’s jurisdiction.669 However, the Wage and Hour 

Division does employ one 14(c) coordinator located in each of its five regional offices.670

A 2009 Government Accountability Office report found that complaint processing at the Wage and 

Hour Division was inadequate and offered recommendations on how the Wage and Hour Division 

could improve its complaint process.671 To understand and evaluate the Wage and Hour Division’s 

complaint process, the Government Accountability Office filed ten undercover, fictitious 

complaints with the Division to assess the efficiency and adequacy of complaint processing.672

The inadequacies that the Government Accountability Office found in the Wage and Hour 

Division’s complaint process included delays in investigations, failure to make use of all available 

enforcement tools, failure to follow up with employers who agreed to pay, an ineffective complaint 

process, and sporadic use of the Wage and Hour Division’s electronic database to record cases.673

For example, half of the fictitious complaints filed by the Government Accountability Office (5 

out of 10) were not recorded in the Wage and Hour Division’s database.674

The Department of Labor provided a response to the Government Accountability Office and stated 

that it agreed with recommendations contained in the report and had already began implementing 

666 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Follow-Up Question No. 9 at 9 (“[Wage and Hour Division] uses 

a variety of strategies to determine the best use of our enforcement resources and does not disclose specific 

strategies currently being implemented. We can, however, disclose that [Wage and Hour Division] is currently 

taking a cross-regional approach to Section 14(c) enforcement, including Regional and National Office input on case 

selection.”).

667 Zeigler Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing, at 6.

668 WHD Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 4 at 2-3; WHD Local Offices, 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/contact/local-offices (last accessed Jan. 31, 2020); Ziegler Statement, 

Subminimum Wages Briefing, at 6.

669 Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing, Ibid.

670 Zeigler Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing, at 6.

671 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, Report to the Cmte on Education and Labor, House of Representatives; 

Department of Labor: Wage and Hour Division Needs Improved Investigative Processes and Ability to Suspend 

Statute of Limitations to Better Protect Workers Against Wage Theft (June 2009) 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/300/291496.pdf.

672 Ibid., 2.

673 Ibid., 3.

674 Ibid., 4.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 119

them.675 The Department of Labor also stated that the full picture of efforts made to investigate or 

address allegations of violations often cannot be obtained from reviewing the database records or 

the physical case files.

676 The Department of Labor referenced one scenario cited in the 

Government Accountability Office report about an alleged child labor violation in a meatpacking 

plant that was not recorded in the Wage and Hour Division’s database, that led to assumptions that 

the Wage and Hour Division failed to investigate those allegations.677 However, the Department 

of Labor stated that Wage and Hour Division staff took immediate action to analyze the 

anonymous complaint and identified several deficiencies in the complaint that prohibited staff 

from taking further action.

678 The Department of Labor stated that the complaint was not entered 

into the agency’s database because it was found to be suspect.679

As a result of its investigation, the Government Accountability Office recommended that Congress 

suspend the statute of limitations for filing complaints imposed on impacted employees.680 The 

statute of limitations is currently set at two years from the date that the alleged violation occurred

for complaints filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or three years for willful violations.

681

The Government Accountability Office also provided recommendations to the Secretary of Labor, 

including that the Wage and Hour Division Administrator should reassess polices and processes 

and revise as appropriate to ensure information is recorded in the Wage and Hour Division’s case 

database.682 The Government Accountability Office report also recommended that the Wage and 

Hour Division improve customer service through review of intake and resolution process, consider 

providing more automated research tools to Wage and Hour Division investigators to increase their 

efficiency, consider gaining access to IRS information to allow investigators to more easily verify 

675 Ibid., pp. 46-52.

676 Ibid., pp. 46-48.

677 Ibid., pp. 48-49.

678 Ibid.

679 Ibid.

680 Ibid., 8.

681 29 U.S.C. § 255. A bill introduced in both chambers of Congress in July 2019, Wage Theft Prevention and Wage 

Recovery Act, H.R. 3712/S. 2101, 116th Cong., would extend the statute of limitations from two to four years. This 

bill with Democratic but no Republican co-sponsors was introduced concurrently in the U.S. House of 

Representatives and the U.S. Senate on July 11, 2019, and referred to House Committee of Labor and Education on 

same date, but there have been no actions since the date of introduction and referral to committee. See Congress.gov, 

Wage Theft Prevention and Wage Recovery Act, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3712/allactions (accessed May 25, 2020).

682 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, Report to the Cmte on Education and Labor, House of Representatives; 

Department of Labor: Wage and Hour Division Needs Improved Investigative Processes and Ability to Suspend 

Statute of Limitations to Better Protect Workers Against Wage Theft, p. 9 (June 2009).
120 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

information provided by employers, and better monitor the volume of cases to ensure that Wage 

and Hour Division investigators are able to manage caseloads.683

The Wage and Hour Division reported that in the decade following the 2009 Government 

Accountability Office Report, it had strengthened its enforcement and administration of the 14(c) 

program.684 Initiatives undertaken included modernizing the Wage and Hour Division certificate 

application processing by launching a new online certificate application, redesigning its 

application forms to collect more data about individuals employed on 14(c) certificates, and 

clarifying requirements for submission of accurate and timely applications.685 The Wage and Hour 

Division also reported increasing compliance assistance, including hosting nationwide day-long 

seminars for employers, family members, and other stakeholders, publishing guidance on 

limitations on payment of a subminimum wage, including two field assistance bulletins686 and one 

fact sheet,

687 updating its PowerPoint presentation used to educate stakeholders about the 14(c) 

program requirements, and sending compliance assistance letters to certificate holders.688 Finally, 

the Wage and Hour Division added that it is:

Maintaining its enforcement presence even as the number of certificate holders has 

declined, including review of section 511 compliance in each Section 14(c) investigation, 

use of revocation authority where warranted, and investigation of proportionately more of 

this universe of employers than under any other WHD program area.689

Wage and Hour Division stated in response to Commission interrogatories that the Department of 

Labor has also “included the Section 14(c) regulations in its long-term regulatory reform agenda, 

proposing to revise the regulations implementing Section 14(c) to reflect changes in employment 

laws affecting workers with disabilities since the last update.”690

683 Ibid.

684 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 18 at 8; Wage and Hour Division, Response to 

USCCR Affected Agency Review (May 19, 2020) (on file).

685 Wage and Hour Division Ibid.

686 See, U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2016-2 WHD Enforcement of 

WIOA Limitations on Payment of Subminimum Wages under FLSA Section 14(c) (July 27, 2016) 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/fab2016_2.pdf; U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour 

Division, Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2019-1 WHD Enforcement of WIOA Limitations on Payment of Subminimum 

Wages under FLSA 14(c) – Section 511’s Definition of “Subminimum Wages” (Feb. 15, 2019) 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/fab2019_1.pdf.

687 U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Fact Sheet No. 39H, The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act and Limitations on Payment of Subminimum Wages under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Feb. 

2019), https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/whdfs39h.pdf.

688 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 18 at 8.

689 Ibid.

690 Ibid.; See also, 29 C.F.R. § 525 et seq.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 121

The Wage and Hour Division also reported a number of compliance initiatives aimed at achieving 

compliance before a violation occurs. The Division stated that over the past eight years, it has 

conducted full day training seminars for certificate holders, advocates, and workers on how to 

maintain compliance with 14(c) requirements.691 These outreach efforts have a target audience of 

employers, employer representatives, human resources professionals, and employer 

associations.692 The Wage and Hour Division stated that it also employs Community Outreach and 

Resource Planning Specialists in nearly all of its district offices to assist in the Division’s efforts 

to interact with the regulated community and stakeholders.693 The Wage and Hour Division has 

developed online calculators which aim to assist 14(c) certificate holders in maintaining 

compliance by helping to calculate a commensurate wage and a prevailing wage.694

In response to Commission interrogatories, the Wage and Hour Division also stated that it has 

developed and published three information cards relating to the Section 14(c) program.695 One is 

a card that explains the basic worker rights and program requirements.696 The second is a referral 

card that provides workers with basic information about the Section 14(c) program and how to 

contact the Wage and Hour Division if they have questions or concerns.697 The third card is about 

the provisions of Executive Order 13,658 that sets a minimum wage for many federal construction 

and service contracts.698 These cards are designed for workers with disabilities and their family 

members to provide information on their rights under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act and Executive Order 13,658, and how to contact the Wage and Hour Division with concerns.699

In 2016, the Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for

Individuals with Disabilities issued a Final Report that contained recommendations for the 

691 Zeigler Statement, Subminimum Wages Briefing, at 5.

692 Ibid., 4.

693 Ibid.

694 U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, FLSA Section 14(c) Calculators, 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/calculators (last accessed Feb. 12, 2020).

695 See generally, Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 22 at 12-13.

696 Ibid.

697 Ibid.

698 Ibid.

699 Ibid; See, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Rights for Workers with Disabilities Section 14(c) and Subminimum Wage 

Employment (Aug. 2015) 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/RightsForWorkersWithDisabilities.pdf; U.S. Dep’t of 

Labor, Section 14(c) and Subminimum Wage Employment, 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/WH1017.pdf; U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Minimum Wage 

Protections for Federal Contract Workers (2010) 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/WH1525.pdf.
122 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Department of Labor regarding administration of the 14(c) program.700 According to the Wage 

and Hour Division’s response to the Commission’s interrogatories, some of the Committee’s 

recommendations have been implemented by the Department of Labor’s Office of Disability 

Employment Policy.701 The Department of Labor stated that the Office of Disability Employment 

Policy has implemented the Advisory Committee recommendations in several ways, such as 

“identifying states and state programs that are currently most effective in delivering services 

resulting in [competitive integrated employment] outcomes for people with significant 

disabilities”;;” “providing technical assistance to the states through internal federal agency 

expertise” through its Visionary Opportunities to Increase Competitive-Integrated Employment 

initiative; “studying and providing support for the study of impacts on employment for all people 

with significant disabilities”;;” and “participating as a member of an interagency task force to 

develop an implementation plan for capacity-building steps for increasing CIE and advancing 

economic self-sufficiency.”702

In addition to recommendations applicable to the Office of Disability Employment Policy, the

Advisory Committee also made recommendations about the 14(c) certificate program that apply 

to the Wage and Hour Division. One of the main recommendations was that the Wage and Hour 

Division impose stricter standards on the issuance or renewal of any 14(c) certificates.703 The 

stricter standards suggested by the Advisory Committee’s Final Report include that the Wage and 

Hour Division should require a state to provide evidence that there is a current lack of employment 

opportunities within the state for people with disabilities, and that 14(c) certificate applicants 

provide information that their certificate is “necessary to prevent the curtailment of opportunities 

for employment”704 for people with disabilities in the region they serve, and the applicant must 

detail steps it would take to assist people with disabilities in obtaining competitive integrated 

employment.

705 Finally, the Advisory Committee recommended that the Wage and Hour Division

work with federal partners to evaluate information about employment opportunities for people 

with disabilities.

706

700 Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities (Sept. 15, 2016).

701 Wage and Hour Division Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 30 at pp. 18-19.

702 Wage and Hour Division, Response to USCCR Affected Agency Review (May 19, 2020) (on file); See, Advisory 

Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities, Final Report, (Sept. 

15, 2016)https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/pdf/ACICIEID_Final_Report_9-8-16.pdf.

703 29 U.S.C. § 214(a).

704 29 U.S.C. § 214(a).

705 Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities at 30 (Sept. 15, 2016).

706 Ibid.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 123

In response to the Advisory Committee recommendations, the Wage and Hour Division stated that 

it began pursuing a number of strategies to ensure the 14(c) certificate program is being used only 

where necessary to prevent the curtailment of employment opportunities.707 The Wage and Hour 

Division issued guidance explaining the impact of the then-new requirements under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act for Section 14(c) certificate holders.708 The Division stated that it 

had also begun changes to the 14(c) certificate application forms and instructions to shift focus 

towards collecting more individual employee data,

709 and had issued an Administrator’s 

Interpretation explaining the impact of a state law prohibiting the payment of a subminimum wage 

on Section 14(c) certificate holders and its impact on the issuance of such certificates.710

The Wage and Hour Division stated that it updated its process for revoking Section 14(c)

certificates of employers whose practices result in serious violations and issued a letter to all 

certificate holders to advise them that issues that might warrant revocation of their certificate 

include misrepresentations or false statements made in obtaining a certificate or in permitting a 

worker with a disability to be employed under the 14(c) certificate; violations of any of the 

provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act or the terms of the certificate; or that the certificate is 

no longer necessary in order to prevent the curtailment of opportunities for employment.711

Department of Justice

The role of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice includes enforcing our nation’s 

civil rights laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act through litigation, as well as providing coordination among federal agencies and technical 

707 Wage and Hour Division, Response to USCCR Affected Agency Review (May 19, 2020) (on file).

708 See, U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2016-2: WHD Enforcement of 

WIOA Limitations on Payment of Subminimum Wages under FLSA Section 14(c), (July 27, 2016) 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/fab2016_2.pdf.

709 Wage and Hour Division, Response to USCCR Affected Agency Review (May 19, 2020) (on file).

710 See, U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2016-2: Effect of state 

laws prohibiting the payment of subminimum wages to workers with disabilities on the enforcement of section 14(c) 

of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Nov. 17, 2016) 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/FLSAAI2016_2.pdf.

711 See, U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Letter to Current 14(c) Certificate Holders Concerning the 

General Revocation Process (Mar. 21, 2016) 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/1414cLetter.pdf.
124 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

assistance, including regulations and policy guidance.712 All of these activities are key components 

to effective civil rights enforcement.713

Guidance and Technical Assistance Regarding the ADA Integration Mandate & Informed Choice

In 2011, the Department of Justice issued a statement regarding the integration mandate contained 

in Title II of the ADA in which, in part, the Department explained the requirements for informed 

consent or choice. As discussed in Chapter 1, one of the issues that may apply to 14(c) employers 

that are public or receive federal funding is whether they are segregated or integrated. The ADA’s 

“integration mandate” also applies to other public entities providing “services” to persons with 

disabilities.714 In its 2011 statement, the Department of Justice clarified that:

Individuals must be provided the opportunity to make an informed decision. Individuals 

who have been institutionalized and segregated have often been repeatedly told that they 

are not capable of successful community living and have been given very little information, 

if any, about how they could successfully live in integrated settings. As a result, 

individuals’ and their families’ initial response when offered integrated options may be 

reluctance or hesitancy. Public entities must take affirmative steps to remedy this history 

of segregation and prejudice in order to ensure that individuals have an opportunity to make 

an informed choice. Such steps include providing information about the benefits of 

integrated settings; facilitating visits or other experiences in such settings; and offering 

opportunities to meet with other individuals with disabilities who are living, working and 

receiving services in integrated settings, with their families, and with community providers. 

Public entities also must make reasonable efforts to identify and addresses any concerns or 

objections raised by the individual or another relevant decision-maker.715

The Department of Justice explained that merely asking a person with a disability (or the person’s 

parent or guardian) whether he or she opposes an integrated setting is not sufficient to achieve the 

requirement of informed consent to stay in a non-integrated setting.

716

712 See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Are Rights a Reality? Federal Civil Rights Enforcement, Nov. 2019, pp. 

67-156; See also U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual, Enforcement of Civil Rights Statutes, § 8 – 2.400, Disability 

Rights Section, https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-8-2000-enforcement-civil-rights-civil-statutes#8-2.400 [hereinafter 

Justice Manual].

713 See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Are Rights a Reality? Federal Civil Rights Enforcement, Nov. 2019, pp. 

15-63, https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/11-21-Are-Rights-a-Reality.pdf.

714 See supra notes 191-199.

715 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title 

II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C., Questions and Answers, 5 (June 2011) 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/q&a_olmstead.htm.

716 Id. at 4-5.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 125

According to Ruby Moore, Executive Director of the Georgia Advocacy Office, and Professor 

Mark Friedman of City University of New York in their article in the Journal of Vocational 

Rehabilitation, true informed choice requires “a meaningful decision between multiple, 

significantly distinguishable viable options. Choice incorporates the importance of autonomy, 

control, self-determination, and having a variety of options to choose from.”717 Moore and

Friedman also assert that informed choice is not meant to support continued segregation of people 

with disabilities.718 Rather, informed choice requires Community Rehabilitation Programs and 

state agencies to affirmatively work together to ensure that individuals with disabilities are offered 

informed choices about all of their employment options.719 Moreover, under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act as applicable to all 14(c) certificate holders (whether public or private entities),

individuals with disabilities must receive “career counseling, and information and referrals . . . 

delivered in a manner that facilitates independent decisionmaking and informed choice, as the 

individual makes decisions regarding employment and career advancement.”720 14(c) employees 

must also receive information by the employer about “self-advocacy, self-determination, and peer 

mentoring training opportunities available in the individual’s geographic area, provided by an 

entity that does not have any financial interest in the individual’s employment outcome” at least 

once every six months during their first year of employment at a subminimum wage by a 14(c) 

certificate holding entity, and at least once every year thereafter.721 Moore also provided testimony 

to the Commission highlighting that for younger people with disabilities, informed choice and the 

expectation of competitive integrated employment may already be the expected outcome in their 

transition from school to work due to changes in state policies for students with disabilities.

722

The Department of Justice advised that public entities must take further steps to ensure that 

individuals with disabilities have informed choices, such as providing information on the benefits 

of integrated settings, facilitating visits or other experiences in integrated settings, and offering 

opportunities to meet with other individuals with disabilities who are living, working and receiving 

services in integrated settings, with their families, and with community providers.723

717 Moore, Ruby and Friedman, Mark. “The role of informed choice in advancing competitive integrated 

employment.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 46 (2017): 248 (emphasis in original).

718 Ibid., 254.

719 Ibid.

720 29 U.S.C. § 794g(c)(1)(A).

721 29 U.S.C. § 794g(c)(1)(B).

722 Moore Statement, at 3.

723 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title 

II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C. at 4-5 (June 2011) 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/q&a_olmstead.htmpdf.
126 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

The concept of informed choice related to employment of people with disabilities first appeared 

in federal legislation in the 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.724 There, Congress 

made clear in federal law that individuals with disabilities should be able to make an informed 

choice regarding inter alia their employment prospects.725

In a decision certifying the class for a class action suit brought by people with disabilities who 

work in or who have been referred to sheltered workshops, a federal district court explained one 

of the challenges of ensuring that people with disabilities have informed choice as follows:

Due to their disability, many individuals with [intellectual or developmental disabilities] 

may not ask for supported employment services because they are not aware of them or 

because they are not aware that they have any choices as to services that they are entitled 

to receive.726

In his testimony at the Commission’s briefing, Neil Romano, Chair of the National Council on 

Disability, emphasized the importance of people with disabilities having choice in their 

employment, stating that:

The belief that someone would choose to make less money for their work is, in and of itself, 

a demonstration of how certificate holders do not believe that people with disabilities are 

whole people capable of making even the most basic decisions beneficial to themselves. . 

. . since the 1930s, society and people with disabilities have come to expect far more out 

of their lives than past public policies allowed. Today we have different words for the 

opportunity to work for pennies an hour, words like discrimination and exploitation.727

In addition to its 2011 statement, in 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance on the 

application of Title II of the ADA and Olmstead in various settings, including with regard to 

employment.728 DOJ summarized the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions as follows:

[T]he ADA and its Title II regulations require public entities to “administer services, 

programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified 

724 29 U.S.C. § 701(c)(1) (as amended by the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, Pub. L. 102-569, 106 Stat. 

4347 (Oct. 1992)) (“It is the policy of the United States that all programs, projects, and activities receiving 

assistance under this chapter shall be carried out in a manner consistent with the principles of-- respect for individual 

dignity, personal responsibility, self-determination, and pursuit of meaningful careers, based on informed choice, of

individuals with disabilities”).

725 Id.

726 Lane v. Kitzhaber, 283 F.R.D. 587, 600 (D. Or. 2012).

727 Romano Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 32-33.

728 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Statement of the Department of Justice on Application of the Integration Mandate of Title 

II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C. to State and Local Governments’ Employment 

Services Systems for Individuals with Disabilities (Oct. 31, 2016), 

http://iel.org/sites/default/files/DOJOlmstead_Guidance_Employment.pdf.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 127

individuals with disabilities.” The preamble to the “integration mandate” regulation 

explains that “the most integrated setting” is one that “enables individuals with disabilities 

to interact with nondisabled persons to the fullest extent possible[.]”729

However, in 2017, DOJ rescinded the 2016 Olmstead guidance regarding the applicability of the 

ADA integration mandate to state and local employment services systems for people with 

disabilities, and the Department of Justice has not replaced the rescinded guidance with alternative 

guidance.730 In 2002, the Commission explained, “[t]he lack of updated and clear policy guidance, 

and the inadequate resources devoted to it, are among the primary reasons for poor civil rights 

enforcement.”731 In 2019, the Commission specifically examined the impact of the 2016 Olmstead

guidance, writing that:

The value of this guidance was shown by it being complemented by enforcement actions 

as well as interaction and coordination with other agencies. After the Olmstead decision, 

[DOJ Civil Rights Division] brought two cases against states for ADA violations over nonintegrative and discriminatory employment practices, procuring a consent decree in Rhode 

Island in 2014, and after [DOJ Civil Rights Division] intervention in a private case, a courtapproved settlement agreement in Oregon in 2015. In January 2015, [DOJ Civil Rights 

Division] led an Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment 

for Individuals With Disabilities, based on the DOJ’s Olmstead enforcement and the 

Obama Administration’s prioritization of this issue. Based on these cases as well as the 

underlying law discussed above, in 2016, [DOJ Civil Rights Division] took the position 

that the ADA integration mandate required that public entity workshops had to make 

sufficient opportunity for qualified individuals with disabilities to work in integrated 

settings, where they would receive wages the same as non-disabled workers.

732

729 Dep’t of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Statement of the Department of Justice on Application of the Integration 

Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C. to State and Local Governments’ 

Employment Service Systems for Individuals with Disabilities, 2 (Oct. 31, 2016) [hereinafter Olmstead Guidance], 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I1dw0deRAhqu4Tt0AwJcAo_Hqz2J3Nfz/viewhttps://www.ada.gov/olmstead/q&a_

olmstead.htm.

730 See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Are Rights Reality? Federal Civil Rights Enforcement, Nov. 2019, pp. 

139-140; U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Attorney General Jeff Sessions Rescinds 25 Guidance Documents (Dec. 21, 2017) 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-rescinds-25-guidance-documents; U.S. Dep’t of 

Justice, Withdrawal of the Statement of the Department of Justice on Application of the Integration Mandate of Title 

II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C. to State and Local Governments' Employment Service 

Systems for Individuals with Disabilities (Dec. 21, 2017) https://www.ada.gov/withdrawn_olmstead.html.

731 U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights 

Recommendations? Volume One: A Blueprint for Civil Rights Enforcement, p. 3 (2002) 

http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/tenyrchekupvol1.pdf.

732 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Are Rights Reality? Federal Civil Rights Enforcement, Nov. 2019, pp. 140-

141, https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/11-21-Are-Rights-a-Reality.pdf (internal citations omitted).
128 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Alison Barkoff also emphasized in her testimony that, despite the rescission of federal guidance, 

there is a “framework” for state and local governments to comply with laws that seek to promote 

competitive integrated employment for youth with disabilities and end the school-to-sheltered 

workshop pipeline, but that the laws are “not fully being enforced at this point” and that the federal 

government has “backed away” from offering technical assistance and guidance in recent years.733

Investigations and Litigation

The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor may refer cases involving civil rights 

issues to DOJ.734 DOJ has some jurisdictional overlap with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC), which also has the authority to enforce provisions of the ADA.

735 Within 

the DOJ Civil Rights Division, both the Disability Rights Section and the Special Litigation 

Section would have jurisdiction over alleged civil rights violations related to 14(c) certificate 

holders.

DOJ’s Disability Rights and Special Litigation Sections of the Civil Rights Division led the 

litigation that established the Supreme Court precedent in the Olmstead case, which clarified that 

the “integration mandate” of Title II of the ADA requires that public entities provide communitybased services to persons with disabilities when appropriate, when agreed to by these individuals, 

and when reasonable accommodations can be made.736 As discussed in Chapter 1, public entities 

have a statutory obligation not to otherwise discriminate against people on the basis of disability.

737

Title I of the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment,;

however, DOJ litigation has centered on enforcement of Title II of the ADA which includes the 

integration mandate prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities through 

segregation.738

733 Ibid., pp. 47-49.

734 See supra notes 651-654.

735 See infra, Notes 760-765.

736 Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 607.

737 See supra notes 180-188 (discussing Title I of the ADA as well as 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(vii)).

738 See supra, notes 183-190.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 129

As discussed in Chapter 1, 739 DOJ involvement in litigation to enforce the ADA’s integration 

mandate resulted in consent decrees in the states of Oregon (2013)740 and Rhode Island (2014)741

that sought to correct the states’ overreliance on segregated workshops under 14(c) certificates.

The remedies that DOJ was able to obtain, including federal court oversight and requiring the 

phasing out of sheltered workshops in those two states, surpass those available to the Department 

of Labor, as DOJ has the authority to enforce the ADA in court.

742 In the Lane settlement 

agreement the federal court entered , the state of Oregon agreed to end sheltered workshop 

placements for any youth entering work or adult receiving employment services from the state of 

Oregon, but not already employed in a sheltered workshop.

743 Additionally, Oregon agreed to 

reduce the population of employees with disabilities working in sheltered workshops by 2017.744

Similarly, the consent decree in United States v. Rhode Island required the state to end funding for 

new entrants into sheltered workshops in 2013.745 Both resolved findings of violations of Title II 

of the ADA and the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision.746

As the Commission documented in 2019, the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights 

Division has brought subsequent cases to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act in recent 

739 See supra, notes 204-217.

740 See, Settlement Agreement, Lane v. Brown, No. 3:12-cv-00138 §§ IV – V (D. Ore. 2013), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lane_sa.pdf.

741 See Consent Decree, United States v. Rhode Island, CA 14-174 (D. R.I., Apr. 9, 2014), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-olmstead-statewide-agreement.pdf; Consent Decree, United States v. 

Rhode Island, CA 14-174 (D. R.I., Apr. 9, 2014), https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-olmstead-statewideagreement.pdf.

742 See, Settlement Agreement, Lane v. Brown, No. 3:12-cv-00138 §§ IV – V (D. Ore. 2013), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lane_sa.pdf; Consent Decree, United States v. Rhode Island, CA 14-174 

(D. R.I., Apr. 9, 2014), https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-olmstead-statewide-agreement.pdf. 743

Settlement Agreement, Lane v. Brown, No. 3:12-cv-00138 §§ IV – V (D. Ore. 2013), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lane_sa.pdf.

743 Settlement Agreement, Lane v. Brown, No. 3:12-cv-00138 §§ IV – V (D. Ore. 2013), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lane_sa.pdf.

744 Id.

745 See, Consent Decree, United States v. Rhode Island, CA 14-174, § IV (D. R.I., Apr. 9, 2014), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-olmstead-statewide-agreement.pdf; Interim Settlement Agreement, 

United States v. Rhode Island and City of Providence, 1:13-cv-00442 (D. R.I. 2013) 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-providence-interim-settlement.pdf.

746 Id., at § I; See Settlement Agreement, Lane v. Brown, No. 3:12-cv-00138 (D. Ore. 2013), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lane_sa.pdf.
130 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

years.

747 However, unlike the Oregon and Rhode Island cases, those cases have not involved 

Section 14(c) certificate holders.

748

In September 2019, DOJ and the City of Providence filed a joint motion to dismiss the case of 

United States v. Rhode Island and the City of Providence as to the City,749 and the federal judge 

in the case issued an order to dismiss after determining that the City was in compliance with the 

interim settlement agreement and consent decree overseen by the court.750 Notably, the parties did 

not move for the court to dismiss the case against the State of Rhode Island, so as of this writing,

the interim settlement agreement and consent decree remain in effect against the State.751 In 

September 2019, the court agreed to terminate the interim settlement agreement with the City, 

which had required the City to provide supports and services to students with disabilities necessary 

to introduce them to work in integrated settings, engage in person-centered planning with each 

student to identify post-secondary education work in integrated settings, and offer options for postsecondary supported employment and integrated day services.752 The City was required to close 

its sheltered workshop and to offer benefits counseling to all students with 

intellectual/developmental disabilities.753 In August 2019, the court-appointed independent 

monitor determined that the City was in substantial compliance with the terms of the interim 

settlement agreement, including implementing integrated trial work programs for students with 

disabilities and engaging in person-centered career development planning to encourage work 

747 See, U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Are Rights A Reality? Evaluating Federal Civil Rights Enforcement, pp. 103, 

110-11 (Oct. 2019) https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/11-21-Are-Rights-a-Reality.pdf.

748 Ibid., Appendix A (documenting all Civil Rights Division cases brought, by section); See also U.S. Dep’t of 

Justice, Civil Rights Division, Cases and Matters, Disability, linking ADA.gov; 

https://www.ada.gov/enforce_current.htm.

749 Joint Motion to Dismiss, United States v. Rhode Island and Providence, 1:13-cv-00442 (D. R.I., Sept. 5, 2019) 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri_joint_motion.html.

750 Minute Entry, United States v. Rhode Island and Providence, 1:13-cv-00442 (D. R.I. entered Sept. 26, 2019) 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri_order.html; See also, Memorandum in Support of Parties’ Joint Motion 

to Dismiss, United States v. Rhode Island and Providence, CA 13-442, (D. R.I. filed Sept. 26, 2019), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri_motion_dismiss_memo.html; U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Federal Court 

Terminates Agreement After the City of Providence Transforms Services for Students with Disabilities at Providence 

Public High School, (Sept. 26, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-court-terminates-agreement-after-cityprovidence-transforms-services-students.

751 Memorandum in Support of Parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss, United States v. Rhode Island and Providence, CA 

13-442, Note 1, (D. R.I. filed Sept. 26, 2019), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri_motion_dismiss_memo.html.

752 Interim Settlement Agreement, United States v. Rhode Island and City of Providence, 1:13-cv-00442, § IV (D. 

R.I. 2013) https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-providence-interim-settlement.pdf.

753 Id.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 131

placements in integrated settings.

754 The court monitor found that all students with 

intellectual/developmental disabilities received person centered career development planning 

beginning at age 14, and that students will receive “meaningful options for post-secondary 

Supported Employment and Integrated Day Services beginning no later than the start of the school 

year in which they will turn 18.”755 The monitor found that the City had closed its sheltered 

workshop as of April 12, 2013,

756 and found that between November 2017 and February 2019, the 

City provided 100 percent of students with intellectual/developmental disabilities with supported 

employment services.757 Responsibly for securing job placements in integrated settings was shifted 

to the State of Rhode Island, so the court monitor did not find whether the City was securing 

integrated job placements for former students.758

Commission research shows that DOJ has not been active in filing new Olmstead enforcement 

actions regarding 14(c) since the Rhode Island case in 2013.

759

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

As discussed in Chapter 1, in 2012, EEOC enforced Title I the ADA against a private employer in 

the Hill Country Farms case, and won a $240 million jury award for damages, as well as over $1 

million in back pay, for persons with disabilities who had been misclassified and underpaid by a 

former 14(c) workshop.760 This judgment came about several years after the employer ended its

use of a 14(c) certificate.761 Although the case seems to be rare as the Commission has not located

similar cases, this case shows that while states may be immune to damages under Section I of the 

ADA, private employers are not.762 Further, while either EEOC or DOJ may litigate Title I claims 

754 Court Monitor’s Final Report on the City of Providence Public School District’s Substantial Compliance with the 

Interim Settlement Agreement, United States v. Rhode Island and Providence, 1:13-cv-00442 (D. R.I., Aug. 20, 

2019); see, Interim Settlement Agreement, United States v. Rhode Island and City of Providence, 1:13-cv-00442, § 

IV (D. R.I. 2013) https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-providence-interim-settlement.pdf.

755 Id. at 14.

756 Id. at 15.

757 Id. at 20.

758 Id. at 22.

759 See generally, U.S. Dep’t of Justice Civil Rights Division, Olmstead Enforcement - Cases by Issue, 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/olmstead_cases_by_issue.htm#sheltered-workshops (last accessed May 22, 2020).

760 See supra notes 234-240(discussing E.E.O.C. v. Hill Country Farms, 899 F. Supp. 2d 827 (S.D. Iowa 2012), 

aff’d 564 Fed.Appx. 868 (Mem) (8th Cir. 2014)).

761 See supra notes 239-240.

762 Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360 (2001).
132 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

against state and local employers, EEOC retains Title I matters for litigation that involve private 

employers.763

Aside from the Hill Country Farms case with its multi-million dollar award, a Westlaw and 

LexisNexis legal database search revealed that there are no known similar cases in which EEOC 

enforced ADA protections on behalf of workers with disabilities working in 14(c) workshops.764

EEOC charge data on its ADA enforcement action statistics do not report whether private 

employers are 14(c) certificate holders,

765 so it is difficult to determine whether any of these 

thousands of private complaints received by EEOC involved 14(c) workshops.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services – Department of Health and Human Services: 

Home and Community Based Settings Rule

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services plays 

a pivotal role in the provision of services to people with disabilities, including employment 

supports and services. States are able to use Medicaid dollars to offer employment supports to 

people with intellectual and developmental disabilities through Section 1915(c)766 waivers or 

Section 1915(i) state-plan services.767 Section 1915(c) waivers permit states to spend money 

providing support for individuals in integrated settings who would otherwise receive services in 

an institutionalized setting.768 Section 1915(i) services provide home and community based 

services to individuals who meet state-defined criteria.769 In written testimony to the Commission, 

Dr. Julie Christensen, Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Association of People Supporting 

Employment First, explains that:

Medicaid [Home and Community Based] services are intended to lead to integrated 

community employment - or competitive, integrated employment as defined in the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). However, in direct violation of the 

rights of people with disabilities, this transition often does not happen. It is not uncommon 

763 See supra note 712, citing Justice Manual § 8 – 2.400.

764 See, e.g., Westlaw.com; LexisNexis.com.

765 See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Enforcement and Litigation Statistics, ADA Charge Data 

by Impairments/Bases – Receipts (Charges filed with EEOC) FY 1997 – FY 2019, 

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/ada-receipts.cfm.

766 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c).

767 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(i).

768 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c).

769 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(i).
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 133

to find individuals in these prevocational programs who have been receiving services in 

that setting for decades.770

Christensen also notes that according to guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services, prevocational services should be time limited, not long-term employment solutions for 

people with disabilities during which they can be paid a subminimum wage.771 Furthermore, 

Christensen writes in her testimony that:

Simply transitioning on to another [Home and Community Based Services] employment 

service does not necessarily equate to having solved the issue of subminimum wage for 

people with disabilities. When a state is approved to offer Group Supported Employment 

under their Medicaid [Home and Community Based Services] waiver, the regulations are 

silent on wages. This creates a loophole through which employers or providers can 

continue to pay a productivity wage to individuals who are not otherwise eligible for prevocational services under Medicaid.772

Many individuals with disabilities rely on Medicaid funding not only for their healthcare, but also 

to cover expenses incurred by day and employment services.773 Medicaid contributes some of the 

funding for these services, but funds are controlled and administered by state agencies and services 

are frequently provided by community providers, including Community Rehabilitation Programs

holding a 14(c) certificate and providing employment services.774 Medicaid is also the primary 

funding source of employment services through Home and Community Based Settings waivers 

granted to states.775 Day and employment services are funded through Home and Community 

Based Services Waivers issued to states by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.776

770 Christensen Statement, at 3.

771 Ibid; U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMSC Informational 

Bulletin, Updates to the §1915 (c) Waiver Instructions and Technical Guide regarding employment and employment 

related services (Sept. 16, 2011) https://downloads.cms.gov/cmsgov/archived 

downloads/CMCSBulletins/downloads/CIB-9-16-11.pdf.

772 Christensen Statement, at 3.

773 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2016. University of Massachusetts 

Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 5, 

https://www.thinkwork.org/sites/default/files/files/statedata2018_web_F.pdf.

774 Ibid., 4.

775 John Butterworth, Supplemental Testimony to USCCR at 1.

776 Winsor, J., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., Migliore, A., Domin, D., Zalewska, A., & Shepard, J. (2018). 

StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2016. University of Massachusetts 

Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion at 5, 

https://www.thinkwork.org/sites/default/files/files/statedata2018_web_F.pdf.
134 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Day services for people with disabilities are jointly funded through Medicaid and state agencies 

that support people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.777

At the Commission’s November 2019 briefing, several panelists testified to the importance of 

Medicaid funding to ensuring that people with disabilities receive employment supports and 

services. Alison Barkoff of the Center for Public Representation explained that Medicaid dollars 

go towards “supported employment to help people work in competitive integrated employment, as 

well as what's called pre-vocational services in sheltered workshops.”778 Barkoff further explained 

that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued the Home and Community Based 

Services rule in 2014, which in part requires that all people receiving services under a Home and 

Community Based Services waiver have the opportunity to work in community integrated 

employment.779

Former Governor of Pennsylvania and Homeland Security Secretary during the George W. Bush 

Administration Tom Ridge testified before the Commission in his capacity as Chairman of the 

National Organization on Disability, providing the Commission with an example of how Home 

and Community Based Services waivers can be used in practice, as follows:

At [the National Organization on Disability], we love our executive director, Carol Glazer, 

and her son Jacob, severely disabled. But he has meaningful part-time employment. Thanks 

to a person-centered planning model, Jacob works part-time, above minimum wage, at the 

NBA store in New York City. Medicaid pays for his job coach in the store. He also 

volunteers in integrated settings the rest of his time, takes weekly classes in art, music, 

cooking, fitness, self-improvement.780

Ridge noted in his testimony to the Commission that “[the National Organization on Disability is] 

focused on a bipartisan agenda to bring more workers with disabilities into the competitive labor 

market with fair wages.”781 Ridge further testified that he believes that the federal government 

should ensure that there are sufficient Medicaid dollars to fund supported employment services to 

give all people with disabilities the opportunity to work in competitive integrated employment.782

Julie Christensen clarified in her testimony to the Commission that when Medicaid dollars are 

involved, employment services provided to people with disabilities must be integrated and the 

777 Ibid., 4.

778 Barkoff Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 42.

779 Barkoff Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 42-43.

780 Ridge Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 184-185.

781 Tom Ridge, Chairman, National Organization on Disability, Written Statement for the Subminimum Wages 

Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Nov. 15, 2019, at 1.

782 Ridge Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing p. 190.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 135

ability to earn a full wage must be the goal.783 During the open public comment session that directly 

followed the Commission’s briefing, Charlotte Woodward, a sociology student at George Mason 

University and Community Outreach Associate at the National Down Syndrome Society, provided 

testimony to the Commission, emphasizing that any contemplated changes must allow people with 

disabilities to work at jobs in the community for a competitive wage without jeopardizing any 

funding for supports and services received through Medicaid.784

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks Medicaid spending, the expenditure on 

home and community-based, long term care and services surpassed spending on institutional longterm care and services for the first time in 2013, and as of 2016, 57 percent of all long-term care 

and services spending was through Home and Community Based Services waivers.

785 Long-term 

support services can include funding for supported employment for people with disabilities.786 In 

a fact sheet published alongside the final regulatory rule governing Home and Community Based 

Services Waivers, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services explained that the final rule is 

intended to be outcome driven, maximizing the opportunity for people with disabilities to receive 

services in their home or in an integrated, community-based setting.787

783 Christensen Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, p. 208.

784 Woodward Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 334-336.

785 MaryBeth Musumeci, Priya Chidambaram, and Molly O’Malley Watts, Issue Brief: Medicaid Home and 

Community-Based Services Enrollment and Spending, Kaiser Family Foundation, p. 2 (Feb. 2020) 

http://files.kff.org/attachment/Issue-Brief-Medicaid-Home-and-Community-Based-Services-Enrollment-andSpending.

786 Erica L. Reaves and MaryBeth Musumeci, Medicaid and Long-Term Services and Supports: A Primer, Kaiser 

Family Foundation, p. 1 (Dec. 2015), https://www.kff.org/medicaid/report/medicaid-and-long-term-services-andsupports-a-primer/.

787 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Fact Sheet: Home and Community Based Services, pp. 2-3 (Jan. 10, 

2014) https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/final-rule-fact-sheet.pdf. See also 42 C.F.R. § 440.180.
136 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Figure 3.2: Medicaid Spending in Institutional vs. Community Settings, 1995 – 2016

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation

The 2014 final Home and Community Based Services rule requires that all states receiving funding 

through a Home and Community Based Services waiver develop and adopt a transition plan that 

will move all services to being provided in an integrated, community environment.788 After 2022, 

the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will no longer permit the use of Home and 

Community Based Service waivers for supports and services in segregated settings.789 By 2022, 

states receiving funds through Home and Community Based Service waivers must demonstrate to 

the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that presumptively institutional settings comply

with heightened standards for community integration, or the state must take action to bring 

institutional settings into compliance.

790 According to guidance issued by the Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services, settings presumed to have the qualities of an institution include:

788 42 C.F.R. §§ 441.301, 441.710

789 See, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS Issues New Guidance on State Implementation of Home 

and Community Based Services Regulation (Mar. 22, 2019) https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cmsissues-new-guidance-state-implementation-home-and-community-based-services-regulation.

790 Ibid.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 137

• Settings that are located in a building that is also a publicly or privately operated 

facility that provides inpatient institutional treatment;

• Settings that are in a building located on the grounds of, or immediately adjacent 

to, a public institution; and

• Any other settings that have the effect of isolating individuals receiving Medicaid 

home and community-based services (HCBS) from the broader community of 

individuals not receiving Medicaid [Home and Community Based Services].

791

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services states that it will take into account, when evaluating 

settings, whether individuals receiving services in the setting have opportunities for interaction in 

and with the broader community, whether the setting restrictsthe choice of the individual to receive 

services or engage in activities outside of the setting, whether the setting is physically separated 

from the broader community, and whether the setting facilitates access to the broader 

community.792

However, as Julie Christensen noted in her testimony, Medicaid regulations are silent on the issue 

of wages for people with disabilities, therefore subminimum wage employment may continue for 

people with disabilities, albeit in settings deemed to be sufficiently integrated.

793

U.S. AbilityOne Commission

The federal AbilityOne Commission (AbilityOne) and the program it administers have their 

origins in the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act passed by Congress in 1971.794 The mission of the 

AbilityOne Commission is to “provide employment opportunities for people who are blind or have 

significant disabilities in the manufacture and delivery of products and services to the Federal 

Government.”795 AbilityOne states that it seeks to carry out its mission by awarding government 

contracts to employers that employ people who are blind or who have significant disabilities, 

including people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. AbilityOne awards the majority 

791 U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Home and CommunityBased Settings Regulation – Heightened Scrutiny, (March 22, 2019) 

https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/Federal-Policy-Guidance/Downloads/smd19001.pdf.

792 Ibid.

793 See supra Note 772.

794 Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 8501-8506.

795 U.S. AbilityOne Commission, Mission and Vision, https://www.abilityone.gov/commission/mission.html (last 

accessed Jan. 29, 2020).
138 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

of its contracts to Community Rehabilitation Programs that often hold a 14(c) certificate.796

AbilityOne currently has over 550 contractors located in every U.S. state, Guam, and Puerto 

Rico.797

In 2014, Executive Order 13658 established a minimum wage for some service contracts awarded 

by the federal government.798 In 2016, AbilityOne called for all entities holding AbilityOne 

contracts, including non-service contracts, to pay minimum wage or above to their employees with 

disabilities, but this declaration is not binding on AbilityOne contractors.

799 Executive Order 

13658 applies to AbilityOne service contracts, and as of January 1, 2020, minimum wage for 

federal service contracts is set at $10.80 per hour.800 While the AbilityOne Commission permits 

its contractors to pay employees below the minimum wage, the number of individuals working on 

AbilityOne contracts who are paid subminimum wages is relatively small. The Advisory 

Committee noted in its interim report that as of January 2015, AbilityOne contractors employed 

4,426 individuals who were paid less than minimum wage.801 That number accounted for 9.5 

percent of all 46,630 employees of AbilityOne contractors.802 2,599 employees of AbilityOne 

contractors were paid less than $5.00 per hour, and 1,827 individuals were paid between $5.01 and 

$7.24 per hour.803

In 2015, the Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for 

Individuals with Disabilities found in an interim report that the AbilityOne Commission 

unnecessarily perpetuates segregated employment of people with disabilities, and that during 

Fiscal Year 2014, only 1,936 individuals were transitioned to competitive integrated 

796 U.S. AbilityOne Commission, People with Disabilities, 

https://www.abilityone.gov/abilityone_program/who_people.html (last accessed Jan. 29, 2020).

797 Ibid.

798 Ex. Order 13658, Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, 79 Fed. Reg. 60633 (Oct. 7, 2014) (the 

minimum wage for covered federal service contracts was initially set at $10.10 per hour and is updated annually).

799 U.S. AbilityOne Comm’n, Declaration in Support of Minimum Wage for All People Who Are Blind or Have 

Significant Disabilities, (March 18, 2016), 

https://abilityone.gov/commission/documents/US%20AbilityOne%20Commission%20Declaration%2018March201

6%20Final.pdf.

800 Ex. Order 13658, 84 Fed. Reg. 49345 (Sept. 19, 2019).

801 Interim Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities at 92 (Sept. 15, 2015), https://www.dol.gov/odep/pdf/20150808.pdf; See also, U.S. AbilityOne 

Comm’n, U.S. AbilityOne Commission Overview, p. 13 (Jan. 23, 2015) 

https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/date/KimberlyZeich.pdf.

802 Interim Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities at 92 (Sept. 15, 2015), https://www.dol.gov/odep/pdf/20150808.pdf.

803 1,827 individuals who have significant disabilities worked on AbilityOne contracts and were paid between $5.01 

and $7.24 per hour.
Chapter 3: The Federal Government’s Role and Responsibilities 139

employment.804 The Advisory Committee also found that AbilityOne’s call for all contractors to 

pay minimum wage or above had not to date been accompanied by a call for contractors to provide 

opportunities for people with disabilities for competitive integrated employment, or to move to an 

integrated business model. The Committee found in its 2015 interim report that AbilityOne 

contracts encouraged segregation of people with disabilities in employment settings because 

AbilityOne “contracts exclusively with [Community Rehabilitation Programs]” and because the 

Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act requires that 75 percent of hours worked on AbilityOne contracts be

completed by people who are blind or who have significant disabilities.

805 The Advisory 

Committee found that these constraints resulted in “28 percent of all individuals working on 

AbilityOne contracts, continue[d] to be completed in sheltered workshop settings.”806 The 2015 

interim report, sent to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and Congress, recommended increased 

compliance oversight and consideration of changes in the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act and 

AbilityOne federal contracts to ensure against Olmstead violations; these recommendations were 

included in the recommendations the Advisory Committee made in its 2016 Final Report.

807

AbilityOne’s statutory authority is to publish and maintain a procurement list suitable for use by 

federal government agencies.808 The procurement list must be comprised of products produced or 

services provided by a qualified nonprofit agency that serves the blind or “severely disabled.”809

AbilityOne is also responsible for determining the fair market price of products and services on 

the procurement list and shall revise its price determinations as needed.810 AbilityOne is also 

required to:

[D]esignate a nonprofit agency or agencies to facilitate the distribution, by direct 

allocation, subcontract, or any other means, of orders of the Federal Government for 

products and services on the procurement list among qualified nonprofit agencies for the 

blind or qualified nonprofit agencies for other severely disabled.811

Federal regulations give the AbilityOne Commission the power to determine “which commodities 

and services procured by the Federal Government are suitable to be furnished by qualified 

804 Interim Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities at 92-93 (Sept. 15, 2015), https://www.dol.gov/odep/pdf/20150808.pdf.

805 Interim Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities at 93 (Sept. 15, 2015), https://www.dol.gov/odep/pdf/20150808.pdf.

806 Ibid., 93-94.

807 Ibid., 96; See, Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for 

Individuals with Disabilities at 57-61 (Sept. 15, 2016).

808 41 U.S.C. § 8503(a).

809 Id.

810 41 U.S.C. § 8503(b).

811 41 U.S.C. § 8503(c).
140 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities and add those 

items to the Committee's Procurement List.”812 For a nonprofit agency to qualify to be added to 

the AbilityOne procurement list, it must submit “a certified true copy of the State statute 

establishing or authorizing the establishment of nonprofit agency(ies) for persons who are blind or 

have other severe disabilities.”813

But as discussed in this chapter, gaps in federal oversight exist despite the involvement of several 

federal entities. In addition to no known DOJ investigations of AbilityOne entities, other gaps in 

federal oversight may lead to people with disabilities entering or remaining in 14(c) employment

as there is no known federal entity tracking how long people have been working in subminimum 

wage or segregated employment and whether people with disabilities are transitioning to 

competitive integrated employment.

814 Furthermore, there is little federal oversight ensuring that 

people with disabilities have informed choices about their employment options.

815

812 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.2(b).

813 41 C.F.R. § 51-22.2(i).

814 See supra note 654.

815 See supra notes 714-726.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 141

CHAPTER 4: STATES AND SUBMINIMUM WAGE LAWS

This chapter focuses on six specific states and explores the available data and policy choices 

regarding 14(c). These are: Virginia, Arizona, and Missouri, which allow the payment of 

subminimum wages through different policy iterations; and Vermont, Maine, and Oregon, which 

are in the process of prohibiting or have prohibited payment of subminimum wages to people with 

disabilities.

The Commission’s research below also includes testimony and data from the Arizona State 

Advisory Committee to the Commission, as well as accounts of the personal experiences of 

employees with disabilities in two of the examined states (Vermont and Virginia). The analysis in 

this chapter also draws from information gathered from two site visits (one in Vermont and one in 

Virginia) that were conducted after the briefing by a Subcommittee of the Commission.816 Each 

site visit included a tour, a roundtable session with local employers and community leaders, and 

over 15 staff interviews of employees with disabilities. The Commission’s research also includes 

an analysis of data comparing how people with disabilities’ employment experiences vary in each 

of the states studied.

As documented in prior chapters, there is nothing in the federal 14(c) legislation prohibiting states 

from ending the payment of subminimum wages in their states, and several states have done so.817

As discussed in Chapter 1, five states have prohibited subminimum wages,818 while two other

states have phased them out, and thirty-one states have policies that prioritize competitive 

integrated employment through Employment First programs while continuing to permit some 

14(c) certificate holders to operate. On the other end of the spectrum, some states remain in favor 

of providing the opportunity for persons with disabilities to work for subminimum wages, and 

advocates of employers in those states believe that their programs provide significant benefits to 

those employees. A map of these policies at the national level was provided in the Executive 

Summary (See Figure ES.1). The states studied herein have a range of relevant policies, and to 

help evaluate the policy options, the Commission took a deeper look at the states’ policies, 

available data, and perhaps most importantly, spoke with impacted people and learned from their 

experiences.

816 Members the Subcommittee were Commissioners Adegbile, Heriot, Subcommittee Chair Kladney, and 

Commission Chair Lhamon. See, U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Transcript of Telephonic Subcommittee Meeting

(Dec. 20, 2019). Commissioners Adegbile, Heriot and Kladney and their Special Assistants (Irena Vidulovic, Alison 

Somin and Amy Royce) participated in the site visits along with the following Commission Staff: Katherine 

Culliton-González and Marik Xavier-Brier from the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation; Maureen Rudolph and Pilar 

Velasquez-McLaughlin from the Office of General Counsel.

817 See supra note 75.

818 See supra notes 406-432.
142 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Employment Rates

Overall, employment of persons with disabilities varies widely in the United States, and these 

variations may or may not be tied to Section 14(c) or related state policies. For example, although 

lower than for persons without disabilities, labor force participation of persons with disabilities 

has risen in recent years, while at the same time fewer and fewer employers holding 14(c) 

certificates have been in operation.819

Below is a map of Census data regarding employment rates for persons with disabilities 

nationwide:

Figure 4.1

Source: Disability Statistics, Cornell Univ., https://www.disabilitystatistics.org/reports/acs.cfm?statistic=4.

819 The labor force participation rate for people with a disability ages 16 to 64 has risen every year since 2015. In 

2018, 33.3 percent of people with a disability ages 16 to 64 were in the labor force. For people without a disability, 

the labor force participation rate for all people ages 16 to 64 was 76.9 percent in 2018 

(https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/employment-characteristics-of-people-with-a-disability-in-2018.htm). In 2019, 

19.3 percent of persons with a disability were employed, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. In 

contrast, the employment-population ratio for persons without a disability was 66.3 percent. The unemployment 

rates for both persons with and without a disability declined from the previous year to 7.3 percent and 3.5 percent, 

respectively (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm).
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 143

Using Census data, Commission research shows that in 2017, in the six states studied, fulltime/full-year data of non-institutionalized persons with disabilities were also variable.

Chart 4.1: Full-time/full-year Employment Rate of Non-Institutionalized 

Persons with Disabilities Aged 18-64

Source: Disability Statistics, Cornell Univ., https://www.disabilitystatistics.org/reports/acs.cfm?statistic=4.

The chart above shows that at the macro level, the state that has phased out the payment of 

subminimum wages completely (Vermont) has the highest employment rate for people with 

disabilities, but the state allowing subminimum wages (Missouri) has the same rate as states that 

are phasing subminimum wages out (Maine and Oregon).

Trends in available data across these six states illustrate even further complexity. Employment 

rates from 2016 to 2017 show that contrary to the popular belief that ending subminimum wages 

will lead to job losses, the eradication of subminimum wages correlates with increased 

employment for people with disabilities.820 However, importing these data over a wider range of 

states shows even more complexity.

820 See supra notes 542-544 (summary of data in statement of Dr. Julie Christensen).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

VT AZ MO VA OR ME

Full-time Employment Rates of Persons with Disabilities 

Aged 18-64
144 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Table 4.1: Employment Rates of People with Disabilities in Selected States

Source: Cornell Univ., Disability Statistics, “Disability Status Reports, 2016-2017,” 

https://www.disabilitystatistics.org/ (accessed 4/7/2020) (2017 is most current data); Table generated by 

Commission staff.

The above data from 2017-2018 (the most recent available data for these subcategories) indicate 

that employment rates have increased in five of the six states, including all three of the selected 

states that maintain subminimum wages (Arizona, Missouri and Virginia).821 It is not clear whether 

reducing subminimum wage programs correlates with better employment rates, although the 

employment rate for persons with cognitive disabilities is markedly higher in Vermont, which has 

ended subminimum wages and taken aggressive steps to find competitive integrated employment 

for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

822 In Maine, which is phasing out 

subminimum wages, the increase in employment rates was only slight, at less than one percent for

both categories.823 Moreover, in Oregon, which is also phasing out subminimum wages, these data 

show that employment rates for all persons with disabilities, as well as for persons with cognitive 

821 See infra notes 982-1003 (regarding Arizona state policies), 1009-1012 (Missouri state policies) and 828-829

(Virginia state policies).

822 See infra notes 1059-1060 (regarding Vermont state policies).

823 See infra notes 1258-1262((regarding Maine state policies).

State Disability 2016 2017

Arizona All 35.1% 36.9%

Cognitive 25.1% 27.1%

Maine All 32.4% 32.9%

Cognitive 23.3% 24.1%

Missouri All 34.2% 35.9%

Cognitive 24.9% 28.7%

Oregon All 40.1% 37.0%

Cognitive 32.5% 29.8%

Vermont All 41.4% 45.9%

Cognitive 24.4% 41.3%

Virginia All 39.5% 41.3%

Cognitive 27.3% 29.5%
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 145

disabilities, decreased between 2017 and 2018.824 It is also important to note, however, that these 

employment rate trends may or may not be due to the particular state’s policy regarding 

subminimum wages, as they are also influenced by shifts in the overall employment market within 

each state.

Trends in Wages

The Commission also researched the six states’ trends in wages by utilizing the dataset compiled 

by UMass Boston’s Institute for Community Inclusion as reported to the Census by persons with 

cognitive disabilities.

825 The following chart shows changes in wages for persons with cognitive 

disabilities with all states (with and without subminimum wages) showing an increase over the last 

nine years.

Chart 4.2 Mean Annual Earnings from Work for Individuals with Cognitive Disabilities 

among States that Eliminated Subminimum Wages (2008-2017) (in thousands of dollars)

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info,

https://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/672696.

*2017 is most current data available

824 See infra notes 1280-1284 (regarding Oregon state policies).

825 See supra notes 510-513.

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Mean Annual Earnings for People with Cognitive Disabilities prior to 2017

Arizona Maine Missouri Oregon Virginia Vermont
146 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

These data are limited by the fact that wages in general vary from state to state, but they do show 

some trends. For example, states that still permit subminimum wages under Section 14(c) showed 

increasing annual earnings of persons with cognitive disabilities. This is illustrated by the data 

from Arizona (indicated by dark blue line), Missouri (grey line), and Virginia (light blue line). In 

Vermont (green line) and Maine (orange line), both which ended the payment of subminimum wages 

through changes to state Medicaid funding structures beginning in 2003 and 2005 respectively, 

wages also increased over time, albeit less dramatically. Wages for persons with cognitive 

disabilities also dipped in Vermont and Maine from 2016 to 2017. Virginia also had a dip between 

2016 and 2017, but Missouri’s increased.

The trend in wages in Vermont and Maine over the years studied was uneven year to year, but 

generally favorable over the long term (see chart 4.2). For example, wages increased in Vermont 

by $6,324/year between 2009 and 2010, then decreased between 2010 and 2011 by $8,893. Also, 

the increase in Vermont from 2008 to nine years later, in 2017 was $785.00. Oregon (yellow line), 

which will phase out 14(c) between 2020 and 2023, shows a larger overall increase but a smaller 

decrease from 2016 to 2017.

The data also show, however, that annual earnings have increased in each of the states over time 

(with the lowest earnings in Vermont and the highest in Virginia). See Chart 4.3.

Chart 4.3: Mean Annual Earnings for Individuals with

Cognitive Disabilities (2008 and 2017)

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, 

https://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/672696

*2017 most current data available

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Vermont Maine Missouri Arizona Oregon Virginia

Mean Annual Earnings (thousands)

2008 2017
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 147

Integration

Available data show that persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (about whom 

there is the most data) have varying rates of employment in integrated environments in each of the 

states studied. See Chart 4.4.

Chart 4.4. Percent of Persons with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities Participating in 

Integrated Employment Services (Among Community Rehabilitation Programs) by State, 2017

Chart created by Commission Staff

SOURCE: Univ. Mass. Institute for Community Inclusion, StateData: The National Report on Employment Services 

and Outcomes Through 2017, Table 5, https://www.thinkwork.org/sites/default/files/files/bluebook2019_Final.pdf; 

See also UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, State Employment Snapshot, 

https://www.statedata.info/statepages/Arizona.

There is some correlation between the policies that would phase out subminimum wages and 

employment outcomes, but the data represent only a subset of persons with disabilities. For 

example, Virginia has more employment integration for the persons served than Maine, which 

again shows that integration is possible in a state with 14(c) programs.

Individual state trends over time are also available, but it was not possible to compare these trends 

across the states, as each has a different base population, so these trends are instead presented at 

the state level in each of the sections below.

826

826 See infra Charts 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Arizona Missouri Virginia Maine Oregon Vermont Nation

% People with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilties in 

Integrated Employment Services
148 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

University of Massachusetts’ Institute for Community Inclusion also states that the data about 

integration in employment settings are nuanced, noting that:

State-by-state variation masks growth in integrated employment. . . . Twenty-six states 

reported an increase in the number of individuals in integrated employment services, with 

an average increase of 820 individuals (range: 3–3,838). States that reported increasing the 

number of individuals served in integrated employment by more than 500 individuals 

between 2007 and 2017 were CA, CO, KY, MN, MS, NH, NY, OH, OR, and WA. Each 

of these states has engaged in strategic efforts and systematic changes to their service 

delivery system to make integrated employment the preferred service outcome for adults 

with [intellectual/developmental disabilities] in their state. However, the number of 

individuals reported as receiving integrated employment services declined in 11 states, 

with an average reduction of 456 (range: 28–2,191).827

Thus, comparative data have limits. But by evaluating some of the available data at the state and 

local level, along with a discussion of the state policy and the input of community leaders in the 

six states below, the Commission hopes to contribute to better understanding the issues at stake.

States that Allow Subminimum Wages under Section 14(c)

Overview

As discussed in Chapter 2, 14(c) certificates are issued in 46 states and the District of Columbia; 

however, many of those states are in the process of transitioning away from subminimum wages 

under 14(c). The overwhelming majority of public comments received during the 30 days after the 

Commission’s briefing were from persons in favor of maintaining the 14(c) program. The map in 

Figure 2.5 shows that among the public commenters who participated, their views are spread

across many states, particularly in states that allow subminimum wages under 14(c) such as 

Arkansas, California, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and 

Wisconsin. The Commission also heard testimony at the briefing that strongly favored continuing 

to allow subminimum wages under 14(c), arguing that jobs provided under a 14(c) certificate 

provided a safe and dignified place for persons with disabilities. The Commission also heard 

extensive and concerned testimony against the certificate program and received public comments 

against its continued use, but equally concerning were the comments from impacted people and 

their families who feared that opportunities provided by this program would be taken away if it 

was eradicated, and they would be left without the benefits they receive by having the ability to 

work.

827 Univ. Mass. Institute for Community Inclusion, StateData: The National Report on Employment Services and 

Outcomes Through 2017, pp. 18-19, https://www.thinkwork.org/sites/default/files/files/bluebook2019_Final.pdf.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 149

To better understand 14(c) programs, especially from the point of view of impacted communities, 

the Commission researched three states that maintain the program: Arizona, Missouri and Virginia. 

This section also includes research from a site visit to an employer who holds a 14(c) certificate in 

Virginia, discussed below. The site visit included a tour, a roundtable with the employer and key 

staff as well as some family members, and Commission staff interviews with 15 employees with 

disabilities (although only one was an employee who earned subminimum wages under Section 

14(c)).

Virginia (Site Visit)

As of January 1, 2020, Virginia had sixteen issued and pending 14(c) certificate holders.828 On 

March 3, 2020, the Commission’s Subcommittee visited MVLE, a 14(c) certificate holder located 

in Springfield, Virginia.829 Members of the Subcommittee as well as the Commission’s General 

Counsel participated in a tour and roundtable discussion, while Commission staff interviewed 

employees. MVLE had indicated in advance that the tour would enable the Subcommittee to see 

various 14(c) employees working, but on the day of the tour only one person who was paid a 

subminimum wage was working—this means that most of the information observed during the 

tour and collected from the interviews relate to employees who were no longer working for 

subminimum wages.

The Overview section of this chapter shows increasing employment rates and wages for persons 

with disabilities in Virginia. In addition, the following research shows a steady increase in 

integration over the past 10 years.

828 U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Community Rehabilitation Programs (CRPs) List (July 1, 2019) 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders/county-rehabilitationprograms (last accessed Feb. 18, 2020).

829 See About Us, MVLE.org; see also U.S. Dep’t of Labor Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders (Jan. 

1, 2020) https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders/countyrehabilitation-programs (last accessed Apr. 8, 2020); Wage and Hour Division, Response to Affected Agency 

Review (May 19. 2020) (on file).
150 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Chart 4.5: Number of Individuals with Cognitive Disabilities working in Integrated 

Employment, Virginia (2007-2017)

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, “State IDD Agencies: Virginia,” 

https://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/185684

*Indicates data are not available for that year

Tour

MVLE hosted the Subcommittee on March 3, 2020, and the visit began with a tour. During the 

tour, MVLE told the Commission that they currently have 55 employees working in the 14(c) 

program, 144 receiving supports and services, 75 in individual placements, and 67 working in 

AbilityOne government contracts.830 Although the agreed-upon purpose for visiting MVLE was 

to study their 14(c) program, MVLE only made one employee earning a subminimum wages 

available for a Commission interview and work observation.831

830 Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020); for more information on the federal AbilityOne 

program, see supra notes 794-813.

831 See Email from Rukku Singla, Special Assistant to Chair Catherine E. Lhamon, to April Pinch-Keeler, President, 

MVLE, dated Jan. 16, 2020 (stating that the Commission's purpose was "to better understand and observe the work 

center model that MVLE operates and the employment provided under the 14(c) certificate, the Commissioners and 

our civil rights research staff would take a tour of the facility, engage in a roundtable with select stakeholders 

including MVLE management, and interview MVLE employees and family members").

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017

Integrated I/DD Employment (numbers)
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 151

MVLE’s tour began at the Greenspring retirement community,

832 where MVLE has a hospitality 

contract staffed with workers with disabilities, and the Subcommittee observed approximately 

eight individuals with disabilities working.833 During the tour, MVLE staff stated that one of these 

workers is under their 14(c) certificate earning a commensurate wage, and all others make at least 

minimum wage. In a follow-up letter, MVLE clarified that the Greenspring site in fact “has three 

individuals who currently work under the Department of Labor (DOL) 14(c) certificate,” noting 

during the tour “there was a misstatement that only one MVLE individual works under the 

certificate.”834 The Commission observed workers rolling silverware in napkins, moving 

equipment around on carts, washing dishes, and filling table containers with sugar packets.835 The 

manager of the hospitality program spoke to the group and stated that he was very happy with the 

MVLE contract and that in his two-year tenure as manager, they had hired two MVLE workers 

full time.836

MVLE stated individuals on the Greenspring contract might start as 14(c) employees earning 

below minimum wage, but the goal was to increase their skills so they could earn a prevailing 

wage. MVLE described their use of the 14(c) program as a way to provide on-site training to 

people who might not be familiar with this type of employment setting.837

The Commission’s Subcommittee noted that during their tour, workers with disabilities were 

interacting primarily or solely with other workers with disabilities, such as a group sitting at tables 

rolling silverware together.838 The workers with disabilities were being given direction by two job 

coaches who were not persons with disabilities, who were there providing support.839 One of the 

job coaches reported that she saw people grow, and that some learned very quickly,840 although 

she noted that no one left had for a different job during the three years she had been working at 

Greenspring.841

MVLE staff gave an example of a time trial (typically done to measure skills) that might occur in 

this environment such as clocking the number of racks a worker could load in the dishwasher over 

832 See Erickson Living, Greenspring Retirement Community, https://www.ericksonliving.com/greenspring (last 

accessed May 25, 2020).

833 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020); Notes of Maureen Rudolph, 

General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

834 Letter of June 10, 2020 from MVLE to the Commission (on file).

835 Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

836 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).

837 Ibid.

838 Ibid.

839Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

840 Ibid.

841 Ibid.
152 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

a certain amount of time. They noted they do time trials discreetly so workers do not know they 

are being timed.842 MVLE reported that the time trails are done according to Department of Labor 

industry standards for setting wages based on skillsets,843 and that at the workers at Greenspring 

are “at the higher end of the threshold.”844

Staff stated they have 20 sites where workers provide services with support from MVLE, and that 

some are paid subminimum wages under a 14(c) certificate and some are not. During the tour of 

Greenspring, MVLE staff stated that one of the greatest challenges to people finding and keeping 

employment is the lack of reliable paratransit or other door-to-door transportation services in the 

area.845 During employee interviews, one employee noted that they appreciated that their job 

through MVLE included transportation, and that they are unsure that another job would provide 

the transportation they require to work.846 MVLE staff also stated that some of their employees 

use METRO access (the accessible public transportation system that is door-to-door), and that 

Medicaid pays for some of the employees’ transportation.847

The Subcommittee was then given a tour of the main MVLE site, where they were not able to 

observe MVLE’s business center, where MVLE contracts for shredding and scanning services; 

however MVLE staff stated that no 14(c) workers currently work in the business center.848 The 

Subcommittee observed a dance and movement class where arts instructors and staff work with 

individuals with disabilities to conceive and perform a dance/movement piece. MVLE stated the 

Subcommittee could not observe day services as they had not coordinated it in advance, and that 

it probably would consist of people just eating lunch.

849 Lastly, during the tour of the main 

building, MVLE staff pointed out photos of individuals with disabilities who had received special 

honors.

850

Roundtable

The MVLE site visit included a roundtable discussion on the topic of subminimum wages on 

March 3, 2020 and consisted of a Subcommittee of the Commission with Commissioner Kladney, 

842 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).

843 See supra notes 136-141 (describing Section 14(c) requirements regarding setting wages in relation to prevailing 

wage).

844 Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

845 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).

846 See infra, note 972.

847 Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

848 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).

849 Ibid.

850 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 153

Commissioner Adegbile, and Commissioner Heriot present.

851 The roundtable was convened on 

site at MVLE, a 14(c) certificate holder, to discuss their programs for individuals with intellectual 

and developmental disabilities and their business practices surrounding those programs.852 Below 

are the individuals who were present, with their titles and organizations listed.

• April Pinch-Keeler, President and Chief Executive Officer, MVLE

• Kenan Aden, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, MVLE

• Cathy Pennington, MVLE Board Director and Treasurer; Small Business Certified Public 

Accountant

• Joanne Aceto, Senior Director of Employment Services, MVLE

• Michelle Lotrecchiano, Senior Director of Program Services, MVLE

• Linda Brinkley, Senior Program Manager of Operations, MVLE

• James Clark, Quality Manager, MVLE

• Ashley Welsh, Program Manager for Transition and Training, MVLE

• Carol Skelly, Chairperson of the Intellectual Disabilities Board, a subcommittee of the 

Community Services Board of Arlington County, VA.853

President April Pinch-Keeler stated that MVLE provides an array of services that are covered 

through their day support model.854 According to Ashley Welsh, the Program Manager of 

Transition and Training at MVLE, a day support model is a therapeutic recreational day 

program.855 At the roundtable, MVLE’s president explained that the organization phased out their 

sheltered support model due to a lack of jobs and less individual interest in being in sheltered 

environments,856 clarifying that it now offers job opportunities through both group and individual 

supported employment models.857 According to Joanne Aceto, Senior Director of Employment 

Services, MVLE has over 20 work sites for individuals, and it is considered the “employer” at all 

times.858 According to Linda Brinkley, Senior Program Manager of Operations, the support that 

MVLE provides helps people transition from high school into employment by providing them job 

training and skills, which “gives them the opportunity to be successful, to be independent, and to 

851 David Kladney, Commissioner and Chair of Subcommittee on Subminimum Wages, U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 4.

852 Ibid.

853 Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable Transcript, p. 2.

854 April Pinch-Keeler, President and CEO at MVLE, testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 7.

855 Welsh Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 33; See supra note 203 (describing supported 

employment); and see infra notes 868-870 (regarding specific supported employment programs at MVLE).

856 Pinch-Keeler Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 8.

857 Aceto Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 18.

858 Ibid.
154 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

be able to able to develop their career path and move into integrated competitive employment.”859

MVLE’s Quality Manager James Clark stated that MVLE is “meeting [individuals] at their ability, 

not at their level of disability,” and “letting them play to their strengths and not their 

weaknesses.”860

Program Manager of Transition and Training Ashley Welsh, indicated that there is a push for job 

training programs for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities, for which preemployment can start at the age of 14 via an individual’s Individual Education Plan.861 She stated 

that there are career schools in a local county in Virginia where students can receive employment 

training from ages 18 to 22.862 MVLE receives referrals for students from the age of 22 who are 

ready to graduate, many of whom are referred to group supported employment or day support.863

Michelle Lotrecchiano, Senior Director of Program Services at MVLE, indicated that individuals 

coming from school are required to do a counseling session (as a once-a-year requirement) 

consisting of some group sessions as well as one-on-one interactions.864

President Pinch-Keeler estimated that nearly 75 percent of individuals with disabilities in the area 

in which MVLE is located (in the Springfield, VA area) are unemployed, but because they have 

never been employed, they are not counted in the unemployment rate.865 Vice President and Chief 

Operating Officer Kenan Aden added that the backlog of persons with disabilities looking for jobs 

mirrors the unemployment rate in Virginia, so there will always be individuals that are looking for 

work.866 Lotrecchiano noted that it is a challenge to find employers who want to work with the 

population they serve, due to the levels of support needed, potential medical challenges, or 

administrative/logistical challenges.867 Aden went on to state that MVLE’s challenge is also 

having different individuals needing different levels of support, as follows:

859 Linda Brinkley, Senior Program Manager of Operations at MVLE, testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia 

Roundtable, p. 14.

860 James Clark, Quality Manager at MVLE, testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, pp. 12-13.

861 Welsh Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 32. The Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act requires Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) are required for public school students who receive special 

education and related services. See 33 U.S.C. § 1414.

862 Ibid., p. 34.

863 Ibid., pp. 32-33.

864 Michelle Lotrecchiano, Senior Director of Program Services at MVLE, testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia 

Roundtable, p. 63.

865 Pinch-Keeler Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 60.

866 Kenan Aden, Executive Vice President and COO at MVLE, testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, 

p. 65.

867 Lotrecchiano Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, pp. 60-61.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 155

The challenge might be, in some cases, that different people need different levels of 

support. So when I go to that employer that has that one job available, and Isay, hey, please 

hire my person. The person I bring to the table is not necessarily going to be a person that 

needs someone to support them all day long.868

At the roundtable, staff discussed that MVLE provides two different tracts of day services: (1) a 

therapeutic day program focused on therapeutic activities (therapy services, nursing services, and 

behavioral supports), community activities, and volunteering, and which also provides support 

services (nursing, behavioral, speech, language, etc.); and (2) an employment training program for 

recent grads who are not ready to work, teaching “soft skills.”869 At the time of the March 2020 

roundtable discussion, approximately 220 clients were offered day services.870

MVLE staff stated that they try to maximize opportunities and increase efficiency, so MVLE’s 

model is often to have an employer buy into a group support contract versus hiring individuals 

directly, which “provides the opportunity for skilled development that an employer's not going to 

pay out of the gate.”871 When looking to partner with an employer for group supported 

employment, MVLE aims to have a minimum group of three individuals hired at one time; 

however the same employer could also provide individual employment, and MVLE might push to 

have one group and an additional individual hired.872 Vice President Aden indicated that the 

baseline is always one position, stating that the “first option is to try to get someone...hired directly 

by this employer.”873

Regarding 14(c) programs, Aden indicated that depending on who you talk to, the definitions for 

these types of programs may differ.874 He stated that the idea that there is only one type of 14(c) 

program is a misconception; MVLE utilizes its 14(c) certificate to place people with employment 

based on their abilities and the level of support needed to help them succeed.875 Aden went on to 

explain that individuals that were observed during the site visit started on 14(c) and matriculated, 

and are now “on the path to getting a competitive job being directly employed with another 

employer.”876 The definition of “competitive” also differs, but it could still mean that an individual 

868 Aden Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, pp. 65-66.

869 Lotrecchiano Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, pp. 78-79.

870 Ibid., p. 84.

871 Pinch-Keeler Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 70.

872 Lotrecchiano Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 64.

873 Aden Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 64.

874 Aden Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, pp. 35-36.

875 Ibid., p. 36, 37.

876 Ibid., p. 36.
156 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

is receiving some level of support, if only for the application process or the orientation.877 Aden 

commented that 14(c) is “an a la carte item” and typically “not something that we kind of swath 

across an entire program.”878

MVLE’s Quality Manager James Clark shared that he believes the 14(c) program has opened doors 

and provided meaningful opportunities to the individuals that MVLE serves.879 According to 

Senior Director of Employment Services Aceto, it is “a mechanism for getting employment, for 

getting that first job, if people so choose and want to work independently.”880 The program also 

serves as a “stepping stone” available to these individuals, enabling them to “learn skills that they 

may not have been able to learn if they were put straight into a competitive setting, where they 

didn't have as much support as we were able to offer them.”881 Aceto stated further that MVLE 

staff have seen individuals successfully transition from group employment to individual supported 

employment, and from 14(c) to commensurate wages, when they no longer need a regular job 

coach.882 MVLE Board Director and Treasurer Cathy Pennington stated that the opportunities 

created by 14(c) give individuals a sense of pride and purpose, and for many, it’s not about the 

wages but rather about the opportunity to contribute to society and “be like everyone else.”883

Quality Manager Clark explained how individuals are measured for time, stating that key tasks of 

any given job (that are measurable) are measured with a stopwatch, and the individuals being timed 

are not alerted ahead of time, so as not to hinder productivity.884 Times are recorded for the 

individual employees with disabilities and compared to the time of a non-disabled person.885

Individuals are timed three separate times while performing a prominent task, and an average is 

taken.886

Board Director Pennington asserted that:

It is a major concern within the Commonwealth to ensure that no one gets left behind as 

they make employment choices, and have opportunities to work, and just have that choice 

877 Ibid., p. 37.

878 Ibid., p. 38.

879 Clark Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 13.

880 Aceto Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 19.

881 Welsh Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 11.

882 Aceto Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 18.

883 Catherine Pennington, CPA and MVLE Board Treasurer, testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 

22.

884 Clark Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 47.

885 Ibid., pp. 48-49.

886 Ibid., p. 49.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 157

available for anyone with a disability, regardless of the level of disability, or the level of 

support [needed].887

Pennington also stated that there is currently a lack of resources in Virginia, which can have an 

adverse effect on an individual’s choice and their ability to advance their career path.888 PinchKeeler added that if the “14(c) certificate program were to go away, it would jeopardize many of 

the jobs that you see.”889 Carol Skelly, Chairperson of the Intellectual Disabilities Board, which is 

a subcommittee of the Community Services Board in Arlington County, Virginia, depicted what 

changes to 14(c) could mean for many workers as follows:

It's a basic principle of economics that the more you charge for a service, the lower the 

quantity that will be purchased. In the posed 14c world, the work... will either disappear, 

or it will be done by others who are more capable and need fewer accommodations to 

work....[W]hat I want you to think about is that money is not the only benefit of work. It 

also provides dignity, engagement, and a sense of self worth, and that those are basic human 

rights, as much as being paid a competitive wage.890

With regard to a potential repeal of 14(c), Aden stated that he is worried about “the gap that so 

many people potentially could fall through if we make an arbitrary change to a system,” but 

acknowledges that “a lot of improvement...can be made to [the system].”891 He maintained, 

though, that the potential repeal of 14(c) could become a barrier to access and “a major rights issue 

around the right to work and inclusion.”892 Pinch-Keeler indicated that potential policy changes 

that are confronting them “are philosophically based, and not necessarily realistic for all segments 

of the population we support,” and said the “pattern of these changes ahead creates a system 

limiting choices and negatively impacting those individuals with the most significant 

disabilities.”893

Aceto stressed that MVLE are concerned for the more than 600 people who are currently employed 

through 14(c) in the Commonwealth of Virginia if it were repealed, questioning:

Is there going to be some sort of opportunity for employment training, resources allocated 

so that they still have that option of working? Whether that's working at 50 percent 

887 Pennington Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 18.

888 Ibid., p. 20; Lotrecchiano Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 17.

889 Pinch-Keeler Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 9.

890 Carol Skelly, Chairperson, Intellectual Disabilities Board, a subcommittee of the Community Services Board in 

Arlington County, VA, testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, pp. 29-30.

891 Aden Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 26.

892 Ibid., p. 26.

893 Pinch-Keeler Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 31.
158 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

productivity level, and they maintain the current job they have, you know, and now we're 

looking, you know, now, what are they going to earn? 894

Pinch-Keeler also noted that “we need to make sure that we recognize companies that we can be 

part of that recognition for diversification, that they get goals for hiring people with disabilities, 

and make that part of, not just a government contract, but public renewals, for hitting percentages 

of people hired with disabilities, being a good community partner in your community.”895 She 

additionally stated that there is a lack of peer-reviewed, longitudinal research that supports the 

withdrawal of 14(c), noting that there is “no data that we know of that...eliminating the certificates 

will have a positive impact for individuals with significant intellectual and developmental 

disabilities.”896

Interviews:

Commission staff interviewed a total of 15 employees at MVLE, all of whom are persons with 

disabilities including cerebral palsy, dyslexia, Down’s syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity 

disorder, 50 percent hearing, and other disabilities. All persons whom the Commission interviewed 

were at some point employed under a 14(c) certificate.897 Interviewees generously told 

Commission staff about themselves and their work. All of the individuals interviewed indicated 

that they liked their jobs, and they had few complaints. Their stories also provided evidence that 

they enjoyed the company of their co-workers and developed a sense of community and even 

family. Regarding their pay, only one person interviewed was currently receiving subminimum 

wages.

898 When asked what they liked and disliked about their jobs, all 15 employees interviewed 

said that they liked their jobs, and many added that they liked the people they worked with. Only 

a few told Commission staff about any specific dislikes.899 Most worked in janitorial cleaning, 

delivering newspapers, or in a retirement home where they assisted with clearing and setting tables 

and similar tasks. Only a few knew how much they made, and while some recalled hearing about 

other job opportunities and expressed a desire to learn new skills or make more money, others did 

not. They all felt that they could tell their supervisors about any problems they experienced.900

Of the 15 individuals interviewed, only one was employed under 14(c) and receiving subminimum 

wages. He indicated that he was making $4.00/hour. The remaining 14 employees were making 

894 Aceto Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 91.

895 Pinch-Keeler Testimony, Subminimum Wages Virginia Roundtable, p. 93.

896 Ibid., p. 94.

897 Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

898 Commission Staff Interview Notes (on file).

899 OCRE Interview Notes (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file).

900 OCRE Interview Notes (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file).
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 159

minimum wage, which is $7.25/hour in Virginia; however, some of them had received 

subminimum wages in the past. MVLE began paying most employees minimum wage in 

approximately 2019. Job coaches (who were present in some of the interviews to support the 

employees) told Commission staff that this occurred after a DOJ ruling, but it was not a ruling 

against MVLE in particular.901 Although all the employees were asked and answered the same 

questions, each shared different parts of their life stories, which are summarized below. 

• The employee making subminimum wages, D.Y., told staff that he is 31 years old and had

worked at MVLE for one year.902 He said it was his first job and stated that he works in

the dish room, busses tables, stacks and unloads dishes, and sets tables. When asked if he

liked his work, he nodded yes, and did the same when asked if he liked the people he

worked with. When asked how much he makes, he pointed at $4.00 per hour.903 When

asked if MVLE talked to him about other types of job opportunities, he also nodded yes,

and agreed with his job coach (who was present in the interview to support him) that the

last time he had heard about new job opportunities was last year.904

• Glenda Meade, a 71 year-old woman, told staff that she had been working for MVLE for

almost 38 years, and that her work anniversary was the following Sunday.905 She spoke

very excitedly about this milestone and when asked what she would do to celebrate, she

smiled and said that she would relax. Ms. Meade said that MVLE was her first and only

job, where her work consisted of “anything they asked me to do,” including shredding,

labelling and inserting, “whatever I found I can do.”906 Also, she “like[s] to come in every

day, but stay home when it snows,” and that she likes the people she works with.907 She

currently makes minimum wage, $7.25 per hour, and she did not remember how MVLE

determines how much she makes.908 When asked if MVLE talked to her about other

opportunities, she commented: “I can go somewhere else if I wanted, but I want to stay

here. They feel like family. I’ve been here all my working years, 38 years.”909 When asked

901 OCRE Interview Notes, Comments of Several Job Coaches (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file).

902 OCRE Interview Notes, D.Y. (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file) (D.Y. consented to using his initials in the report).

903 Ibid.

904 Ibid.

905 OCRE Interview Notes, Glenda Meade (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file) (Ms. Meade consented to using her full name in 

the report).

906 Ibid.

907 Ibid.

908 Ibid.

909 Ibid.
160 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

what skills training she received, she commented that she learned social skills, and her job 

coach added that she learned interview skills.910

• Jessica Fichman, age 63, said she had worked at MVLE for six years. MVLE was not her

first job, though, and she previously worked at Savi’s Source. She said that at MVLE, she

rolls newspapers, puts them in plastic bags, and delivers them, and on other days she

prepares and shreds papers.911 When asked what she likes about her job, she shrugged, and

when asked what she dislikes about her job, she said “lack of work,” explaining that she

would like to have more work as she only works two days a week and is “bored on other

days.”912 Her job coach prompted her to explain that on the other days, she does searches,

and participates in stories, discussions, volunteer activities and learning sign language.913

Ms. Fichman was not aware of how much she makes per hour, nor did she recall the last

time she had received a raise.914 Her job coach who was present in the interview stated that

she makes $7.25/hour and she agreed. He also explained that she was paid at a piece rate

but since two-three years ago, all of the persons who work at MVLE is paid minimum

wage, $7.25/hour, but “not everybody works.”915 When asked about job and skills training

opportunities, Ms. Fichman did not recall any, and said that she was interested in learning

about other opportunities.916 Her job coach said that she was given the opportunity to work

in the janitorial crew five days a week, but she opted out; however, Ms. Fichman insisted

that she was not.917

• Sally Whiltie, age 56, told Commission staff that she has worked at MVLE since April

2019 as part of the janitorial staff, whose responsibilities included sweeping, mopping and

taking out the trash.918 When asked what she likes and dislikes about her job, she said it

“keeps me busy,” and that although she dislikes mopping the halls, she “likes everything

else.”919 She said that she would feel comfortable telling MVLE if there was something

she did not like in her job.920 Ms. Whiltie said that she was making $9.40 per hour at her

910 Ibid.

911 OCRE Interview Notes, Jessica Fichman (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file) (Ms. Fichman consented to using her full name 

in the report). 

912 Ibid.

913 Ibid.

914 Ibid.

915 Ibid.

916 Ibid.

917 Ibid.

918 OCRE Interview Notes, Sally Whiltie (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file) (Ms. Whiltie consented to using her full name in 

the report).

919 Ibid.

920 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 161

prior job, at a hotel, and that she did not know how much she was making at MVLE but 

that the “checks were good.”921 She did not recall any professional development 

opportunities at MVLE but also said that she did not want to change jobs at the moment.922

She also told Commission staff that her hours are 2:00 – 6:30 p.m. Monday – Friday, she 

commutes by cab and METRO, she likes her work environment and wants to stay, and that 

she wants a job that she can walk to but enjoys being a custodian and is happy at MVLE.923

• Sonya Gooe, age 44, said she had been working at MVLE for three years, and that it was

her first job. She told OCRE staff that she works at Greenspring retirement community five

days a week, cleaning walls, caddies, chairs and windows, and refilling and cleaning the

salt and pepper shakers.924 She said she likes her work and likes the people a lot, and that

she feels that she could talk to her supervisor about any problems.925 She was not sure how

much she was paid, but said that she had received a raise last year, and when her job coach

asked if her pay was determined by time studies, she said yes.926

• J.A., age 42, told Commission staff that she had been working at MVLE for 19 years, and

that it was her first job. Her duties include “silverware, [to] clean tables and trays in the

café, clean and dry trays.”927 When asked what she liked and disliked about her job, she

only had positive things to say: “It’s nice. And I get paid and make some money, and that’s

about it.”928 She added that she likes the people she works with, who are two persons with

disabilities and two without; and her job coach explained that he is one of the people who

supports her.929 Ms. A was not sure how much she makes or how MVLE determines her

salary, although she did remember that she is making more than when she started.930 She

also stated that she had changed jobs, and previously worked in janitorial services, cleaning

bathrooms and picking up trash.931 She said her professional development included time

studies, and that she had learned how to roll silverware.932

921 Ibid.

922 Ibid.

923 Ibid.

924 OCRE Interview Notes, Sonya Gooe (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file) (Ms. Gooe consented to using her full name in the 

report).

925 Ibid.

926 Ibid.

927 OCRE Interview Notes, J.A. (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file).

928 Ibid.

929 Ibid.

930 Ibid.

931 Ibid.

932 Ibid.
162 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

• N.S, age 41, told Commission staff that he has been working at MVLE for 20 years. He

explained that his job is delivering newspapers in the neighborhood every Thursday and

Friday, and on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays he picks up trash in the community, and

on Wednesday he sees a speech therapist and goes to McDonald’s.933 Asked what he likes

and dislikes about his job, he enthusiastically stated, “I love to do my job. It’s what I do,

going to different places. I love my job.”934 He did not know how much he is paid, and

when asked how MVLE determines his pay, his job coach in the room said that he did time

studies, and Mr. S agreed.935 He said that his professional development opportunities

consisted of learning how to do the papers and the trash, and that in the past he had rolled

silverware.936

• Candice Smart, age 41, told staff that has worked at MVLE since 2004, doing custodial

cleaning work such as mopping floors and cleaning bathrooms.937 This was not her first

job, as she previously worked at Fort Belvore hospital in guest services, washing dishes.938

When asked what she liked and disliked about her job, Ms. Smart said: “I like my job. I

like everyone around me. There’s nothing about my job I don’t like.”939 She added that she

likes “making new friends” and “making a lot of money.”940 She reported that she makes

$13/hour and that she last received a raise in September 2019.941

• Robert Steven Opiela, a 39-year-old man, told staff that he has been working at MVLE for

13 years; however, he is now working as a courtesy clerk at a supermarket, where he assists

customers with propane returns and exchanges, as well as gift cards.942 Mr. Opiela said

that he likes the people he works with, and likes that he can accept tips; but he does not

like his chaotic work schedule as it is not a 9 to 5 job and that the “kiddie shopping carts

are very frustrating.”943 When asked if he feels like he could talk to his supervisor or others

about any problems, he said that he has not brought up scheduling as he has to talk to the

933 OCRE Interview Notes, N.S. (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file).

934 Ibid.

935 Ibid.

936 Ibid.

937 OCRE Interview Notes, Candice Smart (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file) (Ms. Smart consented to using her full name 

in the report).

938 Ibid.

939 Ibid.

940 Ibid.

941 Ibid.

942 OCRE Interview Notes, Robert Steven Opiela (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file) (Mr. Opiela consented to using his full 

name in the report).

943 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 163

person who makes the schedule.944 He is not sure of his current wages, but says that they 

were cut by about $4.50 an hour when he moved from his stock clerk position to his current 

position.945 He found out about the opportunity to work at the supermarket about 11 months 

ago, through his job coach, and says that he feels comfortable talking to her about his 

interests and asking about other opportunities.946 Mr. Opiela added that no one has trained 

him to be a bagger yet, but instead he has been advocating for himself to have more 

opportunities, and his job coach (who was in the room) told him that they can look into 

it.947

• D.R., a 38-year-old woman, said she has been working through MVLE for eleven years,

but she also worked for nine years prior at MVLE at the retirement home in a group

setting.948 She has worked for the last year as a concierge clerk at a supermarket, assisting

with carts, trash, and cleaning the break room.949 When asked what she liked and disliked

about her job, Ms. R. said everyone is nice, and that she can ask for help when needed;

however, she does not like some aspects about her cleaning tasks and does not feel

comfortable talking to her supervisor about this.950 Ms. R said that she makes $8.60 per

hour and has not received a raise yet. She is interested in learning new skills to work in

other departments at the supermarket and doing other tasks, such as stocking, and wants to

talk to her job coach (who was in the room to support her during the interview) about

this.951

• Amy Loi is a 34-year-old woman who told Commission staff that she has been working at

MVLE for 10 years, and this is her first job. Ms. Loi said that work consists of putting

stamps and labels on documents, as well as stuffing and folding, shredding papers, and

typing.952 She also participates in activities such as drama, signing, golf, swimming,

football, and horseback riding.953 When asked what she likes and dislikes about her job,

she said that she likes “everything here,” including “hanging out with my friends.”954 She

also really enjoys serving at the farm-to-table barbeque hosted by MVLE every year, and

944 Ibid.

945 Ibid.

946 Ibid.

947 Ibid.

948 OCRE Interview Notes, D.R. (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file); See also supra notes 845-847 (tour of Greenspring). 

949 Ibid.

950 Ibid.

951 Ibid.

952 OCRE Interview Notes, Amy Loi (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file) (Ms. Loi consented to using her full name in the 

report).

953 Ibid.

954 Ibid.
164 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

that her only dislike was that she would like to make more money.955 Her job coach 

explained that she used to make piece meal wages, but that since the “flat rate from DOJ,” 

she now makes $7.25 per hour.956 She said that had opportunities to learn new skills 

through artwork, such as drawing and coloring.957

• R.G., a 26-year-old woman, told Commission staff that she has been working at MVLE 

since 2015, and that she worked in the “janitorial crew across the street” for about three 

years, and currently works from 9:00 – 2:00, Monday – Friday, cleaning tables, bathrooms, 

and taking out the trash.958 When asked what she likes and dislikes, she said that she likes 

her job and making a paycheck, and commented, “just working is good.”959 She said that 

she did not have any dislikes except that sometimes she dislikes doing the trash, and that 

she feels that she could talk to her supervisor about any problems she might have.960 R.G. 

said she last received a raise towards the end of a contract that MVLE had with a church, 

which ended January 31, 2020.961 When prompted by her job coach she said that MVLE 

talks to her about other types of jobs once a year when she has a meeting with staff; and 

she then commented that “it would be good to get another job. . . that would pay more 

money.”962 When asked about skills development opportunities, she said she has had the 

opportunity to learn how to clean well.963

• The youngest person interviewed was Andrea Fontana, a 23-year-old woman.964 She 

explained that she has worked at MVLE since September 2019, where she opens envelopes 

that are in boxes to check that all is there and then re-stuffs them, and she also types labels 

for the envelopes.965 Ms. Fontana said she likes her job, and that “[i]t’s fun;” she could not 

think of anything she dislikes.966 She is not sure how much she is paid, but she stated that 

if she works harder she makes more money, and if she works less she makes less money.967

She was not clear if she had heard about other job opportunities, and commented that she 

955 Ibid.

956 Ibid.

957 Ibid.

958 Ibid.

959 Ibid.

960 Ibid.

961 Ibid.

962 Ibid.

963 Ibid.

964 OCRE Interview Notes, Andrea Fontana (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file) (Ms. Fontana consented to using her full name 

in the report).

965 Ibid.

966 Ibid.

967 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 165

is “happy being here,” and when prompted by her job coach, she recalled that she had 

received training on making candles and explained how that is done.

968

• Two of the employees with disabilities interviewed at MVLE wished to remain anonymous 

but consented to the Commission using their interview data. One was a 29-year-old 

woman.

969 She told Commission staff that she worked at MVLE for about two years, and 

that her duties include to “go out to community work sites, pick up trash, and clean up our 

environment,” as well as being an “assister” in “grounds cleaning.”970 When asked what 

she liked and disliked about her work, she said that she likes MVLE, learning new skills, 

getting along with her peers, and “making money of course.”971 She emphasized she needs 

money for savings and going to the mall, and that if she left MVLE for another opportunity 

she did not know how she would get transportation.972 She dislikes what one of her peers 

has been doing, by grabbing her things and not being able to get along with her and that 

“she caused me drama.”973 Her job coach was in the room supporting her, and confirmed 

that she could talk to her job coach about it.974 She does not know when she last received 

a raise, but confirmed that her pay is set by time studies, and that she has received skills 

development opportunities through a video that covered new types of jobs such as stocking 

shelves.975

• The other person wishing to remain anonymous was a 24-year-old man who has been 

working at MVLE for one year cleaning, clearing and wiping down tables, and taking out 

trash and recycling.976 He said his job is “great,” and that he likes “getting paid,” and 

“meeting new best friends.”977 He had experienced being hugged by another employee in 

a way that made him uncomfortable, but told Commission staff that he told his supervisor 

and that she was helpful in addressing the issue, and had asked if it was the only time and 

he confirmed that it was.978 Commission staff noted that his mother as well as the site 

manager (who were both in the room with him for support) were aware of the incident.979

When asked if he had heard about other job opportunities from MVLE, he said he watched 

968 Ibid.

969 OCRE Interview Notes, Anonymous #1 (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file).

970 Ibid.

971 Ibid.

972 Ibid.

973 Ibid.

974 Ibid.

975 Ibid.

976 OCRE Interview Notes, Anonymous #2 (Mar. 3, 2020) (on file).

977 Ibid.

978 Ibid.

979 Ibid.
166 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

a video about stocking shelves in a department store and was also “showed lots of jobs.”980

He said he is happy at MVLE and he is learning new skills such as cleaning dishes and 

folding napkins into different shapes.981

Arizona

The Commission studied Arizona as an example of a state that allows the payment of subminimum 

wages, but also has a statewide Employment First policy. In 2017, Arizona Governor Douglas A. 

Ducey established Employment First as the official state policy for employment of people with 

disabilities by executive order.982 In October 2019, the Arizona State Advisory Committee to the 

Commission held a briefing on Subminimum Wages for People with Disabilities featuring Arizona 

state officials, academics, advocates, service providers and employers of people with disabilities, 

and family members of people with disabilities, so the Commission was aware that there was some 

local concern focused on the topic.983 The briefing also featured an open public comment session 

after the expert testimony had concluded.984

During the October 2019 briefing in Arizona, the Advisory Committee reported that the State of 

Arizona allowed payment of subminimum wages to people with disabilities through 14(c) 

certificates; and in January 2020, the Department of Labor reported that there were 43 employers 

who held 14(c) certificates in the state.985

In 2015-2016, only 15 percent of people with disabilities in Arizona were employed in an 

integrated setting.986 In 2016, 34.82 percent of all people with disabilities in Arizona were 

employed in all employment settings (both segregated and integrated).987

As of January 2020, according to data provided by the Wage and Hour Division, of the 43 

employers who had applied for 14(c) entities in Arizona, 21 certificates had been issued and 22 

980 Ibid.

981 Ibid.

982 Ariz. Exec. Order No. 2017-08, “The Establishment of Arizona as an Employment First State” (Nov. 15, 2017) 

https://azgovernor.gov/sites/default/files/excutive_order_2017-08_employment_first_state_0.pdf.

983 Briefing Before the Arizona Advisory Committee to the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Phoenix, AZ, Oct. 18, 

2019.

984 Ibid.

985 U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders, 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders (last accessed May 24, 

2020).

986 UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, StateData.info, State Employment Snapshot: Arizona, 

https://www.statedata.info/statepages/Arizona (last accessed Feb. 10, 2020).

987 The LEAD Center DRIVE Data and Resources to Inspire a Vision of Employment, Arizona, 

http://drivedisabilityemployment.org/arizona#quicktabs-states_big_screen=1 (last accessed Feb. 14, 2020).
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 167

were pending.988 But because certificates expire 1-2 years after they are issued, and are issued on 

a rolling basis following the original date of application, they are issued at different times, and 

therefore the data is a “snapshot.”989 However, the pending applications for renewal remain in 

effect, thus the data show that all 43 sites in Arizona are permitted to be operational.

990

Also in Arizona, the majority (38 of the 43 or 88.4%) of 14(c) certificate holders were Community 

Rehabilitation Programs, although some appear to have dual programs as two of those reported to 

the Wage and Hour Division that they are also a School Work Experience Program, and one also 

reported being a Business Establishment.991 Applying national data about subminimum wage 

employment shows that the great majority of persons employed in 14(c) workshops in Arizona are 

likely to be persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.992

During the Arizona briefing, Susan Voirol, program manager at the Sonoran University Center for 

Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, testified to the importance of ensuring that all 

individuals with disabilities have an informed choice when it comes to understanding their 

employment options.993 Voirol also testified to the importance of strengthening Arizona’s 

supported employment strategies, including financial investments in building support 

infrastructure.994 Between 2014 and 2016, Arizona increased state funding for integrated 

employment services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities from $18,489,000 

in 2014 to $24,550,418 in 2017.995

Proponents of continuing to allow 14(c) certificates also testified before the Arizona State 

Advisory Committee, proposing reforms to the 14(c) certificate program including greater 

988 U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders, 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders (last accessed March. 

23, 2020).

989 Wage and Hour Division, Response to USCCR Interrogatory No. 9 at 4-5; Wage and Hour Division, Field 

Operations Handbook Chapter 64 § 64d01(a) (“Work Center and Patient Worker certificates are issued for 2-year 

periods. Business Establishment (Special Worker) certificates, including SE and SWEP certificates, are issued for a 

1-year period.”); See supra, Notes 457-466.

990 29 C.F.R. § 525.13(b) (“If an application for renewal has been properly and timely filed, an existing special 

minimum wage certificate shall remain in effect until the application for renewal has been granted or denied”).

991 U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 14(c) Certificate Holders, 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/certificate-holders (last accessed March. 

23, 2020).

992 See supra notes 448-449.

993 Susan Voirol, testimony, Briefing Before the Arizona Advisory Committee to the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, 

Phoenix, AZ, Oct. 18, 2019, transcript pp. 55-56 (hereinafter cited as Arizona Briefing); see also supra notes xx-xx 

(discussion of informed choice).

994 Voirol Testimony, Arizona Briefing, pp. 69-70.

995 StateData.info, Arizona: Integrated employment funding, https://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/727721 (last 

accessed March. 23, 2020).
168 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

oversight by the U.S. Department of Labor, reexamining who is eligible to work under a 14(c) 

certificate, and imposing limits on use of 14(c) employment to ensure that it is a training program 

and not an end destination for employment.996 One employer in Arizona testified in support of the 

elimination of sheltered employment settings, but not the elimination of Section 14(c), arguing 

that people working for subminimum wages experience limited progress and the ineffectiveness 

of sheltered employment in developing employment skills for people with disabilities.997 The 

employer stated:

Our concern lies in the possibility of elimination of the 14(c) certificate as an option for 

individuals who have chosen to work in community-based work crew group settings. We 

believe that the elimination or phasing out of the special minimum wage may result in 

many of the individuals that we, as well as other community service agencies, serve 

receiving no wages at all instead of the special minimum wage and thus denying them both 

the tangible and intangible benefits of working.998

Rickey Williams, a parent of a person with a disability who works in a sheltered workshop, testified 

before the Arizona State Advisory Committee about the benefits his daughter receives from 

working beyond a paycheck, stating that:

I can only imagine the negative effect on Sarah if she had no job. Her friends are at work, 

and she likes to be busy. She doesn't like it during those occasional occurrences during 

work when she has downtime. In addition, long weekends are difficult for her.

Two things are especially important to her at Beacon: the social interaction she has with 

peers and the structure Beacon gives to her life. Money takes a very distant third place.999

After the Commission’s national briefing, several persons from Arizona also submitted public 

comments. One commenter, a parent of a person with a disability provided a detailed account of 

his daughter’s wages and the company’s operating costs along with an analysis of her projected 

negative impact of raising wages.

1000 Another comment was from the sister of a person with a 

disability, who explained how her sister has worked in a sheltered workshop for 37 years, and 

stating that some people will not be able to excel in a competitive integrated work environment.1001

996 Mark Jacoby, Testimony, Arizona Briefing, pp. 87-91.

997 Jennifer Baier, Testimony, Arizona Briefing, p. 95.

998 Jennifer Baier, Testimony, Arizona Briefing, pp. 95-96.

999 Williams Testimony, Arizona Briefing, p. 145.

1000 Public Comment No. 1,251 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

1001 Public Comment No. 820 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 169

Among the 16 public comments received from Arizona, two were in favor of repealing Section 

14(c). The mother of a 17-year-old daughter in Arizona wrote that she supports the end of 

subminimum wages. The mother stated that her daughter has ambitions to hold a mainstream job, 

and that she should be paid the same as her non-disabled peers.1002 An advocate from Arizona also 

commented to the Commission that 14(c) should be eliminated because data shows that workers 

with disabilities want to and can work in competitive integrated employment, earning the same 

wages as workers without disabilities.1003

The number of persons with cognitive disabilities (about whom there is more data than exists for 

other disability categories) employed in integrated settings over time in Arizona is set forth below.

Chart 4.6: Number of Individuals with Cognitive Disabilities working in Integrated 

Employment, Arizona (2007-2017)

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, “State IDD Agencies: Arizona,” 

https://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/241868

*Indicates data are not available for that year

Based on Arizona state data from 2015 and 2016 collected by University of Massachusetts’

Institute for Community Inclusion, people with disabilities working in individual jobs in integrated 

settings earned an average of $258.35 on a biweekly basis, and worked an average of 27.2 hours 

1002 Public Comment No. 1,345 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

1003 Public Comment No. 567 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2007* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Integrated Employment in Arizona (numbers)
170 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

over a two week period.1004 Although the hours are low (only an average of 13.6 hours/week), on 

average, the pay amounts to $10.53/hour.1005 This hourly pay tracks approximately with minimum 

wage, as in January 2019, the minimum wage in Arizona was increased by 50 cents/hour to 

$11.00/hour.1006

In contrast to the 15 percent working in integrated settings, there is no comparable data about the 

wages of other persons with disabilities in 14(c) programs in Arizona.

During the Arizona State Advisory Committee briefing Eva Hamant testified regarding the 

importance of choice for people with disabilities who are looking for integrated employment, 

stating that:

Just because a person decides they don't like the job that the agency has for them, they are 

a fact -- the fact they are working at a job and change their mind about that job, they should 

be able to have another inclusive job. I mean, how many of you have had multiple jobs and 

that became your choice? Why can't people with disabilities also have a choice in what 

kind of job they have out in the community?1007

April Reed, Vice President of Advocacy at Ability 360 in Arizona, testified to the Arizona 

Committee about steps that can be taken to support entities in providing greater integrated 

employment opportunities for people with disabilities, stating that:

As a center for independent living, we often hear from consumers with developmental 

disabilities and their families about the successes and challenges of employment. We 

continue to hear from our consumers that state agencies and staff they work with need more 

training opportunities to learn how to support and effectively work with people with 

cognitive and intellectual disabilities.

We hear that current system policies and procedures support segregation, not self 

determination. Consumers and families report that some languish in an endless cycle of 

skills training with few moving to community employment. Our consumers want 

opportunities for customized employment that takes into account their interests, their goals 

and their skills.

1004 UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, StateData.info, State Employment Snapshot: Arizona, 

https://www.statedata.info/statepages/Arizona (last accessed Feb. 10, 2020); C.f. supra, notes 474-475(describing

national average employment outcomes for people with disabilities).

1005 $258.35/27.2 hours = $10.53/hour.

1006 Az. Code Art. 8 § 23-363 (setting the minimum wage at $11.00/hour as of Jan. 2019 and $12.00/hour as of Jan. 

1, 2020).

1007 Hamant Testimony, Arizona Briefing, p. 152.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 171

We also hear from youth and their families that while more transition services are available 

in our state, there is still a need for additional community based opportunities for paid and 

unpaid vocational experience for youth. We hear that families need more in depth and early 

transition planning services.1008

Missouri

The Commission reviewed the state policies regarding 14(c) in Missouri because it is currently the 

only state with 14(c) programs that is not reliant on any federal funding. During the course of the 

Commission’s investigation, the Commission received submissions from advocates, family 

members, and lawmakers in Missouri. The Commission received a report by A-Team Missouri, 

an advocacy group, entitled Sheltered Workshop Data/Outcomes Report, Issued to the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights.

1009 The report states that Missouri’s 87 14(c) sheltered workshops 

are “very different compared to those throughout the nation,” and that “the most compelling 

difference is that Missouri workshops do not receive any federal Funding.”1010 Instead, Missouri’s 

87 workshops rely on sales revenue, funding through the Missouri Department of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, funding through local property taxes, or fundraising through grants, private 

donations, and/or events.1011 Those that receive state funding are required to receive annual 

certification, and the Sheltered Workshop Data/Outcomes report states that the state education 

agency “conducts thorough audits of each workshop,” and that “Missouri has strict guidelines” 

that surpass the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act requirements regulating the 

hiring of persons with disabilities under the age of 25.1012

The Commission verified that Missouri law “requires that all persons, regardless of age, be 

certified by the [Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education] which includes an 

assessment of whether placement in a sheltered workshop is appropriate for that person.”1013 But 

regarding the amount of pay, Commission analysis of Department of Labor data found that 53 

investigations of 14(c) certificate holders in Missouri resulted in violations between 2009 and 

2020, resulting in back wages ordered totaling $781,105.72.1014

1008 Reed Testimony, Arizona Briefing, p. 128.

1009 A Team and Dignity Has a Voice, Sheltered Workshop Data/Outcomes Report, Issued to the U.S. Commission 

on Civil Rights (Dec. 11, 2019) (on file).

1010 Ibid., 1.

1011 Ibid.

1012 Ibid.

1013 Ibid.; See Mo. Code Regs. Tit. 5, § 20-300.190.

1014 Data from U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Data Enforcement, https://enforcedata.dol.gov/homePage.php (last accessed 

May 25, 2020) (Of the 53 investigations with violations, one entity was found to be in violation on three separate 

occasions, and two entities were found to be in violation on two separate occasions).
172 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

The report Sheltered Workshop Data/Outcomes emphasizes that Missouri’s more enhanced and 

individualized certification process has led to declining numbers of persons with disabilities 

working in sheltered workshops, stating that:

The most impressive Missouri statistic is that only 1.60% (last 6-year average) of Missouri 

high school seniors who had an individualized education plan (IEP) chose extended 

employment sheltered workshop services at their graduation or when leaving school (SEE 

[Chart 4.6]). To put it into perspective, in 2018 that was only 103 out of 7,322 students.

This trend was the same pre-[Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act] because 

Missouri’s focus has always been on providing people with disabilities the training and 

information necessary for them to succeed at their personal level. In Missouri, all 

departments and agencies collaborate and work together, including Vocational 

Rehabilitation (VR), to ensure a continuum of employment options and services for people 

with disabilities. A good example of this is that Missouri was the first state in the country 

to comply with Section 511 of WIOA. This was possible because many of the requirements 

outlined in Section 511 were already in place in our state.1015

Chart 4.7: Total Students in Missouri with and Individualized Education Plan vs. Number 

of Students Hired Directly into a Sheltered Workshop (2013-2018)

Source: Sheltered Workshop Data/Outcomes Report, p. 2.

Commission research also shows that the number of people with cognitive disabilities working in 

integrated settings in Missouri has been increasing over time:

1015 Sheltered Workshop Data/Outcomes Report, pp. 1-2.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 173

Chart 4.8: Number of Individuals with Cognitive Disabilities working in Integrated 

Employment, Missouri (2007-2017)

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, “State IDD Agencies: Missouri,” 

https://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/105298.

The A-Team report also stated that while the number of persons working in sheltered workshops 

is declining, “Missouri also recognizes that community employment is not the most appropriate or 

desired option for every person with a disability and values sheltered workshops as a vital 

employment option.”1016 The report asserts that the data provided shows that a number of young 

adults with disabilities choose sheltered workshops as their place of employment, and cites the 

following data:

1016 Ibid., 2.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Integrated I/DD Employment (numbers)
174 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Chart 4.9: Number of Employees with Disabilities Working in Missouri by Age (2017-2019)

Source: A Team and Dignity Has a Voice, Sheltered Workshop Data/Outcomes Report, Issued to the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights, at 3, GRAPH C (Dec. 11, 2019) (on file).

The A-Team and Dignity Has a Voice also stated that “no one in Missouri is forced to work at a 

sheltered workshop,” because people with disabilities leaving secondary or postsecondary 

education must be certified by the state Department of Education as being appropriate for 

placement, and they can quit at any time.1017 They added that in 2017, of the 29,465 Missouri 

residents who worked with a Vocational Rehabilitation counselor, only 5,010 (less than 17%) 

successfully obtained and retained community integrated employment or supported 

employment.1018 The report provides data about the results of counseling under the rules of the 

federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which has led to few job placements in 

Missouri, but it does not provide data about the results of more aggressive Vocational

Rehabilitation required by the state.

Regarding the issue of choice, the Missouri A-Team advocates stated that:

We firmly believe that no one has the right to tell another person what is best for them. Nor 

do they have the right to tell a parent, who has spent a lifetime caring for and supporting 

their son or daughter, what is best for their child. Lawmakers, along with disability rights 

1017 Ibid., 3.

1018 Ibid., 3.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 175

groups, increasingly make these decisions without talking to the people who will be 

directly impacted.1019

At the Commission’s briefing, Tracy Gritsenko spoke during the public comment session, stating 

that she represented over 6,000 families who make up A-Team Missouri.1020 Gritsenko stated that 

while 14(c) is not appropriate for all persons with disabilities, “all disabilities are not the same,” 

that “it is imperative that we not force a one-size fits all solution,” and that removal of 14(c) “would 

eliminate a vital employment options for hundreds of thousands of Americans, leaving many of 

them sitting at home or relegated to day hab [rehabilitation] programs.”1021 She added that:

And to be clear, our families do not believe that sitting at home or in a day hab program is 

an appropriate or desired option for their loved ones. Persons who choose this type of 

employment for themselves or their loved ones are continually learning new job skills and 

social skills, making friends, and yes, earning a paycheck....

Our programs provide an atmosphere that allows individuals to build on their self-esteem 

and confidence by focusing on their abilities, not their disabilities. This work environment 

meets them exactly where they are and provides them with supports and, if needed, 

protections, to enable them to succeed in a safe, supported, and understanding atmosphere.

For hundreds of thousands of Americans, this is their informed, intentional choice. And we 

must honor their right to choose what is best for them or their loved ones.1022

Of the 9,727 public comments received, 360 (3.7%) were from Missouri, including many (65 or 

18%) sent by A-Team. Sixty-eight (68) were from persons with disabilities, and a larger number 

(137) of the commenters were from family members of persons with disabilities working in 14(c) 

workshops or their family members who stated it was their “CHOICE” to work there and that they 

were against elimination of the 14(c) program.1023 For example, one family member of a person 

with a disability working at Lafayette Industries in Missouri wrote in a public comment that:

The focus on wages ignores the larger picture. We are NOT concerned with lower pay. We 

ARE concerned that the rights of our family member to work in a fulfilling, safe, stable job 

where he enjoys being part of a community is at risk due to the wage debate. The companies 

1019 Ibid., 8.

1020 Gritsenko Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 344-45.

1021 Ibid., 345.

1022 Ibid.

1023 Emphasis in original. The Commission also received a large number of public comments from the A-Team in 

Pennsylvania (880). Like Missouri, Pennsylvania permits 14(c) workshops and those who wrote to the Commission 

are against eliminating the program.
176 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

that give work to Lafayette provide much more than a salary for people with I/DD. They 

provide an opportunity for an enriching life. This is our right. This is our choice.1024

The Commission also received letters from six state and federal legislators from Missouri. U.S. 

Congressional Representative Sam Graves (R-MO) stated that 14(c) provides sheltered workshops 

in his district “with the means to create new jobs and contribute to the professional growth of 

individuals who are often faced with a select number of employment options when joining the 

workforce;” and that “it is my hope that discussions to eliminate 14(c) are met with the utmost 

scrutiny and the understanding that a one-size-fits-all approach is often not the best approach given 

the fact that each state’s program is unique.”1025 U.S. Congresswoman Vicki Hartzler (R-MO) also 

wrote to the Commission in support of 14(c), stating that “Section 14(c) provides employment 

choices for families, practical work experience for disabled individuals, and meaningful 

employment opportunities.”1026 Hartzler asked the Commission to consider “the benefits and 

uniqueness of Missouri’s program,” which does not receive any federal funding, has workshops 

that “collaborate seamlessly with other agencies to ensure access to a continuum of employment 

and other services” for persons with disabilities, has complied with Section 511 of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act, with workshops that are independently owned and operated 

businesses that do not resemble day programming, and rather “employees [are] allowed to 

participate in work at their individual pace and with both staff and peer support.”1027 She also 

emphasized that Missouri’s sheltered workshops are steppingstones that for some, may represent 

“their only opportunity to gain work experience in order to seek competitive employment.”1028

However, the data from the Missouri A-Team and Dignity Has a Voice report shows that less than 

0.1 percent of people working in sheltered workshops who received Section 511 counseling in 

Missouri found competitive integrated employment.1029

Another Republican Congressman from Missouri, Billy Long, also sent a letter to the Commission 

expressing the same points as his two colleagues, and added that there isn’t enough data to 

determine whether 14(c) should be eliminated.1030 He added that he meets with “many 

constituents” from his district “who praise sheltered workshops, which provide dignified 

1024 Public Comment No. 1,161 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights. 

(emphasis in original).

1025 Letter from Rep. Sam Graves to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Jan. 10, 2019) [sic] (on file).

1026 Letter from Rep. Vicki Hartzler to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 12, 2019) (on file).

1027 Ibid.

1028 Ibid.

1029 A Team and Dignity Has a Voice, Sheltered Workshop Data/Outcomes Report, Issued to the U.S. Commission 

on Civil Rights, p. 5 (Dec. 11, 2019)()) (on file ) (in 2017, 11/6,744 (0.16%) persons with disabilities working in 

sheltered workshops in Missouri who received 511 counseling found competitive integrated employment, and in 

2018, only 1 out of 6,712 found employment).

1030 Letter from Rep. Billy Long to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, p. 1 (Dec. 11, 2019) (on file).
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 177

employment options with the necessary skills with those with disabilities to succeed. No family 

wants fewer options when deciding how to help their child with disabilities succeed. That is why 

the 14(c) provision provides more options, especially for those who may not ‘fit’ or desire 

Vocational Rehabilitation services or Medicaid Waiver services.”1031 Long “ask[s] that 14(c) be 

left intact pending further examination and that this vital component to a full variety of 

employment options remain available.”1032

U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), also wrote to the Commission stating that sheltered 

workshops in his district, which is made up of urban, suburban and rural areas, reached out to him 

about the importance of Section 14(c).1033 He stated that he “supports the mission and efforts of 

the sheltered workshops in my district.”1034 Specifically, Congressman Cleaver told the 

Commission:

In many of the rural towns in my district, sheltered workshops are essential to disabled 

individuals’ feelings of dignity, self-worth and of being able to contribute to their 

communities. My staff and I have visited sheltered workshops, such as Richmond and 

Higginsville, and have seen first hand the importance of the disabled individual’s ability to 

get up every morning and go to work with their friends.

Most of the towns in the rural areas of the 5th District and all of Missouri do not have the 

job opportunities or public transportation for disabled individuals. Section 14(c) programs 

provide transportation for employees. Many rural community jobs for these workers are 

part-time if available. Most programs that use Section 14(c) provider [sic.] closer to full 

time hours. Do not discount what this means to families. If the person with disability has 

shorter hours per week or no job at all, this means that another family member cannot work 

in order to be the caretaker.1035

The data from the Congressman’s letter suggeststhat lack of public transportation and employment 

opportunities may contribute to over-reliance on 14(c) sheltered workshops that pay subminimum 

wages to persons with disabilities in his state. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that 

employment opportunities and public transportation be reasonably accessible to persons with 

disabilities.1036

1031 Ibid.

1032 Ibid.

1033 Letter from Rep. Emanuel Cleaver to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 15, 2019) (on file).

1034 Ibid.

1035 Ibid.

1036 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq.
178 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Missouri State Senator Gary Romine, and State Representatives Mike Henderson and Dale Wright 

also wrote to the Commission in favor of 14(c) workshops in their state.1037 The letters from the 

State Representatives were identical in their text, and stated that over 6,000 persons employed in 

sheltered workshops in their state “would no longer have a job if 14(c) is eliminated.”1038 They 

also emphasized that Missouri workshops do not receive federal funds and are independently 

owned and operated, adding that: “Eliminating 14(c) would put an end to Missouri’s Sheltered 

Workshops and the thousands of Missourians they employ would be forced into day programs 

costing the state millions.”1039

State Initiatives to Phase Out Subminimum Wages Permitted under Section 14(c) of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act

Overview of States that Are Eliminating or Have Eliminated Subminimum Wages

This section examines policies in states that are phasing out both subminimum wages and sheltered 

workshops. As discussed in Chapter 2 of this report, the final report of the Advisory Committee 

on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment recommended that state officials should 

familiarize themselves with the resolution agreements obtained by the U.S. Department of Justice 

in Rhode Island1040 and Oregon1041 to better inform service system changes to decrease the use of 

segregated employment services and to increase competitive integrated employment for people 

with disabilities.1042 Additionally, the final report recommends that state agencies should adopt 

uniform service standards of professional competence in supporting competitive integrated 

employment and support the development of career professionals to manage and run state 

1037 Email of State Sen. Gary Romine to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 11, 2019); Letter of State Rep. Dale 

Wright to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 4, 2019); Letter of State Rep. Mike Henderson to the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 5, 2019) (all on file) (letters of State Representatives were identical in their text).

1038 Letter of State Rep. Dale Wright to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 4, 2019); Letter of State Rep. 

Mike Henderson to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 5, 2019) (both on file; both identical in their text).

1039 Email of State Sen. Gary Romine to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 11, 2019); Letter of State Rep. Dale 

Wright to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 4, 2019); Letter of State Rep. Mike Henderson to the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 5, 2019) (all on file) (letters of State Representatives were identical in their text).

1039 Letter of State Rep. Dale Wright to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 4, 2019); Letter of State Rep. 

Mike Henderson to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 5, 2019) (both on file; both identical in their text).

1040 Consent Decree, United States v. Rhode Island, CA 14-174 (D. R.I., Apr. 9, 2014), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ri-olmstead-statewide-agreement.pdf.

1041 Settlement Agreement, Lane v. Brown, No. 3:12-cv-00138 (D. Ore. 2013), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lane_sa.pdf.

1042 Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities, p. 15 (Sept. 2016) https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/pdf/ACICIEID_Final_Report_9-8-16.pdf.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 179

employment services for people with disabilities.1043 These components of programs to increase 

competitive integrated employment are generally known as “Employment First” policies.1044

Four states that have Employment First policies have also abolished or are in the process of 

phasing-out the payment of subminimum wages to people with disabilities. These are: New 

Hampshire in 2015,1045 Maryland in 2016,1046 Alaska in 2018,1047 and Oregon in 2019.1048 Texas 

prohibited Community Rehabilitation Programs with state contracts from paying subminimum 

wages in 2019.1049 Vermont1050 and Maine1051 have ended the use of subminimum wage through 

changes in state funding structures for employment programs that support people with disabilities.

Funding structures can have an impact on how these programs function. The Advisory Committee 

on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities found that 

disparities in the number of people with disabilities working in competitive integrated employment 

across states can partially be explained by differing funding structures to offer services.1052 The 

Committee explained that the manner in which states apply for and use Home and Community 

Based Services Waivers from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services can have an 

unintentional impact on the number of people with disabilities employed in competitive integrated 

employment. What results across states is a mix of services including “sheltered employment, 

facility-based day services, non-facility-based day services, group employment, and individual 

supported or customized employment.”1053 It is important to bear in mind that these iterations of 

1043 Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities, p. 18 (Sept. 2016) https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/pdf/ACICIEID_Final_Report_9-8-16.pdf.

1044 See supra notes 406-432 (describing the major elements of Employment First policies); and see Figure ES.1 

(map of states that have adopted various iterations of Employment First policies).

1045 N.H. Code Ann. Tit. 23 § 279:22.

1046 Md. Code Ann. Tit. Labor and Employment § 3-414.

1047 Alaska Code Ann. Tit. 8 § 15.120.

1048 Or. Code Ann. Tit. 16 § 653.030.

1049 Tex. Code Ann. Tit. 8 § 122.0075-0076.

1050 Vermont does not allow funding of services that pay people with disabilities a subminimum wage. See Vermont 

Agency of Human Services, Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living, State System of Care Plan 

for Developmental Disabilities Services, pp. 62-64 (Oct. 2017) 

https://ddsd.vermont.gov/sites/ddsd/files/documents/Vermont_DS_State_System_of_Care_Plan_0.pdf.

1051 The State of Maine only permits Medicaid funds to be used to pay for integrated employment support services; 

See, State of Maine Department of Health and Human Services, MaineCare Benefits Manual, §§ 21, 29 

https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/10/ch101.htm. Maine’s governor signed legislation phasing out subminimum 

wages on March 18, 2020. The law becomes effective on June 16, 2020, see, L.D. 1874 (129th Legis. 2020), 

https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP1340&item=3&snum=129.

1052 Final Report, Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with 

Disabilities, p. 9 (Sept. 2016) https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/pdf/ACICIEID_Final_Report_9-8-16.pdf.

1053 Ibid., 10.
180 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

possible programs may occur on the spectrum from competitive integrated employment to 

subminimum wages. For example, competitive integrated employment as well as subminimum 

wage programs in sheltered workshops may include day services for employees that are supported 

by the employees’ Medicaid benefits.1054

Vermont (Site Visit)

In March 2020, the Commission conducted a site visit to Burlington, Vermont. The Commission 

chose Vermont as representative of states that have phased out payment of subminimum wages to 

people with disabilities. Vermont became the first state in the United States to eliminate the use of 

subminimum wages to pay people with disabilities when the last sheltered workshop in the state 

closed in 2002.1055 Vermont achieved an end to subminimum wage and segregated employment 

by ending funding for new entrants into sheltered workshops in 2000, which also began a three 

year phase-out of all subminimum wage, sheltered employment.1056 It therefore has the longest 

history of this policy.

In the nearly two decades since the closure of Vermont’s last sheltered workshop, the employment 

rate for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the state rose from 35.8 

percent in 20081057 to 42 percent in 2016-2017; this 2016-17 rate is also more than double the 

national average employment rate of 20 percent, for this group.1058 The average biweekly wages 

for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Vermont in 2016-2017 was 

$320.46 compared to a national average biweekly paycheck of $233.83 for the same group.1059

1054 Ibid., 9.

1055 Bryan Dague, Ed.D., Research Assistant Professor, University of Vermont-Center on Disability & Community 

Inclusion, Written Statement for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Nov. 15, 

2019, at 1 (hereinafter Dague Statement) (New Hampshire became the first state to eliminate subminimum wages 

through legislation in 2015, subminimum wage payments were prohibited beginning on July 6, 2015) N.H. Code 

Ann. § 279:22.

1056 National Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, (Oct. 2018) p. 

72.

1057 Butterworth, J., Hall, A.C., Smith, F. A., Migliore, A., Winsor, J., Domin, D., & Sulewski, J. (2013). StateData: 

The National Report on Employment Services and Outcomes 2012. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts 

Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, p. 333.

1058 UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, StateData.info, State Employment Snapshot: Vermont, 

https://www.statedata.info/statepages/Vermont (last accessed Feb. 2, 2020).

1059 Ibid. Also, Vermont’s minimum wage is about average: higher than other states but lower than others. See U.S. 

Dep’t of Labor, Consolidated Minimum Wage Table (effective date 01/01/2020), 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/mw-consolidated.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 181

The average number of hours these individuals worked over a two week period in Vermont was 

21 hours, compared to 26.2 hours nationally.1060

The comparative data in the first section of this chapter shows that Vermont’s wages for persons 

with disabilities are lower than other states.1061 This lower wage may be due to fewer hours being 

worked, although that data is not included for all six of the states studied here.

At the same time, within the dataset studied, Vermont has the highest and fastest-increasing 

employment rates of persons with disabilities than any of the other six states studied, especially 

for persons with cognitive disabilities. The numbers of persons in that category are illustrated in 

the chart below.

Chart 4.10: Number of Individuals with Disabilities working in Integrated Employment, 

Vermont (2007-2017)

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, “State IDD Agencies: Vermont,” 

https://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/614689

In his testimony to the Commission, Dr. Bryan Dague of the Center on Disability and Community 

Inclusion of the University of Vermont explained how Vermont became the first state in the nation 

to close all of its sheltered workshops.1062 Beginning in 1980, state officials and officials from the 

1060 UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, StateData.info, State Employment Snapshot: Vermont, 

https://www.statedata.info/statepages/Vermont (last accessed Feb. 2, 2020).

1061 See supra Chart 4.2.

1062 See generally, Dague Statement at 1-2.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Integrated I/DD Employment (numbers)
182 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

University of Vermont began a demonstration project that led a group of 70 employees working 

in a sheltered workshop through a transition to competitive integrated employment.1063 The initial 

transition took three to four years to successfully move all 70 employees into job placements in 

the community.1064

In a report published in 2012, Dague followed up with individuals and family members of 

individuals who had worked in a sheltered workshop in Vermont.1065 Dague noted several 

strategies for a successful transition to integrated employment, which included:

(a) A clear statement of philosophy and values, (b) strong leadership, (c) ongoing education 

and training of staff, (d) a flattened organizational structure, (e) teamwork, (f) the use of 

person-centered planning, (g) stakeholder involvement, (f) openness to risk-taking and (h) 

continuous improvement.1066

Dague also identified the most significant challenge to conversion to integrated employment came 

from “negative attitudes” from stakeholders, such as concern from parents of people with 

disabilities that their children would be ostracized or stigmatized in community settings because 

of their disability, or that employment opportunities for their children at or above minimum wage 

would not exist.1067 Other major challenges include funding structures, federal and state 

regulations, and lack of education and leadership.1068

In interviews with twelve individuals with intellectual disabilities who had experience receiving 

services before and after one service provider transitioned to providing integrated employment 

services, Dague’s study found that individuals and their families were overall satisfied with their 

community jobs, and have gained additional skills and interests based on interactions with their 

coworkers without disabilities.1069 Parental fears that former employees of sheltered workshops 

would be ridiculed and unsafe in their community jobs were not realized, although some 

participants reported working less consistent hours than they did in the workshop.1070

A 2018 report by the National Council on Disability (NCD), the independent federal agency tasked 

with providing recommendations to the President, Congress, and federal agencies about issues 

1063 Ibid., 1.

1064 Ibid.

1065 Dague, Bryan, “Sheltered employment, sheltered lives: Family perspectives of conversion to community-based 

employment” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 37 (2012): 1-11.

1066 Ibid., 2.

1067 Ibid.

1068 Ibid.

1069 Ibid., 8.

1070 Ibid., 10.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 183

affecting people with disabilities, found that “Vermont’s economy is highly dependent on small 

businesses and ‘mom and pop’ operations,” thus it is important for integrated employment 

programs in the state to have partners in the business community.1071 As part of its report, NCD 

conducted site visits to several states, including Vermont. NCD found that the state’s success in 

running integrated employment programs for people with disabilities can, in part, be attributed to 

a willingness to provide support for all types of employment, including self-employment.1072 NCD 

visited Champlain Way2Work, which assists people with disabilities in finding community jobs. 

NCD found that Champlain Way2Work works with nearly 60 businesses to find employment for 

people with disabilities, and that Champlain Way2Work has an 85 percent success rate in finding 

job placements for people with disabilities.1073

The Commission received one public comment from Vermont, asking to “consider the real impacts 

on the civil rights of people with disabilities when it comes to subminimum wages,” and stating 

that: “People with disabilities want to and can work in mainstream jobs in their community and 

earn the same as their nondisabled peers, through competitive integrated employment.1074

On March 4, 2020, a Subcommittee of the Commission conducted site visits to several 

employment and services providers in the Burlington area of Vermont.

Tour

Three Subcommittee Commissioners and staff went on tours of three locations in Vermont on 

March 4, 2020: the Howard Center, Project Search, and Think College at University of Vermont, 

discussed below.

Howard Center

During the March 4, 2020 tour, the Howard Center explained that it is the designated agency1075

for state services for persons with developmental disabilities in the Burlington area, serving 16,000 

people in 61 locations.1076 Howard Center is also a “safety connection” that provides an overnight 

1071 National Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, (Oct. 2018) p. 

72.

1072 Ibid., 74.

1073 Ibid.

1074 Public comment No. 629 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

1075 In Vermont, each county has one designated agency responsible for coordinating services for persons with 

developmental disabilities for the whole county. The designated agency can provide themselves or refer to other 

agencies. See e.g., Developmental Disabilities Service Division, State of Vermont, 

https://ddsd.vermont.gov/services-providers/providers (accessed April 7, 2020).

1076 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).
184 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

program so people can live independently and call someone if they need it.1077 They also provide 

206 shared living arrangements, as well as ongoing work with program managers to coordinate 

services. Howard Center also provides relevant community support for one-on-one sessions with 

a direct services professional to gain skills to meet the goals they have set with their program 

manager, but it is capped at 20 hours/week for each individual.1078 They have a resource center 

where people can sign up for classes (some self-taught) in art, cooking, karaoke, drama, yoga, etc., 

as well as “many group meetings to discuss a focus, such as dialectical behavioral therapy to learn 

emotional regulation.”1079 Some people whom the Howard Center serves overall are not seeking 

employment because they are older, medically fragile, unable to communicate an employment 

goal, young and adjusting to adult life, or for other reasons.1080

In addition to the skills-learning and therapy programs, Howard Center has more direct 

employment services. These include: serving 225 people with disabilities in employment services, 

with 17 people supporting them; a career group to develop career path/postsecondary education 

goals; and a communications group including how to use communication technology.1081

Employment advisers work with individuals with disabilities and employees to train and onboard 

person with disabilities, then do periodic check-ins on the job, with a minimum of at least one biweekly. The Center also employs job coaches and living skills specialists for people who need 

one-on-one job supports on an ongoing basis. Director of Development Sima Breiterman 

emphasized that there is no one model, saying that “one model can’t be the model for all people in 

any services.”1082

Other tools used include outreach to businesses to hear their needs in advance of having a need to 

place someone. Businesses also provide testimonials on their experience or “employer-toemployer advocacy” in which employers of persons with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities talk about their experiences.1083 Howard Center staff also said that employers are 

becoming more used to interacting with people with disabilities.1084 Staff also discussed that the 

perspective of students being together is also impactful, stating that as this generation of students 

1077 Ibid.

1078 Ibid.

1079 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).

1080 Ibid.

1081Ibid.

1082 Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

1083 Ibid.

1084 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 185

are more used to being together with persons with disabilities and since they are future employers, 

a “generational change in approach” is occurring.

1085

The Subcommittee was told that with this system, 80-82% of people receiving support are 

currently employed, while the remainder are working on skills to be successful, defining their own 

interests, or finding the right job.1086 Of the 645 served by their agency who are employmenteligible, there is a 49 percent employment rate during the year.1087

Think College

The National Coordinating Center is at University of Massachusetts’ Institute for Community 

Inclusion,1088 and University of Vermont’s Center on Disability and Community Inclusion has a 

Think College Vermont program which is a university program for students with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities.1089 In the introduction, Scott Thomas stated that they were the first state 

in the country to have to transition to competitive integrated employment, and that this was done 

through a strategic plan for inclusion and equity.1090 Jesse Sutor explained that University of 

Vermont’s Center on Disability and Community Inclusion was one of 67 centers around the 

country that received federal development assistance to support community living and 

independence, and that he believes that this charge includes competitive integrated 

employment.1091

According to its website,:

Think College Vermont at UVM is an innovative, inclusive, academic, social, and 

vocational program for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities seeking a 

college experience and career path. Participants may earn a 12 credit-hour certificate of 

college studies for non-matriculated students designed to include: Academic Enrichment, 

Socialization & Recreation, Independent Living & Self-Advocacy Skills, Integrated Work 

Experiences & Career Skills. Think College Vermont at UVM incorporates studentcentered planning, academic advising, and peer mentors for an inclusive, supportive 

college experience. Think College Vermont is a two-year non-degree certificate program 

1085 Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

1086 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).

1087 Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

1088 See ThinkCollege.net (accessed April 7, 2020).

1089 See Think College Vermont at UVM, https://thinkcollege.net/programs/think-college-vermont-at-uvm (accessed 

April 7, 2020).

1090 Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

1091 Ibid; 42 U.S.C. § 15063.
186 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

through the UVM Continuing and Distance Education and the UVM Center on Disability

and Community Inclusion.1092

The Subcommittee sought to better understand how educational and employment opportunities 

can be increased for persons with disabilities, especially considering that the State of Vermont 

does not have subminimum wage positions that may theoretically provide opportunities. Think 

College is funded by a Medicaid waiver, and the $8,000/semester cost of tuition for each student 

is often funded by their individual Medicaid waiver or through “state gap funding;” however three 

out of the current 13 students are paying privately. 1093 The stated employment outcomes are 

significant – there is a 90% employment rate for students who complete the program.1094 On one 

hand, these are excellent employment outcomes, but on the other hand, they only encompass 

persons with disabilities who have access to the university’s program.

In the program, individuals with disabilities work with undergraduate mentors who provide oneto-one support. Mentors are paid, and they go through an application process and interview.1095

One of the peer mentors who was present did not have a disability.1096 During the tour, Think 

College staff told the Subcommittee that each student gets 20 hours of support per week on 

campus, and that mentors attend class with students and help them with assignments, navigate 

social life, and they provide orientation and online training.1097

Staff also explained that mentors help the students academically and socially, and the program 

itself helps with self-esteem, employability skills, and making friends through classes and 

clubs.1098 The students also do career exploration and at least one, semester-long internship during 

their time in the program. One student is currently interning at a café, another at the Peace and 

Justice Center.1099

Project Search – University of Vermont Medical Center

The Subcommittee learned about Project Search, a pilot student internship program for persons 

with disabilities that partners with the University of Vermont’s Medical Center. Before working 

1092 See Think College Vermont at UVM, https://thinkcollege.net/programs/think-college-vermont-at-uvm (accessed 

April 7, 2020).

1093 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).

1094 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).

1095 Ibid.

1096 Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

1097 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).

1098 Ibid.

1099 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 187

with the hospital, Project Search partnered with Edge fitness center.1100 At the University of 

Vermont Medical Center, the Subcommittee heard from four students with disabilities about their 

internship experiences:

• Participant 1 told the Subcommittee that he interns at the hospital bringing pumps for 

sterilization. He said he had to learn his way around the hospital, but he learned to do the 

job independently. He had a prior internship there as well, delivering gifts from the gift 

shop.

• Participant 2 stated that he interned distributing supplies for patients, such as bringing

socks, soap, toothbrushes, etc. to the nursing stations. He also interned in employee 

wellness, talking about health issues, which he enjoys because he likes interacting with 

people.

• Participant 3 was interning in sterilization, setting up trays and instruments to be wrapped 

and ready for the sterilizer, then pulling clean carts out. She has also interned in radiology, 

taking patients in, cleaning beds, and restocking. After a few weeks with her coach she 

could do the job without individual check-ins.

• Participant 4 was interning in stocking and taking inventory, as well as helping in 

radiology. She had also interned on the post-surgery floor, stocking and cleaning.1101

In addition to internships, Project Search holds employment planning meetings with the students 

about their career goals and any obstacles they should address, such as transportation or needed 

supports. Families are involved in meetings as well.1102

Staff stated that students have been ages 18-24,1103 and they like the program because they get job 

experience, something for their résumé, and to build a network of references.1104 Students learn 

transferable skills like what it is like to work all day and to have the stamina for that, how to 

communicate with managers, show up on time, and call and email co-workers.1105 However, 

challenges include access to transportation that create problems of arriving on time, and they are 

hoping to add nutritional services and patient transportation for additional internships.

1106

1100 Ibid.

1101 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020); Notes of Maureen Rudolph, 

General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

1102 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).

1103 Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).

1104 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).

1105 Ibid.

1106 Notes of Maureen Rudolph, General Counsel (Mar. 4, 2020).
188 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Over the history of the program, employment outcomes included the hospital hiring a student 

directly, another graduate who worked at PetSmart, and another who worked in stocking and 

inventory at a manufacturing firm. Last year, all eight graduates found employment.1107

Roundtable

The Vermont roundtable took place on March 4, 2020 and consisted of a Subcommittee of the 

Commission with Commissioner Kladney, Commissioner Adegbile, and Commissioner Heriot 

present.1108 The discussants who participated in the roundtable consisted of nine individuals from 

multiple organizations around Vermont. The below list are the individuals with their titles and 

organizations listed.

• Mickey Bonges, Essex High School Transition Specialist

• John Cammarano, General Manager, Homewood Suites Hotel, Community Employer

• Bryan Dague, Think College, Vermont

• Monica Hutt, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent 

Living

• Jennie Masterson, Developmental Disabilities Services Division, Vermont Supported 

Employment Services Coordinators

• Michelle Paya, Director of Education Services, Champlain Community Services

• Mike Reilly, Champlain Community Services

• Elizabeth Sightler, Agency Executive Director, Champlain Community Services

• James Smith, Policy Manager, Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation1109

The roundtable discussion covered a variety of topics regarding employment opportunities in 

Vermont with individuals with disabilities. Some of the most prominent themes are discussed 

below.

The roundtable was held at Champlain Community Services which is considered a specialized 

services agency. In Vermont, there are eleven designated agencies and five specialized 

agencies.1110 The state requires that Champlain Community Services have a 45 percent 

employment rate for individuals with disabilities who use their services. Michelle Paya, Director 

1107 Notes of Amy Royce, Special Assistant to Commissioner Kladney (Mar. 4, 2020).

1108 David Kladney, Commissioner and Chair of Subcommittee on Subminimum Wages, U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, testimony, Subminimum Wages Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 4.

1109 Subminimum Wages Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 2.

1110 Elizabeth Sightler, Agency Executive Director, Champlain Community Services, Vermont Roundtable 

Transcript, pg. 9.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 189

of Education Services, stated that in 2018, about 81 percent were employed and the organization 

had an average of 79 percent employed at the close of 2019.1111

In terms of securing gainful employment, Executive Director Elizabeth Sightler explained that she 

believes that employment services should begin before a student graduates high school and 

continue post-graduation and help them with the transition process. For instance, one program 

offered by Champlain Community Services is the “School2Work” program which is offered to 

ensure that students are graduating high school and have secured employment.1112 She told the 

discussants at the roundtable that:

From my perspective, having been in this field for 23 years now, I see a big transition [] 

between students who are graduating now and when I first started. Now they’re really 

expecting to have jobs. Now they anticipate that they will be working. There’s a whole 

different psychology about where they belong in the workplace.1113

Similarly, Mickey Bonges argued that transition services need to start before students graduate 

high school in order to find gainful employment. For instance, she explained that her programs 

have placed 65 students into community jobs in 2019 and they are all being paid the state minimum 

wage, which is $10.96 in Vermont.1114 Commissioner Monica Hutt for the Vermont Department 

of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living, explained the importance of these transitional and 

support services as well. Hutt stated that:

Because imagine a kid graduating from high school. They’re either going to go completely 

independent and maybe have [a service provider like] Vocational Rehabilitation as a 

backup support for any other additional barriers to work or continuing career development. 

Or they’re going to come into developmental services and receive those more specialized 

supports.1115

Mickey Bonges, Essex High School Transition Specialist added that in the state of Vermont, 

school to work transition programs and support are available, but they are very individualized and 

not implemented through the Department of Education. Therefore, the services and programs that 

are available to individuals with disabilities are locally and district-driven.1116 Bonges further 

explained that “[i]t’s pretty much per the school district. Everyone has – most people have a 

1111 Michelle Paya, Director of Education Services, Champlain Community Services, Vermont Roundtable 

Transcript, pg. 9.

1112 Sightler Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 10.

1113 Ibid.

1114 Mickey Bonges, Essex High School Transition Specialist, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, pg. 12.

1115 Monica Hutt, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living, Vermont 

Roundtable Transcript, p. 56.

1116 Bonges Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, pp. 55-56.
190 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

transition program. They look different [] they’re not all the same. It just depends on what the 

needs of the district are and the administration and what they believe in.”1117 James Smith, Policy 

Manager, Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, added that the success of these programs 

is due to strong buy in and support from the state legislature. Smith stated that:

[W]e have one sort of statewide mechanism around transition [from high school] ... we 

have core transition teams in each of the 12 districts in the state. And that the place where 

VR [Vocational Rehabilitation], the populated or school staff, the designated agencies 

comes together and plan and coordinate. And it’s locally driven, and it seems to be quite 

effective in terms of making sure students aren’t missed.”1118

Smith added that while there is strong support from the state, the supports and services are 

predominately locally driven.1119 The fact that these services and programs are predominately 

locally-driven raised concerns for some of the discussants at the roundtable, especially when it 

comes to the opportunities for those individuals living in rural areas, where there may be less 

opportunities.1120 But the discussants mentioned that there has been a growth of small businesses 

in Vermont and more employers are supporting the idea of hiring individuals with disabilities.1121

Discussants at the roundtable also explained that there are various programs in Vermont to help 

individuals with disabilities find jobs, including Vocational Rehabilitation and Project Search. 

They explained that the latter helps both young and older adults, and described it as “a little bit 

more job-centric” and is an “industry-based one-year program for individuals to learn complex 

and technical skills and come out with a job.”1122 Specifically, Project Search’s host sites are with 

three hospitals in Vermont, though they did not mention how many individuals with disabilities 

these hospitals employ.1123 The discussants also used this program as an example about the need 

to change the perception in society that individuals with disabilities are not capable of doing 

various types of jobs, and rather employers just need to be more open to creating opportunities for 

them.1124 For instance, Jennie Masterson, Developmental Disabilities Services Division, Vermont 

Supported Employment Services Coordinators, discussed that:

1117 Ibid., 56.

1118 James Smith, Policy Manager, Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Vermont Roundtable Transcript,

p. 57.

1119 Ibid., 58.

1120 Jennie Masterson, Developmental Disabilities Services Division, Vermont Supported Employment Services 

Coordinators, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, pp. 26-27.

1121 Ibid.; see also, Hutt Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 35.

1122 Masterson Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, pp. 17-18.

1123 Ibid., 18.

1124 Ibid., 18-19.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 191

Some states label people as either being employable or not employable. And we don’t do 

that here. We believe that anybody can work if we’re able to give them customized and 

appropriate supports. And we are lucky. We are allowed to have a lot of really, really, very 

involved businesses and employers who are very good to work with.1125

One way to offer individuals with disabilities these supports can be through the use of assistive 

technologies, which have been shown to be an asset to the disability community.1126 For instance, 

Director of Education Services Paya told the story of a woman with intellectual disabilities who 

works at a mall and is able to, through the use of an “iWatch,” have her support staff communicate 

with her and help her with her tasks without having to physically stand with her, so she seems to 

be working completely independently.1127

Discussants at the roundtable further explained that too often individuals with disabilities are 

pushed into low skill jobs (e.g., janitorial work, stocking shelves at grocery stores) and not given 

the opportunity to pursue other careers.1128 Paya explained that:

Within folks with disabilities, you have typical jobs that most folks with disabilities tend 

to gravitate towards. And we want out of that. We want out of that box of people only can 

work in grocery stores or can only work in janitorial means. We’re going after these 

industries, and we want to train the next leaders. We want to take these talents and extract 

them from the folks that we clearly see have those skills and abilities to make a difference 

in the business community and get them into higher paying jobs, those more careerindustries... I truly believe that Vermont as a whole, we don’t find jobs. We find careers. 

Careers are sustainable. Jobs are just placement.1129

The discussants also mentioned that while individuals with disabilities should have a wider 

selection of jobs available to them, there may be additional complexities to hiring an individual 

with a disability and creating an integrated workforce. Champlain Community Services’ Executive 

Director Sightler explained that:

We don’t hold the philosophy that everybody can work anywhere. We’re looking to find 

the right connections for people. And we also work with employers to make sure that 

they’re employing somebody who’s truly a contribution in their workforce. So, it’s not a 

token position, that they’re really employed. And that if they’re not successful in that 

position, that they’re terminate. That if they’re not the right match, that we move. So, it 

1125 Ibid., 19.

1126 Paya Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 23.

1127 Ibid., 24-25.

1128 See, Paya Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, pp. 15-16; Sightler Testimony, Vermont Roundtable 

Transcript, p. 39.

1129 Paya Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 15.
192 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

really is true employment, true gainful employment that also has this incredible secondary 

effect of allowing people to see the full spectrum of abilities. . . . We need to elevate the 

understanding of people with [intellectual/developmental disabilities].

1130

One discussant at the roundtable was a local employer, John Cammarano, who is the General 

Manager of the Homewood Suites Hotel. He explained that the transition to an inclusive and 

integrated workplace was not initially easy or smooth, but has overall been successful.1131 He 

explained that the integration “was a process,” relaying that:

At first, it was a little challenging. But the two particular employees that we do have just 

have a knack for really connecting with people. And they’ve kind of educated us. We’re 

not people with disabilities. We’re people with abilities just like you, just like me. The one 

student, every time I say, what’s your next career goal? He says, I want your keys because 

I want your job. I put them under the table, but he never takes them.1132

As of March 2020, the local Homewood Suites employed two students part-time who worked 

through the job employment program and who were on the “regular payroll.” And his hotel is 

looking to expand their employment program by working with Champlain Community Services

to “secure some more folks in different locations.”1133

The transition to integrated workplaces and ending the use of the 14(c)-waiver program was also 

discussed in-depth, and the discussants offered many examples how eliminating the program can 

happen. Specifically, the discussants argued that this transition relies on service providers 

explaining the transition to business owners and getting them to support the process. Paya 

explained that:

So I’m looking at it on the business standpoint as 14(c) is allowing businesses to pay a 

subminimum wage to get a job done. And so, you’re asking businesses now to pay the 

minimum state wage or a wage competitive to those doing the position. And that, to me, is 

education to the business community is helping them understand that you have a process. 

And what your main mission is, is to get to the end product, to have this product made... 

The employer wants bottom line and efficiencies. They need to get product or services out 

the door. So, our job is, how do we find ways to help that person meet those expectations 

and those efficiencies?”1134

1130 Sightler Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 40.

1131 John Cammarano, General Manager, Homewood Suites Hotel, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 32.

1132 Ibid. (emphasis added).

1133 Ibid.

1134 Paya Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, pp. 69-70.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 193

Similarly, James Smith, Policy Manager, Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, argued 

that:

[14(c) has] an inherent conflict of interest. If you operate a sheltered workshop where you 

have a business customer who is coming to you saying, I want this product done and then 

you have the consumers you’re serving. So, for us, there’s no conflict of interest. We’re 

trying to support the consumer to get a job, and we’re trying to support the employer, make 

a good match. But we don’t have any financial interest in the outcome. But if you’re 

running a sheltered workshop, you have financial interest in paying as little as possible to 

your workers and getting the best product out there. So, you have no incentive to take, oh, 

Joe [whose] been working [in] the sheltered workshop for years. He doesn’t have a job. 

Maybe he could get a job in the community. There’s no incentive for you to do that. And 

so, until we take that fundamental – the option off the table, that will never go away.1135

Commissioner Hutt stated that she sees transitioning from the waiver program as “very akin to the 

idea of deinstitutionalization. And as long as you maintain empty beds, those beds will be filled. 

So as long as you maintain a subminimum wage, there is no incentive to make any change.”1136

Similarly, Jennie Masterson, Developmental Disabilities Services Division, Vermont Supported 

Employment Services Coordinators, said that to end the waiver program the first thing that 

sheltered workshops needed to do was “close the front door. So, you stop bringing people in, 

especially stop around young people coming out of high school and young adults come into the 

workshop. And what that requires is an alternative service provision for those individuals. So, 

some form of excellent employment services you develop for the young people coming in.”1137

However, the discussants also recognize that many family members are fearful of the waiver 

program ending (which was a prominent theme among the public comment submissions received 

by the Commission).1138 Smith explained that he understood the concern expressed by family 

members and stated that “if I was a parent and my son or daughter had been in my workshop for 

20 years, I would be extremely anxious. So, you have to plan for that. It has to be well thought out 

process.”1139

Sightler also acknowledges that much of family member’s fear centers on being concerned about 

the well-being of their family member with disabilities. She explained that:

1135 Smith Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, pp. 73-74.

1136 Hutt Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 64.

1137 Masterson Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 68.

1138 See supra notes 563-566.

1139 Smith Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 74.
194 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Here at Champlain Community Services, we still have a memory of what that transition 

[from a sheltered workshop to integrated employment] was like... We have family 

members who were extremely reluctant. I would say maybe even terrified of what the world 

– how the world would be welcoming of their person. Whether employers would be able 

to support them. Whether there was a community who cared about understanding 

somebody’s skills and abilities while also understanding their behaviors and 

disabilities.1140

However, Sightler also stated that after the state ended the use of the 14(c)-waiver program and 

transitioned to integrated employment attitudes changed. She opined that in her experience:

I’ll say is there were families who were, I would say, the most upset, the most frustrated, 

angry, scared families are the ones who ultimately became the strongest advocates for – in 

support of community-based supported employments. Families who originally said, my 

adult child won’t be safe in the community, were able to see the transition of their adult 

child and see that they became more independent, that they became more communicative, 

that their wellness was improved, that the community was embracing them because they’d 

been given an opportunity. And it was a leap of faith.1141

Another central concern about ending the use of waiver programs centered on the scarcity of jobs 

due to the perception that employers would not be able to pay workers a minimum wage and this 

lack of opportunities would force individuals with disabilities to remain at home during the day 

and leave them without options. Jennie Masterson acknowledged that initially employers were 

negatively impacted by the transition, stating that: “In Vermont, it was painful for an employer 

certainly that were involved in our shelter workshops because the subcontract work just became 

less and less and less to the point where [] our sheltered workshops became obsolete. And... they 

never made a profit.”1142

Similarly, Director Paya explained that the first step was that business owners needed to change 

their mentality about hiring individuals with disabilities and it was up to service providers to show 

them how an integrated workforce is possible. She argued that:

[Transition is] scary because businesses are looking for bottom lines. They need to make 

sure they’re making – they’re in the black and they’re making a profit. But our jobs are to 

educate them and how important it is to have neurodiversity within an organization and 

that everybody can do the job. Everybody can learn. It’s the teaching that has to be 

1140 Sightler Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 64.

1141 Ibid., 75-76

1142 Masterson Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 68.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 195

different. And our job is to figure out what that teaching tool is to help businesses see the 

efficiencies in the folks we support.1143

Regarding family members’ fears, Hutt conceded that upon the closing of all the sheltered 

workshops, not all those employees with disabilities were able to secure a job in the 

community.1144 Therefore, Hutt stated that she recognized the concern raised by family members, 

adding that:

So, I think that the fear... is about families. But what’s going to happen on a day-to-day 

basis? I’m not home. I can’t have Jane at home. And if she’s not at the sheltered workshop, 

what is she doing? So that’s where the community-based supports ... come into play. We 

started to build consciously really active community systems for individuals, community 

connections. So sometimes those [] they started as a little bit more congregate. They moved 

to become more individual by person so that we were bringing people into the community. 

Their days were still filled. Their time was filled. And that’s what I talked about when I 

said there is this shift in investment. You’re no longer funding this, but you’re funding this. 

And this might cost a little more money for a period of time until you have to make that 

investment. But people’s hours were still filled. There were not just left abandoned because 

there wasn’t some minimum wage to keep them busy at an employment somewhere. So 

those community-based supports were not only about building community but about 

building people’s skills so that they became job ready to enter competitive employment in 

a different way.1145

Lastly, Hutt argued that family members and the broader community need to be supporting the 

end of 14(c) programs for the following fiscal reasons:

[I]t is a forever federal subsidy... [] [and] somebody on subminimum wage is never going 

to come off benefits. They are never, ever going to not be in need of [] a full package of 

federal benefits, whether that’s rental subsidy to food stamps. I mean, you can’t get off of 

those benefits at subminimum wage. And I think that’s why I get to pushing about that 

subminimum wage because I just feel like it’s a disincentive to independence. It’s a 

disincentive to inclusion. It’s a disincentive to your own value as a human being 

basically.1146

The Commission received many public comments from family members stating that the 14(c) 

program needs to be maintained because it gave their family members who had disabilities a sense 

1143 Paya Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 72.

1144 See, Hutt Testimony Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 77.

1145 Hutt Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, pp. 77-78.

1146 Ibid., 82-84.
196 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

of pride and made them feel like everyone else in the family who brought home a paycheck.1147

However, during the roundtable, Bonges argued that ending the 14(c) program is a better way to 

encourage this sense of pride and satisfaction, stating that:

I’m working with kids that are 14, 15, 16-year-olds for the first time that they’ve ever 

worked. And some of these kids come from poverty. And we work with quite few kids that 

come from poverty. And they get that because our philosophy for our school district is we 

pay minimum wage. If minimum wage goes up, we pay minimum wage. That’s what we 

do. This is what it feels like to work an hour. This is 10.96. This is what you get when you 

work an hour. It’s so important. And it changes their lives. This is what it feels like. They 

buy into it. I mean, money has power. And you’re getting the same as your brother gets at 

his job at Dominoes or whatever. This is it. And getting school credit for it, and it’s so 

important. And they’re not less than anybody else.1148

Commissioner Adegbile observed that the site visits in Vermont and Virginia on two consecutive 

days presented very different attitudes regarding the 14(c) program. Commissioner Adegbile 

described individuals addressing the Commission in Virginia as fearing “we’re off a cliff without 

the status quo.”1149 In contrast, in Vermont individuals addressing the Commission expressed that 

Vermont underwent a “professional”1150 transition process to provide “a soft landing”1151 for 

people with disabilities who had been working in 14(c) programs.

Throughout the roundtable, the discussants seemed to all agree that the Vermont model is not an 

anomaly and the models utilizing in the state can be replicated nationally.1152 For instance, Hutt 

stated that one of the strategies that Vocational Rehabilitation has been able to do is as new 

industries open up in the state, they have worked to try and identify what those industries may 

need and then conduct mass training to meet those needs.1153 She opined that:

So again, rather than looking at it from a supported employer-employee approach, looking 

what the business needs are, identifying what those training needs are going to be, and 

getting the workforce in that area, both disabled and nondisabled, ready to meet that 

industry need in a really targeted way. I think that has been a really successful approach in 

1147 See e.g., Public Comment Nos. 219, 475, 479, 635, 1,172, for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. 

Comm’n on Civil Rights.

1148 Bonges Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 85.

1149 Commissioner Debo Adegbile, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 64.

1150 Masterson Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 83.

1151 Masterson Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 82.

1152 Hutt Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 37.

1153 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 197

that state of Vermont that I do think is replicable – it’s a really hard word to say, replicable 

– nationally.1154

Similarly, Sightler argued that Vermont is a good example of how a state can operate without using 

the 14(c) program. She stated that at Champlain Community Services:

[The focus is on] supporting people and their civil rights and their success in the 

community. And at the same time, building a community... this is part of our mission 

statement. But building a community where people participate and belong... I would say 

that Vermont... provides great evidence that there isn’t [a need for 14(c)]. That it is no 

longer a need to have subminimum wage... I’m here to say there’s great success beyond it 

and that people are served very well... So, it’s a true reality for the states who are looking 

to stop this [ending 14(c)] or to transition away from using 14(c). But there is a world 

beyond that [] I think we can – and many other states can too. I mean, it’s not just 

Vermont.1155

Interviews:

Commission staff interviewed a total of 15 persons who were employed via Champlain 

Community Services, and all were persons with disabilities including attention deficit disorder, 

autism, Down’s syndrome, and other cognitive and learning disabilities.

1156 No interviewees were 

currently employed at subminimum wages, as subminimum wages for people with disabilities are 

prohibited in Vermont, but some interviewees had worked for subminimum wages in the past. The 

interviewees expressed that their experiences with the 14(c) program were generally negative, such 

as a person who was paid less than his colleagues and another who is now retired after working 

for subminimum wages doing the same type of work that is now paid minimum wage. Interviewees 

working in competitive employment covered a wide range of abilities, career and life interests and

job options. Interviewees expressed that they are able to fulfill their job requirements and find 

success in their chosen employment. Many identified areas for improvement in the employment 

services they are receiving, such as that they did not recall skills training except for what they 

learned on-the-job, and several expressed that they would like to work in other fields.

Interviews of individuals who identified that they had been paid subminimum wages in the past 

included:

• Jay Lafayette is a 50-year-old man who has worked since he was in high school on a paper 

route and making snow in a ski resort; he also competed in soccer and alpine skiing, and 

1154 Ibid., 38.

1155 Sightler Testimony, Vermont Roundtable Transcript, p. 64.

1156 OCRE Interview Notes (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file).
198 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

he has served on the Governor’s Board of Disabilities and Special Olympics.1157 After high 

school, Mr. Lafayette worked in restaurants and at a ball field, in landscaping for 9 years, 

and he is currently working in manufacturing at Fabtech, where he is seeking a welding 

license.1158 He told Commission staff that he was paid minimum wage in most of his prior 

jobs, except while working at the Lakeview House Restaurant in Burlington, Vermont. He 

said that there, despite having a sous chef license and working as a chef, along with other 

tasks such as washing dishes, he was paid less than minimum wage and was made to work 

longer hours and more holidays than other staff. He explained, in his view, that he would 

“do more and get less than everyone else.”1159 When asked if this was because of his 

disability, he said yes, and that he thought “they were using that against me.”1160

In contrast, at Fabtech, Mr. Lafayette is currently paid $14.50/hour for welding, painting, 

and packaging pipes, and he is getting certified for his welder’s license through work.1161

Moreover, he stated that he is going to be “moving up to be more on the manufacturing 

line” once he gets his license for welding and painting, and that he gets along with the 

people he works with.1162 He dislikes when it is slow and he only works 25 hours/week, as 

he would rather work full time.1163 He found out about the opportunity through Champlain 

Community Services and he considers it a good opportunity because he is making more 

than minimum wage, which is “not a lot after taxes,” and that he can “move up the 

ladder.”1164 He also said that he benefited from job coaches from Champlain Community 

Services and “Way to Work” came to his job site when he was learning new skills.1165 In 

addition, he believes that persons with disabilities should get more than minimum wage 

and that they should get equal pay, and that they should not lose their benefits, commenting 

that it is “important that people can earn more money without losing their benefits.”1166 He 

based these comments not on Vermont but on other states and thinking about policy in 

1157 OCRE Interview Notes, Jay Lafayette (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file) (Mr. Lafayette consented to using his full name in 

the report).

1158 Ibid.

1159 Ibid.

1160 Ibid.

1161 Ibid.

1162 Ibid.

1163 Ibid.

1164 Ibid.

1165 Ibid.

1166 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 199

general, as he was part of advocating for the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and 

is on the board of Champlain Voices, a self-advocacy organization.1167

• Commission staff also interviewed M.M., a 66-year-old man who had recently retired, who 

had worked through Champlain Community Services for 15 years, and he arrived early and 

was animated and seemed enthusiastic about the interview.1168 Since high school, he has 

worked in dishwashing jobs, or “downstairs” at the previous Champlain Community 

Services sheltered workshop, as well as for 15 years in a music store in a local mall.1169 At 

the music store, he said he bagged DVDs and videos, and put labels on the bags with sales 

stickers, being sure to match the items with the information on the stickers.1170 Prior to 

that, at the sheltered workshop he said he did a lot of jobs for different companies, doing 

piecemeal work and working only with other persons with disabilities, except for 

supervisors.1171 When asked what he liked and disliked about his work at the music store, 

he said, “I liked the people, the supervisors. I used to get paid a lot.”1172 He described liking 

his work making the labels and bagging, and the company T-shirts he wore at work, and 

said that his only dislike was that sometimes the music was too loud; however, he felt like 

he could talk to his supervisors at the music store about any problems and commented that 

“[s]ometimes I did.”1173 M.M. does not remember how much he was paid or if he ever 

received a raise. He found out about the job opportunity at the music store from someone 

from Champlain Community Services, although he said he never received any career 

counseling.1174 When asked if he was provided with opportunities to learn new skills, he 

said that when he worked downstairs for different companies (at the sheltered workshop), 

the “directors and bosses helped us out on a lot of job trips,” and he “learned by doing.”1175

Prompted by the Champlain Community Services director (who was in the room with him 

for support), he said that he learned on the calendar jobs. The director added that he learned 

to put together calendars, and Mr. M agreed.1176

1167 Ibid.; see also Champlain Voices, Who We Are, Our Board, http://ccs-vt.org/our-board/ (accessed Mar. 24, 

2020).

1168 OCRE Interview Notes, M.M. (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file).

1169 Ibid.

1170 Ibid.

1171 Ibid.

1172 Ibid.

1173 Ibid.

1174 Ibid.

1175 Ibid.

1176 Ibid.
200 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

• Staff also interviewed 54-year-old Natalie Sinkew, who said she has been working at 

Goodwill for the last five years, and would like to work more hours.1177 She also stated that 

her prior jobs only lasted a few months, after which she was laid off because they “didn’t 

accept me for what I could put in.”1178 Regarding Goodwill, she described in detail her 

work reviewing clothes and pulling the color from a checklist, and putting labels on books. 

She said she would like something to sit down on when folding clothes or stuffing 

envelopes, as she really wants a job where she can sit but all the jobs she is told about 

require standing and she’s “tired of it.”1179 Ms. Sinkew also noted that her commute is long 

and she has to get up early to take public transportation, and that she would prefer a closer 

Goodwill location.1180 She currently makes $10.96/hour and is hoping to go up to 

$15/hour.1181 She heard about the job through Ms. Paya at Champlain Community 

Services. When asked if she received career counseling or opportunities to learn new skills, 

she repeated that she would like a job where she can sit down, and she would like more 

hours.1182

Interviewees also included:

• C.B., age 52, is non-verbal and communicated through Champlain Community Services

staff by patting the staff’s hand in response to questions.1183 Mr. B. indicated in agreement 

with Champlain Community Services staff that he had formerly worked at a sheltered 

workshop, but preferred his current work at Harley Davidson.1184 He has worked at Harley 

Davidson for the past five years, and at Shaw’s grocery store for the last 14 years.1185

Currently, he works only one day a week at Harley Davidson, and three days a week for 3-

hour shifts at Shaw’s. At Shaw’s, he cleans tables, collects cookies, straightens the aisles 

and greets customers, and he used to work collecting the shopping carts.1186 At Harley 

Davidson, he cleans the bikes, and said that he likes everything about his job there and did 

not like working with the grocery carts at Shaw’s; however after he communicated with

1177 Ibid.

1178 OCRE Interview Notes, Natalie Sinkew (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file) (Ms. Sinkew consented to using her full name in 

the report).

1179 Ibid.

1180 Ibid.

1181 Ibid.

1182 Ibid.

1183 OCRE Interview Notes, C.B. (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file).

1184 Ibid.

1185 Ibid.

1186 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 201

his supervisor at Shaw’s he no longer has to work on the carts.1187 He found out about both 

opportunities through Champlain Community Services, and the job training he receives 

includes learning how to fold shirts at Harley Davidson.

1188

• G.H. age 51, who works at Asten Johnson (a paper manufacturing company), a job 

procured through Champlain Community Services, also spoke to Commission staff; he 

could not remember how long he has worked there but told Commission staff that it was 

“a long time,” and that it was his first job.1189 He also was not sure how much he makes at 

Asten Johnson, where he puts things in boxes and also loads cars.1190 He told Commission 

staff that he loves his job and likes his co-workers, but that he likes his boss “only a little 

bit,” because that person “always bosses me around.”1191

• Beverly Williams is a 30-year-old woman who has worked at her current job at AJH 

Fulfillment for almost three years; her previous jobs include working in a video store while 

she was in high school.1192 She described in great detail her work receiving and processing 

from eBay and Amazon, including producing information for forms about the reasons for 

returns, date, order number and exchange information, based on customer comments.1193

She has learned to enter information about negative comments, and enjoys helping people 

get what they need. When asked what she likes and dislikes about her job, she commented 

that:

I like the people very, very much. I like what I do [with] returns. I do love being 

on the computer, so that’s why I like returns. [I also like] packaging things, trash 

and recycling – [I] enjoy the fresh air and like sweeping, I’m a neat freak... I 

really love my job.1194

When asked if she felt she could talk to her supervisors, she replied that “I feel like I can 

if I’m stressed out; the people are good listeners.”1195 She is not sure how much she makes, 

but was sure that it was minimum wage. She found out about the opportunity through doing 

job searches on a computer at Champlain Community Services with a support person, and 

coming across AJH; she added that she didn’t receive counseling and instead they agree 

1187 Ibid.

1188 Ibid.

1189 OCRE Interview Notes, G.H. (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file).

1190 Ibid.

1191 Ibid.

1192 OCRE Interview Notes, Beverly Williams (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file) (Ms. Williams consented to using her full 

name in the report).

1193 Ibid.

1194 Ibid.

1195 Ibid.
202 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

with what she wants to do, and this job interested her the most.1196 After that, Champlain 

Community Services made the trip with her to introduce them, and to try out returns with 

a support person present, after which AJH decided they wanted to hire her and welcomed 

her to the team.1197 Ms. Williams also stated that she had the opportunity to build skills on 

the job, where her boss is supportive of her learning new things, and she was glad to learn 

the computer data entry skills as she “never had a computer job until now.”1198 She added 

that Champlain Community Services is also teaching her cooking skills, as she currently 

lives with three people (in assisted housing) but would rather live on her own but needs to 

learn cooking skills first.1199

• David Baizley is a 27-year-old man who has worked at Moe’s, washing dishes for 20-30 

hours/week, for over a year; previously he worked in the kitchen of a school.1200 He told 

Commission staff that he likes the people he works with, but he doesn’t like “when it gets 

intense” with lots of dishes, especially on Black Friday.1201 He said that he feels that he 

can talk to his supervisors, as he knows that he can email co-workers if he needs 

something.1202 Mr. Baizley said he heard about the opportunity from one of the managers 

at his last job, who knew he was looking for something closer to home. Also, he said he 

has not received career counseling because he doesn’t need job support.1203 He has learned 

dish washing skills and he is glad to have shifted to dishes because he prefers that to the 

food preparation work he was doing before.1204 Finally, he also noted that prior to studying 

Liberal Arts, he attended a post-secondary school in a Midwestern state for individuals 

with disabilities, where he studied culinary arts. He said that while he likes working at his 

current job, he would like to eventually get a job using more of his skills that he learned at 

school.1205

• Staff also interviewed 25-year-old Sara Bourbon, who has worked at Rider’s Treats for 4-

5 years, loading soda and snack vending machines and being responsible for counting the 

money and the number of sodas sold and making sure the numbers match, and for making 

1196 Ibid.

1197 Ibid.

1198 Ibid.

1199 Ibid.

1200 OCRE Interview Notes, David Baizley (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file) (Mr. Baizley consented to using his full name in 

the report).

1201 Ibid.

1202 Ibid.

1203 Ibid.

1204 Ibid.

1205 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 203

sure the products are not stuck and fixing them if they are.1206 Prior to this job, she worked 

at Goodwill and Marshalls, mainly organizing clothing on the racks.1207 She found her jobs 

through Champlain Community Services and says that she likes her current job, except 

when people distract her. She also does not know how much she is paid, although she does 

recall receiving a cost-of-living raise; she does not know if she has been provided 

opportunities to learn new skills.

1208

• R.S. is a 49-year-old man who has worked at Endine & Williston, washing test tube bottles 

and recycling trash, since 1991, and since 2013, he has also worked at a place of 

employment he identified as PCC, assisting with mail, recycling, watering plants, and with 

his support person, stocking soda coolers together.1209 Mr. S. stated that, “I like both my 

jobs and everything about them.”1210 He found out about the opportunity at Endine from 

Champlain Community Services, who asked if he wanted a job in the community when he 

was in high school. He said that his job coach went in with him the first week, but has now 

become completely independent, and his job coach (who was in the room for support) 

agreed that he just drops him off and the only thing they have had to do together is at PCC 

with the soda machines, and with watering the plants because he is nervous about possibly 

spilling on the equipment.1211 He added that he learned new skills at both Endine and at 

PCC.

1212

• N.V. is a 32-year-old woman, who has been working at Pillsbury Manor, a senior home 

where she works in the kitchen and serving, for about 8-9 years, and at Marshalls, where 

she works stocking clothing and electronics, for about three months.1213 She says that she 

started working when she was in school, but that Pillsbury Manor is her first paid job, and 

that she likes working with seniors and learning kitchen skills there, and at Marshalls, she 

likes that it is new and that she is learning to work with retail co-workers, although 

“sometimes they have a hard time helping her understand,” but she likes the boss.

1214 When 

asked how much she makes, Ms. V. showed Commission staff her pay stubs from Pillsbury, 

and said that she makes about $10-$11/hour. She said she found out about both jobs 

1206 OCRE Interview Notes, Sara Bourbon (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file) (Ms. Bourbon consented to using her full name in 

the report).

1207 Ibid.

1208 Ibid.

1209 OCRE Interview Notes, R.S. (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file).

1210 Ibid.

1211 Ibid.

1212 Ibid.

1213 OCRE Interview Notes, N.V. (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file).

1214 Ibid.
204 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

through Champlain Community Services. When asked if anyone has provided her with 

opportunities to learn new skills, she said “not really.”1215 She has had a variety of jobs in 

her life, and enjoyed her jobs related to self-advocacy for inclusive arts, but that she felt 

very frustrated that many places will not hire people with disabilities; moreover, her career 

advisor does not really help with the interview skills needed to find jobs.1216 Moreover, she 

stated that staff do not understand her personal struggle, that more peer-to-peer support is 

needed, that transportation is a problem, and that “lots of people don’t have family to rely 

on,” which creates housing issues.

1217

• Commission staff also interviewed a 28-year-old man who asked not to be identified in this 

report.

1218 He is currently working as an inventory assistant “assisting managers with 

inventory, checking that we have all the parts we need and the right numbers.”1219 He has 

been working there for about a month and a half, after not having a job for a few years, and 

previously had “an unpleasant experience” when he was working as a teenager in another 

state.1220 He said that the “work atmosphere is much more pleasant than I honestly 

expected,” especially after his last job experience, and that he was happily surprised when 

staff threw him a birthday party.1221 He could not think of anything he disliked about his 

job.1222 He is being paid minimum wage, which was recently increased to $10.96/hour in 

Vermont.1223 He said that he has been working with Champlain Community Services for a 

while to find the right job opportunity; but he also recalled a job he had during college 

when he was studying for his Liberal Arts degree, in which he maintained computer centers 

on campus and acted as the help desk when students needed assistance, and he was paid 

$10/hour (while minimum wage in that state was $9.25/hour).1224 Asked if he had received 

job training, he said that he is “implicitly... learning to maintain a professional attitude” 

through his work with Champlain Community Services, but that he had learned other skills 

on the job.1225

1215 Ibid.

1216 Ibid.

1217 Ibid.

1218 OCRE Interview Notes, Anonymous #1 (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file).

1219 Ibid.

1220 Ibid.

1221 Ibid.

1222 Ibid.

1223 Ibid.

1224 Ibid.

1225 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 205

• Another person interviewed told Commission staff that he is a 22-year-old white man who 

also preferred to remain anonymous.1226 He was working with Champlain Community 

Services to try to find a job and was jobless at the moment. His last job, procured from 

Champlain Community Services, was from March 2019 to January 2020, at a grocery store, 

which he left due to “multiple reasons,” including not getting along with a supervisor who 

replaced his prior boss after the company underwent a reorganization.1227 He worked as a 

packer, weighed, priced and tagged food, then was promoted to salad preparation, and he 

said that he enjoyed his job and they were flexible with him if he needed to call in sick or 

go home; however, he said that “when the guy who hired me left, I felt cornered.”1228 He 

said he found his new boss was controlling and he felt that she singled him out, and he got 

laid off. He was making $11.50/hour and had received a raise when he was promoted to 

salad preparation. He had found out about the opportunity through Champlain Community 

Services doing outreach to the college program he was in for persons with autism, and he 

has received some career counseling through Champlain Community Services job coaches 

and through his case manager.1229 When asked if he was provided opportunities to learn 

new skills, he replied, “I don’t think so. What I did was really straightforward, repetitive 

[and] step-based,” and that he only needed “occasional reminders” but that he grasped the 

work very quickly.1230 He said he is now looking for a job that “doesn’t involve being in 

the back kitchen and [in which] I can interact with people.”1231

• Another man whom Commission staff interviewed was 25-year-old Thomas Caswell.1232

At the time of the interview, Mr. Caswell had two jobs, one paid and one internship. He 

had been working at Green Mountain Self-Advocates for two years, and although he started 

as an unpaid volunteer through his fellowship regarding LGBTQ persons and disability, he 

was being paid $13/hour and was expecting a raise to $15/hour.1233 He also volunteers as 

an education advocate in the Peace and Justice Center at a disability rights organization, 

where he is focusing on career goals, and he has worked in prior jobs, such as at Old Navy, 

and internships, particularly at advocacy organizations.1234 His job duties are varied and 

include providing presentations, workshops on language and culture, Facebook and other 

1226 OCRE Interview Notes, Anonymous #2 (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file).

1227 Ibid.

1228 Ibid.

1229 Ibid.

1230 Ibid.

1231 Ibid.

1232 OCRE Interview Notes, Thomas Caswell (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file) (Mr. Caswell consented to using his full name 

in the report).

1233 Ibid.

1234 Ibid.
206 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

social media, participating in advocacy during Disability Awareness Day at the state 

capitol, participating in conferences and various social outreach events, and traveling to 

check on local groups, although transportation can be very difficult because he cannot 

drive.1235 He said that he likes his job because it is different than other organizations in that 

it is “very team-oriented,” and focuses on “empowering people to speak up for 

themselves.”1236 He said that he feels that he can speak to his supervisors about any 

problems – for example, they are now looking at creative options to solve transportation 

problems, and hopes to get rides with other people or to take the train.1237 Mr. Caswell 

found his job through being part of an advocacy group when he was in high school. He 

said that he was “absolutely” given opportunities to learn new skills, such as public 

speaking skills and LGBTQ outreach with other programs around the country.1238 He also 

told Commission staff that he was very much against Section 14(c), stating that in 2020 

people are still being discriminated against in sheltered workplaces where they are isolated; 

and that “we need to close Down’s Syndrome sheltered workshops,” and more generally, 

make work inclusive so that people are familiar with disability in workplaces, adding that: 

“We as a society need to be better than this.”1239

Staff also interviewed other persons with disabilities who reported they were highly successful in 

their public-facing jobs.

• Hasan Ko is a 25-year-old Burmese American man who has worked in a hotel for almost 

three years, as a “houseman,” providing answers to guests’ questions about services, and 

he also checks in guests, cleans tables, assists in the kitchen, and in housekeeping and 

laundry.1240 He previously had a part-time job during high school, in a store that resells 

donated goods such as computers or tables.1241 Mr. Ko is a refugee from Burma (Myanmar) 

and speaks three languages (Burmese, English and Arabic), and he has received awards for 

his customer service in the hotel.1242 He received a raise last year from $11/hour to 

$15/hour, and says that he likes to “connect with other people” from different areas of the 

U.S. and different countries at the hotel.1243 He said he feels that he can talk to his 

supervisor if he has any problems, and has done so regarding a co-worker who was 

1235 Ibid.

1236 Ibid.

1237 Ibid.

1238 Ibid.

1239 Ibid.

1240 OCRE Interview Notes, Hasan Ko (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file).

1241 Ibid.

1242 Ibid.

1243 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 207

upsetting him.1244 He found the opportunity working with Champlain Community Services

on a job search together, then Champlain Community Services introduced him to the hotel 

manager.1245 Mr. Ko added that he has learned skills as part of an advocacy group at 

Champlain Community Services in which they learn to work together in a group, share 

their ideas, and talk to each other.1246

• Stirling Peebles, a 37-year-old woman, explained to Commission staff that she has worked 

as a Dissemination Assistant at the Center on Disability and Inclusion at the University of 

Vermont for the past six years, and as a part-time advocacy educator at Green Mountain 

Self-Advocates for the past 13 years.1247 She has been simultaneously studying for her 

degree at University of Vermont and expects to graduate in May 2020, and she referred the 

Commission to her LinkedIn page for information about prior jobs, including over five 

years at Association of People Supporting Employment First.1248 Ms. Peebles stated that at 

the University of Vermont, she conducts outreach and media through traditional and social 

media; for example, she coordinates student meetings and she set up the organization’s 

YouTube and Facebook pages; at Green Mountain Self-Advocates she maintains a 

Facebook page for a large, national self-advocacy network and sometimes speaks to 

legislators. She makes $12.85/hour at University of Vermont and $15/hour at Green 

Mountain Self-Advocates, and she received raises in both jobs last year.

1249

• When asked what she liked and disliked about her jobs, Ms. Peebles said she “loves” both 

of her jobs, because “I love challenges,” and she really likes the work she does.1250 She 

says that both jobs are “very flexible with me,” and the only thing she dislikes is that she 

does not receive benefits due to being a part-time employee.1251 She also feels that she can 

talk to her supervisors at both jobs. She found out about the University of Vermont job 

while she was a student in “the Vermont Program,” in which all are given an opportunity 

for a vocational internship, and she found out about the Green Mountain Self-Advocates 

job because she was recommended for it by one of her teachers while she was in high 

school, through a workshop.1252 Ms. Peebles also learned skills through her educational 

1244 Ibid.

1245 Ibid.

1246 Ibid.

1247 OCRE Interview Notes, Stirling Peebles (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file) (Ms. Peebles consented to using her full name 

in the report).

1248 Ibid.; see also Profile of Stirling Peebles, LinkenIn.com, https://www.linkedin.com/in/stirlingpeebles10/

(accessed 3/31/2020).

1249 Ibid.

1250 Ibid.

1251 OCRE Interview Notes, Stirling Peebles (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file).

1252 Ibid.
208 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

programs and through internships; however, the information she provided shows that she 

was extremely self-directed in using workbooks, journaling and online programs to build 

her skillset.1253 She also engages in advocacy-based leadership and was recently elected to 

be the Vice President of the Vermont Chapter of the Association of People Supporting 

Employment First.1254 She also told Commission staff that among the disability 

community:

Everyone loves a full life and just want to be treated like everyone else.

Some parents are scared about if sheltered employment, if it were taken away. It 

depends on the person. It needs to be person-centered. Everyone should have 

choices and someone to support them, an ally.1255

In addition to the above 15 interviews of employees with disabilities, Commission staff also spoke 

to P.B., a 59-year-old woman who is a parent of a person with disabilities and an advocate, who 

signed up for the interviews, who recommended that the Commission seek to connect aging with 

disability because of similarities between the two.1256 She talked about wanting her son who is 

autistic to go to college because the best thing for him is to be independent, and said that “parents 

need to move from concern to support.”1257

Maine

Even though Maine shifted its employment paradigm for people with disabilities just a few years 

after Vermont, the state has not seen similar rates of increased employment for people with 

disabilities compared to Vermont.1258 Maine began phasing out sheltered employment in 2006 

through funding mechanisms, expanding funding for supported employment services while 

simultaneously reducing funding for sheltered employment.1259 During 2016 to 2017, 24 percent 

of people with disabilities in Maine were employed in integrated employment, which was above 

the national average, but lower than Vermont’s 42 percent employment rate for the same group.1260

In Maine, in 2016-2017, individuals working in integrated employment reported making an 

average of $171.97 and working an average of 14.5 hours in a two week period, and both numbers 

1253 Ibid.

1254 Ibid.

1255 Ibid.

1256 OCRE Interview Notes, R.B. (Mar. 4, 2020) (on file).

1257 Ibid.

1258 See Chart 4.10, supra.

1259 National Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, (Oct. 2018) p. 

68.

1260 UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, StateData.info, State Employment Snapshot: Maine, 

https://www.statedata.info/statepages/Maine (last accessed Feb. 9, 2020); See supra, Note 1058.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 209

are below the national averages.1261 This is consistent with Maine’s data in the comparative 

Overview section at the beginning of this chapter, which also showed lower wage trends than other 

states such as Virginia.1262

Levels of integration for persons with cognitive disabilities in Maine were difficult to determine 

because of a lack of data, but the available data does not show a marked increase in recent years. 

See Chart 4.11.

Chart 4.11: Number of Individuals with Disabilities working in Integrated Employment, 

Maine (2007-2017)

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, “State IDD Agencies: Maine,” 

https://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/269339

*Indicates data are not available for that year

Further, data from the years prior to the 2003 policy change similarly did not show an increase in 

integrated employment for this group. For example, in 1993, there were 454 persons with cognitive 

disabilities in integrated employment in Maine, and 1,386 in 2001, then 929 in 2010; however, the 

1261 UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, StateData.info, State Employment Snapshot: Maine, 

https://www.statedata.info/statepages/Maine (last accessed Feb. 9, 2020).

1262 See supra Chart 4.2.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2007* 2008* 2009* 2010 2011* 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017

Integrated I/DD Employment (numbers)
210 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

only data was from those years and so it may not be complete enough to reflect implications of the 

2003 policy change.1263

A case study published in 2015 by the George Washington University Milken Institute School of 

Public Health examined Maine’s transition from sheltered employment to integrated employment, 

finding that at one employment facility studied in the report, people with disabilities worked fewer 

hours after the transition than before.1264 The study found that in 2001, there were 558 people 

employed in sheltered workshops, a number that dropped to zero by 2010.1265 However, the study 

also found that the state’s number of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities who 

served in integrated employment decreased between 2001 and 2014, while the number of people 

with intellectual and developmental disabilities engaged in non-work activities increased.1266 The 

authors summarized, “There was a dramatic increase in the number of Maine residents who were 

being served with community based non-work services.”1267

As part of the study, researchers interviewed representatives from seven community rehabilitation 

programs and five people with disabilities.1268 Proponents of the 14(c) certificate program point to 

the Maine study as evidence that elimination of sheltered workshops can result in a decrease in 

employment opportunities for people with disabilities.1269 However, critics of the study point to a 

lack of data tracking the outcomes for people with disabilities who have left sheltered 

employment.1270 Critics of the report additionally cite to Maine’s funding structure for 

employment services and long wait times for vocational rehabilitation services as contributing to 

the lower numbers for competitive integrated employment outcomes when compared to other 

states that have eliminated subminimum wage employment.1271

The National Council on Disability conducted a site visit to a Maine supported employment agency 

as part of its 2018 report. Unlike the George Washington University report, the National Council 

1263 UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, “State IDD Agencies: Maine,” 

https://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/269339.

1264 Phoenix, Janet A. and Bysshe, Tyler, Transitions: A Case Study of the Conversion from Sheltered Workshops to 

Integrated Employment in Maine, George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health (2015) p. 

26.

1265 Ibid., 12.

1266 Ibid.

1267 Ibid.

1268 Ibid p. 21-22.

1269 See e.g. Public Comment No. 629 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil 

Rights; Grothman Statement at 4-5.

1270 Association of People Supporting Employment First, APSE Statement Challenging the Validity of GWU "Study" 

funded by the Chimes Foundation (July 2015) https://apse.org/chimesfoundation/.

1271 Id.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 211

on Disability found that one agency achieved employment in integrated settings for 41 percent of 

people served.1272 Furthermore, the agency was able to engage 77 percent of people served in a 

community group, club, or class, and 71 percent in volunteer work in the community.1273 The 

National Council on Disability also found that revenues in 1996, the year the employment agency 

ceased all segregated activities, totaled $755,293.1274 By 2019, the agency projected revenue of 

$6,000,000.1275 The federal agency highlighted the importance of working individually with 

people with disabilities to identify desired employment outcomes, a key success factor that Dr. 

Bryan Dague, Think College Vermont Program Coordinator and Research Assistant Professor at 

the University of Vermont, mirrored in his testimony to the Commission stating that “shutting 

down a workshop and then having people wait in line is not [an] effective use of services, it’s sort 

of like help[ing] one person at a time and gradually get[ting] them out.”1276 The National Council 

on Disability highlighted the success of the Maine in using individualized employment services to 

find employment for two persons with disabilities. For example, one person with an intellectual or 

developmental disability was very interested in meticulous matching of objects by shape and size, 

and she was supported in starting her own vending business and is now successfully selfemployed.1277 In another example of employment coaching tailored to the individual highlighted 

in the federal report:

Another person with [an intellectual or developmental disability] who was accused of being 

a “slow worker” in the sheltered workshop became “a raging success” working 

competitively in a family restaurant. He was better matched, and therefore performed 

better, in a job where he could interact with customers. As a result, his paid supports were 

reduced to just 7 hours per week.1278

After the Commission’s briefing, a rehabilitation specialist for people with acquired brain injuries 

located in Maine sent a public comment explaining that people with brain injuries can work in the 

community with support, and should be able to seek competitive integrated employment.1279

1272 National Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, (Oct. 2018) p. 

70.

1273 Ibid.

1274 Ibid., at 71.

1275 Ibid.

1276 Briefing Transcript at 257.

1277 National Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, (Oct. 2018) p. 

70.

1278 Ibid., 70.

1279 Public comment No. 217 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
212 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Oregon

The state of Oregon is currently undergoing a transition from subminimum wage employment in 

sheltered workshops to competitive integrated employment, in part in response to a settlement 

agreement reached with the Department of Justice in 2015.1280 As part of the settlement, in 2015, 

Oregon stopped all new entries into sheltered workshops, beginning the phase-out of subminimum 

wage employment.1281 According to Lilia Teninty, Director of the Office of Developmental 

Disabilities Services, Oregon Department of Human Services, who testified before the 

Commission, stated wages for individuals with disabilities in competitive integrated employment 

averaged $9.67 per hour.1282 State minimum wage in November 2019 was $9.25 per hour.1283 In 

contrast, in 2015, there were 3,711 people in sheltered workshops in Oregon who earned an 

average of $4.74 per hour.1284

After the change, as of November 2019, average wages for people with disabilities in Oregon 

working in competitive integrated employment were $11.71 per hour, above the Oregon minimum 

wage of $11.25 per hour.1285 In November of 2019, 300 people remained employed in sheltered 

workshops, making an average of $4.90 per hour.1286 According to Teninty, payment of 

subminimum wages will be completely phased out in Oregon by July 2023.1287

The comparative data in the Overview section of this chapter shows that Oregon has not increased 

employment of persons with disabilities as much as other states, and that there has even been a 

drop in relevant employment rates between 2016 and 2017 (the most recent data available). 

However, Oregon’s data about the number of persons with cognitive disabilities in integrated 

employment shows a positive trend. See Chart 4.12.

1280 See supra notes 204-211.

1281 Lilia Teninty, Director of the Office of Developmental Disabilities Services, Oregon Department of Human 

Services, Written Statement for Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Nov. 15, 2019, at 2 (hereinafter Teninty Statement).

1282 Id.

1283 Id.

1284 Id.

1285 Id.

1286 Id.

1287 Id.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 213

Chart 4.12: Number of Individuals with Disabilities working

in Integrated Employment, Oregon (2007-2017)

Source: UMass Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion, Statedata.info, “State IDD Agencies: Oregon,” 

https://www.statedata.info/data/showchart/575977

*Indicates data are not available for that year

During the Commission’s Briefing, Teninty also explained some of the challenges Oregon faces 

in transitioning to competitive integrated employment for all people with disabilities. She stated 

that funding for supported employment services and resistance to change from family members of 

people with disabilities are two of the biggest challenges when seeking change in Oregon’s 

system.1288

The National Council on Disability conducted a site visit to Oregon in 2018, visiting three locations 

to meet with employment service providers, disability groups, employer associations, experts, and 

other stakeholders.1289 The federal agency’s report identified successful practices among Oregon 

service providers in supporting people with disabilities, including changes in organizational 

leadership and more training opportunities for staff.1290 The National Council on Disability also 

found that dwindling demand for segregated employment for people with disabilities was driving 

1288 Teninty Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, Briefing Transcript at 214-16; See supra, notes 223-228. 

(family expectations as challenge to employment transitions).

1289 National Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, (Oct. 2018) p. 

79.

1290 Ibid., 83.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2007* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Integrated I/DD Employment (numbers)
214 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

some service providers to proactively change their service models.1291 The state of Oregon 

provides financial transition assistance to service providers through the state’s Transformation 

Project that allows service providers to gradually increase capacity for providing competitive 

integrated employment services while winding down older sheltered employment models.1292

The first Oregon workshop visited by the National Council on Disability, MV Advancements, 

supported 123 persons with disabilities in competitive integrated employment, 76 in small-group 

supported employment, and 10 with “employment path” supports in the community.1293 Further, 

as it closed its workshops [during the transition] “of the 88 workshop workers, initially 32 people 

moved to small-group employment, 12 obtained integrated employment, 12 moved to day support, 

2 entered job development, 13 retired or exited services, and a few are unknown.”1294

The National Council on Disability also visited Tualatin Valley Workshop, which was in the 

process of assisting 37 persons with intellectual/developmental disabilities in transitioning to 

competitive integrated employment. National Council on Disability reported that:

[Tualatin Valley Workshop] faced significant resistance from families at first, but after 

transition, the employees with disabilities and their families report that although they 

thought they would never be able to work in the community, now they are happy with the 

results and have greater confidence, independence, and financial health, along with an 

improved quality of life and greater networks of colleagues and friends.1295

The National Council on Disability also visited a location in Portland where it met with the Oregon 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (an association), and with stakeholders, including 

employment service providers, disability organizations and advocates, family groups, experts in 

supported employment, and the director of the Washington Initiative for Supported Employment, 

which provides technical assistance and employment services in Oregon and Washington State.1296

One of the main National Council on Disability findings regarding service providers in Oregon 

that were several years into transition from segregated, subminimum wage workshops to 

competitive integrated employment was as follows:

These service providers agreed that the workers in their workshops were capable of 

working in competitive integrated employment with the right supports and opposed any 

1291 Ibid., 84.

1292 Ibid.

1293 Ibid. p. 80.

1294 Ibid.; See supra, Note 524 (defining small group employment).

1295 National Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, (Oct. 2018) p. 

81.

1296 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 215

suggestion that current sheltered workers should remain in workshops while new entrants 

were diverted to competitive integrated employment. They emphasized that no one should 

be left behind in the move toward competitive integrated employment.1297

Further, some National Council on Disability interviewees believed that expectations matter, and 

that a perception of low expectations for persons with intellectual/developmental disabilities 

“made some providers less willing to engage in transformation.”1298 Service providers, advocates 

and experts also “noted that the transition to competitive integrated employment is often more 

difficult for people who have worked in segregated settings, not necessarily because of their 

disabilities, but because they have been acculturated to a workplace that differs significantly from 

integrated workplaces and that is not generalizable to the mainstream place of employment.”1299

The report added that “disruptive behaviors, poor hygiene, and unexplained absenteeism in 

sheltered workshops are often allowed to continue,” and that “workshops often cultivate 

dependence, not only for work activities, but for meals, social activities, and transportation.”1300

However, according to experts and stakeholders interviewed by the National Council on Disability, 

these lowered expectations were not a reason not to transition to competitive integrated 

employment, but rather a reason for “longer, more intensive transition services to help a sheltered 

employee develop new expectations.”1301 Oregon experts and stakeholders also believed that 

transition services such as small-group employment in an integrated setting is a useful as a 

“temporary interim bridge,” but “with a clear expectation that the end goal is competitive 

integrated employment.”1302

The Commission’s research corroborates that Oregon is a good model for coming into compliance 

with civil rights prohibitions against segregation of persons with disabilities.1303 The Oregon and 

Vermont experiences also show that transition from sheltered workshops to competitive integrated 

employment may also be accomplished by concurrently eliminating subminimum wages. As noted 

by the National Council on Disability, Oregon’s transition has been reliant on providing “the right 

supports”1304 including “longer, more intensive transition services[.]”1305

1297 National Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, (Oct. 2018) p. 

82.

1298 Ibid.

1299 Ibid.

1300 Ibid.

1301 Ibid.

1302 Ibid., 82-83.

1303 See supra notes 201-212[in Ch. 1, discussing ADA/Olmstead/Lane case].

1304 See supra note 1297.

1305 See supra note 1301.
216 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Even with those type of supports, the Commission learned during the Vermont site visit that some 

employers were negatively impacted when they were required to start paying minimum wage;1306

however, the Vermont data show an overall increase in employment rates and earnings for persons 

with disabilities after the state eliminated sheltered workshops and subminimum wages.1307 The 

Vermont site visit also revealed the stories of persons with disabilities who had formerly been 

employed in sheltered workshops and/or paid subminimum wages, who had been exploited and 

were now thriving in competitive integrated employment.1308

The Maine model has not been as successful, as the state has not seen similar rates of increased 

employment for people with disabilities compared to Vermont.1309 Some believe that the Maine 

study is evidence that elimination of sheltered workshops can result in a decrease in employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities,1310 whereas others believe the underlying reason is lack 

of sufficient supports for successful transition in Maine.1311 Certainly, every state’s economy and 

every locality’s program impact the level of opportunity for persons with disabilities.

As discussed above, anecdotal evidence also shows that some states that are not eliminating 14(c) 

programs may still be providing some value, particularly from the point-of-view of concerned 

family members.1312 Data explored in this chapter indicate that Vermont, which was the first state 

to eliminate 14(c), had the highest employment rate of persons with disabilities.1313 But the results 

have been mixed as the three states studied that retained 14(c) (Arizona, Missouri and Virginia) 

had higher employment rates for persons with disabilities than Oregon or Maine (which have 

eliminated 14(c)).1314 Moreover, the Commission received public comments from Missouri 

arguing that: “Eliminating 14(c) would put an end to Missouri’s Sheltered Workshops and the 

1306 See supra note 1137.

1307 See supra Charts 4.1 and 4.2.

1308 See supra notes 1157-1160.

1309 See supra note 1257.

1310 See supra note 1269.

1311 See supra note 1270.

1312 See supra notes 851-981 (comments from MVLE staff at roundtable and persons with disabilities interviewed in 

Virginia), 999-1002 (Arizona) and 1020-1024 (Missouri).

1313 See supra Chart 4.1.

1314 Ibid.
Chapter 4: States and Subminimum Wage Laws 217

thousands of Missourians they employ would be forced into day programs costing the state 

millions.”1315

Yet if there is a reasonable way to eliminate discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities, 

civil rights law and principles would require it to be done.1316 Further, in addition to employment 

data, data about integration of persons with disabilities in the six states studied by the Commission 

show that Oregon and Vermont have been comparatively the most successful at ending 

segregation.1317 Maine did not do as well in this metric and was surpassed by Virginia, but the 

same dataset showed that Missouri had lowest rate of integration was in of the six states 

examined.

1318 The success of states like Oregon and Vermont show that there is a path forward,;

moreover, even concerned family members in those states eventually embraced a supported 

transition from 14(c) to competitive integrated employment. For example, while Tualatin Valley 

Workshop in Oregon “faced significant resistance from families at first, but after transition, the 

employees with disabilities and their families report that although they thought they would never 

be able to work in the community, now they are happy with the results[.]”1319 This was similar to 

experiences in Vermont, where the Commission received testimony that:

Families who originally said, my adult child won’t be safe in the community, were able to 

see the transition of their adult child and see that they became more independent, that they 

became more communicative, that their wellness was improved, that the community was 

embracing them because they’d been given an opportunity. And it was a leap of faith.1320

1315 Email of State Sen. Gary Romine to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 11, 2019); Letter of State Rep. Dale 

Wright to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 4, 2019); Letter of State Rep. Mike Henderson to the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 5, 2019) (all on file) (letters of State Representatives were identical in their text).

1315 Letter of State Rep. Dale Wright to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 4, 2019); Letter of State Rep. 

Mike Henderson to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Dec. 5, 2019) (both on file; both identical in their text).

1316 See supra notes 178-190 (Applicable Civil Rights Law, discussing Titles I and II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act).

1317 See supra Chart 4.4.

1318 Ibid.

1319 National Council on Disability, From New Deal to Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, (Oct. 2018) p. 

81.

1320 Ibid., 75-76
218 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

[This page is left intentionally blank]
Chapter 5: Findings and Recommendations 219

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Findings

1. In 1938, Congress enacted the exception to the minimum wage requirement for people with 

disabilities, contained in Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, with a rehabilitative 

purpose. As currently utilized, the federal Department of Labor has repeatedly found 

providers operating pursuant to Section 14(c) limiting people with disabilities participating 

in the program from realizing their full potential while allowing providers and associated 

businesses to profit from their labor. This limitation is contrary to 14(c)’s purpose.

a. People with disabilities testified to the Commission about the harm to their dignity 

resulting from being paid a subminimum wage in a segregated setting and not being 

treated as equal members of the community while earning subminimum wages.

b. The continuation of business relationships and successful fulfillment of contracts 

by 14(c) workers indicate the productive capability and capacity of workers with 

disabilities and their ability to participate in the economy.

c. Some Community Rehabilitation Providers operating with 14(c) certificates are 

able to turn substantial profits and returns for their corporate officers while paying 

workers with disabilities less than minimum wage.

d. Businesses who contract with Community Rehabilitation Providers benefit from 

decreased labor and benefit costs.

e. As 14(c) certificates are issued for 2-year periods that may be repeatedly renewed, 

people can and often do remain in the program for decades with little movement to 

other or different jobs, contrary to the program’s purpose of skill-building, 

preparing and/or increasing work readiness, and transitioning people with 

disabilities to mainstream employment.

f. People with disabilities working under the 14(c) program are not permitted to 

unionize.

g. For some purposes, such as wage determination, people with disabilities in 14(c) 

programs are considered employees; however, for other purposes, such as when 

accessing their Medicaid benefits, they are considered program participants, with 

the Community Rehabilitation Provider overseeing both roles. This dual status 

creates confusion about the status, rights and entitlements of people with disabilities 

in 14(c) programs.

2. Persistent failures in regulation and oversight of the 14(c) program by government agencies 

including the Department of Labor and Department of Justice have allowed and continue 

to allow the program to operate without satisfying its legislative goal to meet the needs of 
220 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

people with disabilities to receive supports necessary to become ready for employment in 

the competitive economy.

a. Congress has not granted specific jurisdiction to any civil rights enforcement office 

for civil rights oversight of the 14(c) program and the documented civil rights 

concerns that the operation of the program raises, and no federal civil rights 

enforcement office has taken direct responsibility for such oversight since 1938.

b. The U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division is not a civil rights 

enforcement office and does not have jurisdiction to enforce civil rights violations, 

but it is the only office charged with active oversight of 14(c). This statutory design 

as well as actual enforcement practice results in insufficient oversight of the civil 

rights issues attendant to operation of 14(c).

c. Notwithstanding the longstanding existence of the law, the Wage and Hour 

Division of the Department of Labor did not begin its current more rigorous 

enforcement practices with regard to the 14(c) program until the last 10 years, in 

response to calls for stronger enforcement from the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office and the Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive 

Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities. In the last 10 years, during 

which the Wage and Hour Division investigated between 3% and 14% of 14(c) 

certificate holders, the Division consistently found violations in more than 80% of 

the cases it investigated. It took more than 60 years for the Division to finally revoke 

its first certificate in 2013.

d. The Wage and Hour Division does not collect information from certificate holders 

to determine how many people with disabilities participate in the 14(c) program at 

any moment in time. Estimates range from 110,000 to more than 400,000 people. 

The Commission received testimony that the historic lack of data on workers with 

disabilities – and people with disabilities more generally – has been indicative of a 

general failure to account for an important community.

e. The Wage and Hour Division does not track or require:

• Individuals in the program to determine how long they have been working 

in a 14(c) job;

• Whether individuals, in fact, gain any additional skills and what those skills 

are while participating in the program;

• Whether individuals can move from, for example, an assembly job to one 

that uses modern technology;

• Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act including whether 

individuals are afforded the benefits of reasonable accommodations under 

the American With Disabilities Act to improve their productivity and skill 

level;
Chapter 5: Findings and Recommendations 221

• Whether workers and their relatives are adequately and professionally 

counseled in a manner such that the individual understands the options that 

they may have at future employment opportunities in the broader economy;

• How many individuals move out of 14(c) jobs into competitive integrated 

employment;

• Whether the programs developed by the Community Rehabilitation 

Providers are successful in the goal of readying people with disabilities for 

competitive integrated employment.

f. While the Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission have jurisdiction to enforce the requirements of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, there is no specific office charged to oversee Americans with 

Disabilities Act compliance among 14(c) certificate holders. The Commission’s 

research and testimony the Commission received indicates a high level of concern 

that Community Rehabilitation Providers do not voluntarily institute and use 

adaptive assistive devices and technology an employer would be required to 

provide pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act to advance the skills of 

people with disabilities so they can enter competitive integrated employment with 

a work ready set of skills.

g. Wage and Hour Division oversight of the requirements in Section 511 of the 

Rehabilitation Act are limited to certifying the fact of counseling required under 

Section 511 took place and not any other metric, such as length of time of 

counseling, training of counselors, or whether counselors take any measures to 

tailor counseling to the individuals, or subject matter of the counseling. The 

Commission heard testimony reporting annual counseling sessions as short as 10 

minutes are now occurring without oversight.

3. People with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are currently earning 

subminimum wages under the 14(c) program are not categorically different in level of 

disability from people with intellectual and developmental disabilities currently working 

in competitive integrated employment.

a. People with disabilities, including those with significant disabilities, work for 

competitive wages in mainstream workplaces and are successful at their jobs.

b. People previously categorized for decades as “unable to work” have nevertheless 

obtained and maintained competitive employment through the opportunities of the 

ADA, new technology, and funding for and commitments by vocational 

rehabilitation specialists to seek out mainstream employment. For example, many 

people with disabilities have found success performing work in new jobs created in 

the tech economy, as well as employment in more conventional positions.
222 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

c. Paying low wages to people with disabilities harms their economic potential, 

increasing the likelihood that they will remain reliant on state and federal support.

4. The Commission took in bipartisan testimony in favor of keeping the 14(c) program and 

to end the 14(c) program. Notably, in 2016, both major party platforms included support 

for legislation ending the payment of subminimum wages to people with disabilities. House 

Committee on Education and the Workforce Chairman Bobby Scott (D-VA) introduced 

bipartisan legislation to phase out the 14(c) program. Chair Neil Romano, Republican 

appointee to the National Council on Disability, and former Republican Governor Tom 

Ridge, who now leads the National Organization on Disability, both testified that ending 

the 14(c) program is their shared highest priority.

5. State-level phase outs of the use of the 14(c) program have been developed and designed 

for state service providers and other stakeholders to ensure that a competitive integrated 

employment model does not result in a loss of critical services to individuals with 

disabilities including former 14(c) program participants.

a. 14(c) providers, participants, and family members of participants, specifically 

parents, provided testimony that 14(c) programs provide essential services and 

opportunities for those with disabilities, beyond the mere opportunity for work, and 

expressed significant concern that change to the 14(c) program would adversely 

impact participants and their families.

b. Crucial services for people with disabilities prioritized in phase out plans include, 

but are not limited to, transportation options for people with disabilities, need for 

medical supervision in some cases, and options facilitating continuation of 

community that would result from leaving a job which people may have held for 

years.

c. Testimony and research showing successful employment outcomes in Vermont, a 

state that has moved away from 14(c), suggests that a successful transition to 

competitive integrated employment requires significant investments in time and 

planning to ensure implementation of strategies like ongoing education and training 

of staff and involvement of stakeholders.

6. Increased integration of people with disabilities into the workplace and society is now 

legally required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and legal precedent, and is 

facilitated by technological advancements. These developments obviate any need for 

subminimum wage work.
Chapter 5: Findings and Recommendations 223

Recommendations

1. Congress should repeal Section 14(c) with a planned phase-out period to allow transition 

among service providers and people with disabilities to alternative service models 

prioritizing competitive integrated employment.

2. The phased repeal of 14(c) must not reflect a retreat in Federal investments and support for 

employment success of persons with disabilities but rather a reconceptualization of the way 

in which the federal government can enhance the possibilities for success and growth for 

people with disabilities.

3. Congress should expand funding for supported employment services and prioritize 

capacity building in states transitioning from 14(c) programs.

a. Funding structures should seek to ensure people with disabilities working in 14(c) 

programs will continue to receive employment services, job development, job 

coaching and other services when 14(c) programs are no longer available. Such 

funding should include continued support for services outside employment settings, 

such as volunteer work, training, continuing education, resource centers, and other 

skill-building activities so support is available to people with disabilities in 

activities that partake in and contribute to society.

b. As a condition of receiving expanded funding, Congress should require states to 

submit a plan to phase out 14(c) that allows for a gradual transition to alternative 

service models, such as phasing in such models on a regional basis within their 

jurisdiction with specific goals and timelines. This plan should ensure all current 

14(c) participants are fully covered with options to receive services during the hours 

they participated in a 14(c) program.

c. Congress should provide funding to Vocational Rehabilitation agencies to evaluate 

every 14(c) participant with the goal of determining the services they would require 

to gain skills to be successful in competitive integrated employment, if the person 

with disabilities expresses an employment goal. This planning process should 

include trial work experiences with reasonable accommodations and assistive 

technology as necessary. Families and other support individuals should be included 

in this planning process at the discretion of the person with disabilities.

4. Now and during the transition period of the Section 14(c) program, Congress should assign 

civil rights oversight responsibility and jurisdiction, with necessary associated fiscal 

appropriations to conduct the enforcement, either to the Department of Labor or to the 

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Congress should also require that the 

designated civil rights agency issue an annual report on investigations and findings 

regarding the 14(c) program.
224 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

5. During the phase-out period, Congress should require more stringent reporting and 

accountability for 14(c) certificate holders, and following the phase out should continue to 

collect data on employment outcomes of former 14(c) employees.

a. Until 14(c) is phased out, Congress should enact more stringent requirements for 

counseling under Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act to mandate a robust 

counseling and planning process which incorporates current requirements and 

additional planning for a transition away from 14(c). It should require counselors 

to work with the person with disabilities and, where appropriate, family members 

review what jobs are available for the person, the skills the person has acquired, 

what skills the person would need to be successful, what actions need to be taken 

to acquire those skills, and all services that would be available to the person outside 

of competitive integrated employment, including, but not limited to medical 

services, transportation, day services, volunteering positions and society. The 

Rehabilitation Services Administration should collect data on implementation of 

the counseling requirements, the employment outcomes of Section 511 counseling, 

and on what services are offered to people with disabilities who indicate an interest 

in pursuing competitive integrated employment.

b. Until 14(c) is phased out, Congress should require all Community Rehabilitation 

Provider 14(c) certificate holders to report at least every six months on how many 

individuals transitioned to competitive work or to a prevailing wage position, and 

how many remained in 14(c). Officers and employees of Community Rehabilitation 

Providers should be required to disclose any ownership interest and any income 

derived from, whether owned directly or owned indirectly, through a corporation 

or any other business entity or marital or family property any interest in real or 

personal property utilized by the Community Rehabilitation Provider or its clients 

who participate in any of its programs, including, but not limited to group home 

ownership, associated services to the disabled individual such as money 

management, payee fees for social security payments, or accounting for social 

security payments.

c. After the full phase-out is complete, Congress should continue to require the 

collection of data on the employment outcomes of people previously working 

subminimum wage jobs to determine if further federal action is needed to support 

former 14(c) employees in accessing services.

6. The Department of Justice should increase enforcement of the Olmstead integration 

mandate to determine whether more state systems are inappropriately relying too heavily 

on providers using 14(c) certificates to provide non-integrated employment in violation of 

Olmstead. The Department should issue guidance, open more investigations, and litigate 

where voluntary compliance cannot be achieved.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 225

Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals

Statement of Commissioner David Kladney

Through the course of this project, we took in a great deal of information from all corners. An 

unprecedented (to my knowledge) level of engagement with the Commission meant we received 

the full picture of the contours of the debate around the 14(c) program. We heard from selfadvocates in the disability community, service providers who use 14(c) certificates, parents and 

caregivers of people with significant disabilities, scholars, practitioners, data analysts, and 

lawmakers. Through it all, the same serious concerns resurfaced in various forms. People with 

disabilities seek to meet their personal goals. Family members and caregivers seek certainty that 

services will be available and those with disabilities will be safe and secure. Service providers seek 

continuity in their offerings during a time when it seems the economic reality might shift under 

their feet. We took none of these concerns lightly.

What struck me throughout this endeavor were the individuals with disabilities who spoke frankly 

to us about their own ideas for their futures. One person asked how I would like to be told I would 

only ever be able to work in a workshop or menial job, when in fact that person was attending 

college. That is the real question at the heart of the debate about the 14(c) program. Is 14(c) a 

stepping stone to real employment, or is it simply something for people with disabilities to do 

during the day in a society that doesn’t really value their potential contributions, operating only to 

exclude and make them invisible to society?

I was also struck by the economics of some of the providers who use 14(c) certificates. They are 

able to run very profitable businesses. It can’t be ignored that the foundation of much of that profit 

is their lower labor costs and government assistance, and yet someone is producing the work to 

fulfill the contracts. People with disabilities are. Since the contracts are being filled, it must be the 

case that people with disabilities are working hard, contributing, and successfully performing the 

work required. It seems to me they should have an opportunity to do so outside of the 14(c) 

ecosystem, where they have a chance for advancement in their job, independence, inclusion and 

upward mobility. I don’t see that happening in the closed environment of the workshops.

We visited a 14(c) provider who does not use a workshop model. MVLE1 explained to us that they 

run a labor contracting operation where they fulfill the labor needs businesses have through 

1 MVLE is a subsidiary of FedCap Rehabilitation Services, Inc. a New York based collection of various non-profit 

corporations, tax exempt under 501(c)(3). It is the sole member of MVLE, Inc. a membership corporation under the 

laws of Virginia, and also owns many other non-profit businesses providing a variety of work force development 

services. FedCap has the power to appoint all members of the MVLE board of directors and its executive director. 

MVLE’s gross revenue in 2018 was $3.5 million, in 2017 it was $14 million (This was the year FedCap purportedly 

became the sole member of MVLE), and in 2016 it was $14 million. FedCap’s gross revenue in 2017 was $190 

million. FedCap additionally appears to own a for-profit food service corporation in New York City.
226 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

supported employment for people with disabilities, some, a few, of whom have lower productive 

capacity and are therefore paid less than minimum wage through the 14(c) program. MVLE 

additionally provides on-site employment through their “business center,” which they informed us 

was not a 14(c) program, although a parent at the roundtable described her son shredding paper at 

MVLE as an example of why the 14(c) program is necessary. We did not really get to see their 

14(c) program, because they claimed they couldn’t show it to us. Even though they had agreed to 

prior to our visit and after they were well aware the sole purpose of our visit was to see a 14(c) 

program and had numerouslogistical conversations, on the day we had set aside to see the program, 

it was suddenly impossible to see anything other than one employment site (not a 14(c)-only site), 

where we were told there was one worker earning a subminimum wage.2 I would note here, we 

had also indicated prior to our visit that we would benefit from seeing the day services MLVE 

provides, and while at MVLE I twice asked the executive director to see the Day Services 

Programs. She never showed it to us.

The fact that the service provider took this approach left us without much evidence of the benefits 

they described. Although MVLE has since claimed we did not provide them sufficient opportunity 

to view their operations, leaving us with a skewed view, MVLE in fact was held up by ACCSES, 

a 14(c) trade association, as a representative program. I would note the Commission’s Office of 

Civil Rights Evaluation made the same determination separately, prompting our visit. I would also 

note, if we knew MVLE was not going to allow us to see the 14(c) program or the Day Services 

program, we would not have visited. By the way, an ACCSES representative was present during 

the entire visit, in an apparent attempt to influence our views.

In our on-the-record discussion while on site at MVLE, it became clear that expectations are low 

for the possibility that people with disabilities could earn a real paycheck in competitive integrated 

employment. And yet, the people we did see at the employment site were hard at work, doing 

necessary jobs anyone else would be fully compensated for in a competitive environment. I was 

particularly impressed with the dishwashers. They were working independently, without 

supervision, the entire period of time we were at the site. This position takes quite a bit of 

coordination, organization, and motivation. It is not a simple one-and-two step position. I have 

personal real-life experience in this area having held a commercial dishwashing position myself. 

The other 8 to 10 employees with disabilities were preparing the setups for the next meal at the 

facility we visited. Afterwards they were also going to set up the dining room for the next meal. A 

job coach was overseeing the work, but again, most all the employees were working independently.

Most all of the people with disabilities we observed are earning prevailing wages for their labor. 

It appears MVLE is acting as a labor contractor. From the short time we observed, I could see 

2 Subsequent to the visit, we received a letter stating MVLE personnel were mistaken and there were three 14(c) 

participants at the site.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 227

most, if not all, of these people with disabilities working in competitive integrated employmentin 

the service industry with and without a job coach.

The national14(c) program as a whole lacks oversight into whether people working in it would be 

successful in integrated employment. It would be one thing if a very narrow program paying some 

people less than minimum wage while they built the necessary skills to succeed in competitive 

employment were closely regulated and tracked so that it fulfilled its goal and stated purpose. That 

is not the situation in America now. Oversight of the 14(c) program is not robust or coordinated 

across government agencies. It’s the wild west. In more than 80 years the program has been in 

existence, who has kept track of how many people with disabilities have transitioned out of the 

workshop to competitive employment? Why aren’t these 14(c) providers held to the requirements 

of the ADA where they would make reasonable accommodations for disabilities thus trainingand 

allowing the people with disabilities to be more productive? Why aren’t they required to provide 

assistive technology to people they are rehabilitating? Yes, let’s not forget that rehabilitation is the 

purpose of the program. That’s why it is supposed to exist.

Oh, and why doesn’t anyone know how many people with disabilities are in 14(c) programs around 

the country? Shouldn’t we have this basic fact? Providers are now required to certify their 14(c) 

participants receive job counseling on other employment options and services that may be 

available to them. Why can’t anyone tell us how effective this counseling is across the country? 

Why don’t we know what happens next after someone expresses a desire to work outside of14(c) 

in a competitive integrated job? Why aren’t there any requirements for standards that make up 

adequate counseling? Why haven’t the 14(c) providers pushed for and encouraged this?

People with disabilities are left to navigate on their own and advocate for themselves, largely at 

the mercy of the state they happen to live in and how the state has determined to structure its 

programs. Some states have much better programs than others. Some states default to 14(c) jobs 

and seem to have a lack of understanding that anything else could be possible.

Today, advancements in assistive technology open up ever more opportunities for people who 

once would not have been able to communicate or be integrated into a worksite to do so seamlessly. 

A lack of imagination about employment for people with disabilities is inexcusable. Flexibility is 

called for, not a rigid, backward-looking approach that a workshop job is the only feasible 

outcome. We heard from many people with disabilities about how a more flexible approach 

enhances their quality of life. Perhaps it’s a part time job and continuing education. Perhaps it’s a 

full-time job with full benefits at Microsoft, with accommodations that allow equal earning 

potential to any other employee. Perhapsthe real barrier istransportation (the government provides 

funds for this), and as long as they can get to where they are going, they can volunteer or attend 

classes at a resource center regardless of whether competitive employment is possible for the few 

who cannot work competitively. Undeniably, some people with disabilities will always need some 
228 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

level of support as they integrate into the community in their preferred fashion. The government 

should and does provide that support.3

I do not think the service providers and lawmakers who are adamant they must maintain the14(c) 

program do so out of any ill will toward people with disabilities. They are simply trying to maintain 

their programs. They are skeptical anything substantial will replace the systems they have in place. 

I can understand this skepticism. Structural change in government programs is not guaranteed to 

be a success. Look at the de-institutionalization movement, which undeniably had decidedly mixed 

outcomes for the people it sought to help. The point of eliminating 14(c) is not to put the service 

providers out of business but to let them truly be service providers rather than manufacturing 

plants. These organizations can continue to provide the kinds of services they do now, just in a 

different form. They can still job develop, job coach and teach job skills in a competitive 

environment while getting paid for it. In fact, whether or not the government acts to eliminate 

14(c), the economy is changing. The jobs traditionally found in these workshops are rapidly 

becoming obsolete, with automation surging throughout the economy. There is a cost, too to the 

government of continuing to support people in jobs that do not allow them economic selfsufficiency. For their lifetime, the government has chosen to pay them benefitsrather than assisting 

them to support themselves. What is the fiscal cost of this forever subsidy?

With their looming obsolescence, 14(c) providers are attempting now expand their operations into 

other areas, but in a way that ultimately keeps people with disabilities from competitive integrated 

employment. This is the wrong approach. They wish to expand the AbilityOne program which 

offers federal contacts at prevailing wage and a profit to “companies” who staff their work crews 

with at least 75% of people with disabilities. This is still not competitive integrated employment. 

They put forth labor contract programs as MVLE showed us. These programs only go to prove 

thousands of people with disabilities can work in competitive employment. We saw it at 

MVLE and heard it at our briefing from a representative of Melwood, a former 14(c) provider now 

primarily employing people with AbilityOne contracts. Melwood stated its employees with 

disabilities working on AbilityOne contracts not only thrive at entry level work they commence 

performing, but excel to become crew supervisors and more. Why keep these thousands of people 

segregated? They should be given the opportunity to compete. To do any less keeps people with 

disabilities trapped outside of the benefits of an integrated competitive system where advancement 

is possible.

The cost I am most concerned about, however, is the cost to people with disabilities in a program 

that artificially limits their potential. I came to this project with an open mind. As we come to the 

end, I am convinced there is a better way than paying subminimum wages to support people with 

3

As we noted in the report, Medicaid, Vocational Rehabilitation, and state-level disability services spend more than 

$90 billion per year on services to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, the primary population in 

the 14(c) program. Report at p. 45.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 229

disabilities. The 14(c) program must end. Then, this better way can be built in every state in the 

country. We do not want to leave people out in the cold with no job, no services, no options. The 

scholarship, research, and practical experience of people in this field have shown many different 

ways to build the necessary infrastructure for transition that does not abandon anyone. The serious 

concerns about a change are real concerns, and they must be addressed, but we cannot be so 

intimidated by change that we fail to have vision for anything more.

Transition is not just flipping a switch. States must plan and the federal government must 

coordinate. Our recommendations encompass that states should transition in a manageable way, 

such as an individual state transitioning region by region. The states that have transitioned can 

provide guidance. Oregon and Vermont are states that cover urban, suburban and rural spectrum—

real life, not academic models if you will. Providers in their states did not go out of business. They 

still offered the same services of job training, job development and job coaching to people with 

disabilities, just without the headache of running a complex, old-fashioned, out-of-date production 

business. It will allow the providers to train people with disabilities on the newest assistive and 

production technology while allowing these workers access to the reasonable accommodations

through the ADA which is currently not afforded them with 14(c) providers. All this will make 

these workers with disabilities more productive and more competitive in a capitalistic world.

The youngest people we heard from had the strongest grasp of this vision. They have come of age 

with the ADA firmly in place, with integrated special education services at school, and they fail to 

see why they can’t continue to learn, grow, work, and live independently to the fullest extent. I am 

inspired by their vision. I hope we can craft our policy to live up to it. It’s time for change. It’s 

time to end 14(c).
230 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Dissenting Statement and Rebuttal of Commissioner Gail L. Heriot

In our Age of Wokeness, the moralizing tone that this report takes has become all too familiar. 

But it is entirely uncalled for. 

The issue before us is one of practical economics, not one of morality. We all want adults with 

Down syndrome and other serious intellectual and developmental disabilities to have happy and 

fulfilling lives. As a nation we are committed to help bring that about. Where we differ is on how 

to achieve that goal.

Should the program created by Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act remain in place? Or 

should the federal government get rid of it? Given that the program is optional for disabled 

persons, I view this issue as easier than most questions faced by the Commission. 

Section 14(c) was adopted in 1938 at the same time as the first federal minimum wage. Back then 

it was believed—no doubt correctly—that a federal minimum wage would cause many disabled 

persons to become unemployable. An exception was thus created. A limited number of employers 

would be permitted to obtain certificates authorizing them to pay disabled persons something less 

than the minimum wage. Under current law, how much less depends upon stringent tests of each 

such employee’s productivity, which must be conducted every six months. 

Many of these disabled persons are employed in “sheltered workshops,” while others are employed 

in integrated settings. If we keep Section 14(c), they will be able to continue to work for the special 

minimum wage. If we don’t, sheltered workshops will likely disappear, and disabled individuals 

will be limited to taking non-sheltered jobs that pay at least the minimum wage. To get those jobs, 

they will have to compete with non-disabled workers. 

Overwhelmingly we are talking about individuals with Down syndrome and other serious 

developmental disabilities. Right now the law allows them (or their guardian) a choice. They can 

take a mainstream job at a higher wage if they prefer that and can find an employer willing to hire 

them. If they prefer sheltered employment and have a willing 14(c) employer, they can choose 

that.

Nobody understands the issue better than the parents of the men and women currently employed 

in Section 14(c) programs. They aren’t just the ones who love them best. They are the ones who 

know their capabilities, likes, and dislikes best. That’s why it is shocking to me that the report 

waits till page 99 (by which time nearly all Members of Congress have stopped reading) to 

mention that 98 per cent of the members of the public who submitted comments to the 

Commission support the continuation of Section 14(c). 

In my thirteen years on the Commission we’ve never received anything like the number of 

comments we got with this report—9,700. Indeed, the report admits that this is the highest number 

the Commission has ever received. Of them, the overwhelming majority were from parents or 

other close family members. Almost all of them disagreed—often vehemently—with the 
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 231

Commission’s conclusion on what is best for their child. It would be difficult to find an issue for 

which comments were more lopsided.

Some of the parents come close to begging the Commission to leave Section 14(c) in place. One 

mother wrote us, “There are people who think they know what is best for my son. They are 

wrong.” She describes with honesty and compassion the difficulties of caring for an adult son with 

the intellectual capacity of a four-year old. Another mother describes her son as a slow worker 

who requires monitoring and who is prone to temper tantrums in the middle of the day. These 

women know their sons are not going to be earning a competitive wage. They are not interested 

in chasing rainbows and unicorns. For their sons, it is a sheltered workshop at less-than-minimum 

wage or no job at all.1

1 One mother that we spoke with at MVLE on March 2, 2020—Catherine Pennington, an MVLE board member—

was also realistic about her son’s prospects in the job market: “When he works for me around the house, he needs a 

lot of supervision. ... For example, if he goes to mow the lawn, when he’s done, there will be tufts of grass here and 

there. He will not have gone to the edge of the lawn, and even when I point things out to him, he won’t necessarily 

understand that [he] didn’t quite get it right. ... Steven’s never going to get faster. He’s probably never going to 

become more thorough than he is now, so if he were to try and compete in the market with people who have no 

disabilities, he would not do well. ... [I]f the minimum wage were to rise significantly, or even a little bit, I expect 

that Steven would become unemployed.” Tr. at 21.

Commissioner Kladney’s Statement sounds sunny and optimistic about the ability of Down syndrome employees to 

work independently at Greenspring (a senior/assisted living facility that contracts with MVLE to furnish 14(c) 

workers). Commissioner Kladney is often a sunny and optimistic guy, and I appreciate that. But that’s not what I 

was hearing there from people with experience. The MVLE job coach at the Greenspring site (if I can read my 

handwritten notes her name was Barbara) told us that these special employees tend to forget things, especially on 

Mondays. They have to be re-taught over and over again. We were told by another Greenspring employee that that 

the special employees need to be constantly helped and that a change of manager can be traumatic for them. In food 

preparation, they must be kept away from anything hot. These are not your average unskilled workers. Policy has 

to be grounded in that reality. 

In this vein, I should point out the testimony of John Anton at our hearing. Mr. Anton has Down syndrome. He also 

is a Legislative Specialist with the Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress. With help from a coach, he testified

on behalf of the Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress and the National Down Syndrome Society on November 

15, 2019. Among other things, he related that he had had once worked in food service, but quit the job, because he 

didn’t find it challenging. His current job allows him to lobby for legislation that would benefit those, like him, who 

have Down syndrome. Mr. Anton put it in terms of wanting to carry a briefcase and wear a suit. He stated: 

“... I have learned how to dress professionally, develop a self-advocacy presentation, and I 

wanted to have a job where I could wear a suit and tie and carry a briefcase and be a professional 

like my dad who was a teacher. 

(Transcript at 135.)
232 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

No one in his right mind would think that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights—with its mere 

two days of fieldwork on this issue—has better insight than these mothers have into what is best 

for their sons.2 It’s absurd. Indeed, my colleagues on the Commission must know it’s absurd. 

Why else bury the fact that 98% of the commenters were in favor of 14(c)? 

Mr. Anton was quite impressive. Insofar as his job is to model what Down syndrome employees might be 

able to do, I believe he is very effective. On the other hand, the fact that he can get hired by the 

Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress doesn’t mean that Ms. Pennington’s son can get hired that way. 

See Margaret Snowling, Hannah Nash & Lisa Henderson, The Development of Literacy Skills in Children 

with Down Syndrome: Implications for Intervention, DSE Library (July 2, 2008)(“Reading skills are 

often an area of relative strength for individuals with Down syndrome. Most children with Down 

syndrome acquire literacy skills, although a great deal of variability exists in the level of achievement 

obtained.”) available at https://library.down-syndrome.org/en-us/researchpractice/online/2008/development-literacy-skills-down-syndrome-implications-intervention/. 

The point is that we need to be realistic. Anyone who argues that the solution to our problem is to find 

jobs for men and women with Down syndrome where they can “dress professionally” and “carry a 

briefcase” is being frivolous. Unrealistic policies recommendations have become surprisingly 

common these days. But they are unhelpful. 

2 Commissioner Kladney complains that MVLE did not allow us to see its Section 14(c) paper shredding 

workers on site. But he forgot to say why: Shortly before we were to see them, we were told that one of the 

workers had suffered from a seizure. I have no reason to doubt that such a seizure had occurred. This 

unfortunately is common with Down syndrome and with some other severe disabilities. Sometimes emergency 

medical services have to be summoned to deal with the seizure. I don’t know whether that was the case this time. 

But a parade of Commissioners and Commission staff members would only have been in the way. I don’t recall 

Commissioner Kladney or anyone else suggesting otherwise.

Kladney also complains that MVLE did not “allow us to see” its day care facilities. This is nonsense. First, our 

entourage did get to see a rehearsal of “Everyday Oz” there at the MVLE offices, which is part of the daycare 

program (and was really quite a treat). “Everyday Oz” is described on the Kennedy Center web site this way: 

Everyday Oz is a family-friendly performance and demonstration that partners individuals with 

disabilities with professional performers for an engaging show. Equal parts zany and poetic, 

Everyday Oz include active audience participation to reveal the many ways that we are smart, 

compassionate, brave, and creative ... every day!

It was extremely touching to see the professional actors and volunteer director working together with disabled 

individuals to make this drama come alive. We were told that they were preparing for performances in Springfield 

and Chantilly. Given the pandemic, I assume these performances were cancelled. But it’s a shame.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 233

It is elementary economics that if the price of something is increased, the quantity demanded will 

tend to decrease. Labor is no exception.3

 This is particularly true for unskilled labor. Modern 

history has been unkind to unskilled workers. Where restaurants used to need armies of 

dishwashers, now they need only a few to operate their highly efficient dishwashing machines.4 

Where fast food outlets used to need many cashiers, now they get by without them and take orders 

with tablets. It doesn’t take a labor economist to tell you that the demand for unskilled labor of 

Second, I spoke with April Pinch-Keeler, MVLE’s president and CEO, about the accusation that MVLE “did not 

allow” us access to its day care facilities. She was stunned. MVLE had been repeatedly told that our group was on 

a very tight schedule and that we absolutely had to be able to catch a plane for Burlington, Vermont that afternoon. 

Bear in mind that in planning our visit MVLE had logistical concerns (the rest of the day care operations were in a 

different building) as well as HIPAA considerations. MVLE thought it was doing a good job of satisfying the 

Commission’s last minute requests (or as many of them as possible) and still staying within the quick time frame we 

gave them. 

By the way, Ms. Pinch-Keeler assured me that Commissioner Kladney is wrong to suggest that MVLE’s scanning 

and paper shredding work site does not employ Section 14(c) workers. Some of the workers there are indeed 

employed pursuant to Section 14(c). Commissioner Kladney suggested that the mother we talked to who pointed to 

the paper-shredding operation as a reason to retain the 14(c) program must have been misinformed. But it is 

apparently Commissioner Kladney who is misinformed. 

3 If we could raise the minimum wage without increasing unemployment, we’d have long ago set the minimum 

wage to $1,000,000 an hour and made everyone rich. But it just doesn’t work that way.

4 Commissioner Kladney reports that he was impressed with the dishwashers he saw and points out that he was once 

a dishwasher himself. Exactly. At one point in his life, Commissioner Kladney, a future distinguished trial attorney, 

would have been counted as among the competitors for the job of dishwasher. If the choice is between a young 

David Kladney and a young man or woman with Down syndrome at the same wage, just who do you think 

will get the job? This is especially so in places like Washington, D.C. ($14/hour), Seattle ($16.39/hour for large 

employers, $15.75/hour for small employers), and Portland, Oregon ($13.25/hour). I note for the record that the 

supervisor that we talked to at Greenspring (“Jason” according to my barely legible handwritten notes) told us that it 

also hires high school students for some of its unskilled labor requirements. I suspect that some of those high 

school students are future distinguished trial attorneys—much like a 17-year-old David Kladney—and pretty quick 

on the uptake. 

Kladney also points to the individuals who were “preparing the setups for the next meal.” He states that “anyone 

else would be fully compensated in a competitive environment” for doing these jobs. Not quite. Remember that we 

were at a senior/assisted living facility. A few years ago my late mother was at such a facility, where nearly all the 

residents had the kind of small or moderate cognitive deficits common to extreme old age. The facility was 

expensive and most Americans could not have easily afforded such care. The facility had the residents helping with

the setups. It kept costs down, and I’m sure the families of many of the residents were grateful for that and for 

furnishing the residents who volunteered with something useful to do. 
234 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Down syndrome adults is not infinitely inelastic. If the price goes up, the number of jobs will go 

down.5

Even zealous advocates of terminating the so-called “subminimum wage program” admit that its 

elimination results in lost jobs. Vermont has eliminated sheltered workshops and Section 14(c)

wages. The subcommittee had a roundtable meeting with various advocates of Vermont’s decision 

in Burlington, Vermont on March 3, 2020. At that meeting, I asked whether fewer individuals had 

jobs after Vermont’s eliminated sheltered workshops and Section 14(c) wages. It took a while to 

get a coherent answer. Finally, Monica Hutt, the Commissioner at the Vermont Department of 

Disabilities, Aging, and Independent Living told us:

I think maybe the piece that we didn’t articulate because it’s really obvious to us 

.... [W]e didn’t close the sheltered workshops and ... everybody that was working 

in the sheltered workshop went to work in the community. That would be an 

impossibility. ... But people’s hours were still filled. They were not just left 

5

 I am baffled by Commissioner Kladney’s assertion that some of the providers “run very profitable businesses” and 

that “the foundation of much of that profit is the lower labor costs.” Businesses that hire Down syndrome 

workers tend to do so because they are trying to be good citizens, not because this will save them a bundle of 

money. Kladney seems to be suggesting that MVLE is rolling in cash because it had gross revenues of $14 million 

in 2017. This, of course, is not profit. It is gross receipts; it includes money that goes straight into the pockets of 

Down Syndrome workers in Section 14(c) programs. MVLE is a nonprofit. 

At our November 15, 2019 hearing, Congressman Glenn Grothman testified to his high regard for the people in his 

district who work with and provide jobs for the severely disabled under Section 14(c) programs:

The people who work there, if you get to know them, are saints. As I understand it, before I 

[arrived at this briefing] some people were denigrating them a little bit. People who spend their 

life working with handicapped, working with people who are non-verbal, working with people 

who have to be toileted, are saints. They’re not doing it to make money; they are not doing it to 

take advantage of people ....

Tr. at 269. 

I was very surprised when our Chair declared that she “took exception” to Grothman’s use of the word 

“saint” in this context. That’s when I knew the Commission was likely to produce the kind of short-sighted 

report that it has now produced. 

If anyone thinks that hiring Down syndrome employees under Section 14(c) is a good way to get rich, I 

would challenge them to hire a number of Down syndrome workers and let me know how things turn out.

Apart from repealing the Section 14(c) program altogether, I can think of no better way to cause jobs for 

Down syndrome workers to dry up than to denigrate the employers who hire them under that program. 

They say no good deed goes unpunished. I used to think that was just a joke. Maybe I was naïve. 
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 235

abandoned because there wasn’t some minimum wage to keep them busy at an 

employment somewhere. 

Transcript at 135.

She’s right, of course. It was obvious this was going to happen. Once the option of a sheltered 

workshop at a subminimum wage was taken away, disabled individuals were going to lose jobs in 

Vermont. At the time we spoke with Ms. Hutt, the United States was enjoying unusually low 

unemployment rates, so optimism may have been running unusually high, even though we all 

know that good times never last forever. What struck me as inappropriate throughout this 

investigation is how hard people try to avoid saying so plainly: Eliminating Section 14(c)

programs will cause disabled individuals to lose their jobs. Ms. Hutt put it differently--that some 

previously employed disabled individuals “decided that they were going to retire or arrange other 

services”—but the point was nevertheless made plain by the time the roundtable adjourned. 

Why is it okay to take away a job that a person with Down syndrome wanted and instead put him 

in daycare? Such a move will take money out of that person’s pocket and create the need for a 

larger, taxpayer-subsidized daycare/rehabilitation bureaucracy. Alas, I fear that, for some, the 

bureaucracy’s expansion is not a bug but a feature. Bureaucracies have a tendency to expand; one 

effective way to do that is to edge out one’s competition (in this case the Section 14(c) job market).6

I gather that for others the issue may be dressed up in the language of morality, but it is basically 

aesthetic. They don’t like the look of Down syndrome adults performing menial tasks in return 

6 Part of Commissioner Kladney’s Statement is devoted to suggesting that the problem with the 14(c) program is 

that there isn’t sufficient oversight. He calls it the “wild west.” Commissioner Kladney needn’t worry. As MVLE’s 

Senior Director of Program Services Michelle Lotrecchiano pointed out during our March meeting, “We are heavily 

regulated in this industry as I’m sure you all know.” Tr. at 16.

She was being accurate. As James Clark, MVLE’s Quality Manager, told us, “the Department of Labor oversees 

everything we do. An organization has to be ready at all times to get that drop-in inspection from DOL.” Tr. at 40. 

In addition, every two years MVLE must re-apply for 14(c) certification. To be re-certified, the Department of 

Labor “look[s] whether you’re using the correct techniques for measuring, time-measuring workers, whether your 

time studies are being completed on time, which is a requisite of every six months.” Tr. at 40. According to Mr. 

Clark, “they’re pretty serious audits.” 

But that is just the beginning. Twice a year MVLE must also do a report to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s 

Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services to maintain its license. And in order to qualify for its 

contracts with state authorities, it must keep up its accreditation with the Commission on the Accreditation of 

Rehabilitation Services (CARF). That entails submitting to a thorough inspection from a team of experts every few 

years. MVLE is also an approved vendor of the federal government’s Ability One program, an authorized vendor 

for the Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services and for the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance 

Services. It is also a recipient of United Way funding. Put only slightly differently, there is always someone 

looking over MVLE’s shoulder. The Commission is just one among many government agencies MVLE must deal 

with.

 
236 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

for a wage that is below what any nondisabled individual would be permitted to work for. It makes 

them feel uncomfortable.

Generations ago it was more common for people to feel uncomfortable around the severely 

disabled. They wanted to keep disabled persons out of sight, because ... well ... disabled persons 

offended their sense of aesthetics. Today those who want to abolish sheltered workshops and 

Section 14(c) believe themselves to be a universe apart from those earlier generations. But they 

are the same. In both cases, it is all a matter of appearances ... of what looks good. What is actually 

in the best interests of the disabled individuals doesn’t enter their minds. 

I concur with Commissioner Kirsanow that the Commission shouldn’t be judging issues based on 

appearances. We’re supposed to do better than that.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 237

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Peter N. Kirsanow (Commissioner Heriot 

Concurring)

Introduction

During my tenure on the Commission, there have been many reports with which I disagreed. In 

fact, it is difficult to think of a report issued by this Commission in the past eight years with which 

I agreed. This report stands out because it threatens to make the world worse for those least able 

to fend for themselves.

The report and its findings and recommendations take the tone throughout that although some 

people have not yet caught up with the caravan of progress and realized that competitive integrated 

employment is the wave of the future, the evidence favors the superiority of this approach. This is 

wrong.

On the one hand, the Commission has identified one qualified success in Vermont and a handful 

of testimonies from high-functioning people with disabilities opposing 14(c). On the other hand, 

the Commission has evidence indicating that people with disabilities are more likely to be 

employed full-time and have better wages in states with 14(c), and thousands of public comments 

from parents, friends, guardians, and people with disabilities urging the retention of 14(c).

The report misleads the unwary reader into thinking that it received thousands of comments in 

support of 14(c) and in opposition to 14(c). For example:

Moreover, reviewing thousands of public commentsreceived—both in favor of and against 

14(c)—along with expert testimony, academic medical research, as well as persons 

interviewed during site visits also showed that persons with disabilities benefited greatly 

from being in community employment settings and not being isolated.1

The Commission heard from proponents and opponents of the program and reviewed story 

after story of people with a disability or disabilities who were once presumed to be only 

capable of working for subminimum wages in a sheltered environment, who transitioned 

to and excelled in competitive integrated employment. The Commission also heard and 

received thousands of comments, mainly from impacted parents, stating that 14(c) is 

needed to protect employment opportunities for people with disabilities.2

1 Report at n. 15.

2 Report at p. 8 (n. 25).
238 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

The Commission received far more public comments from parents of individuals who tried 

working in mainstream environments and did not thrive there.3 The “story after story” consists 

almost exclusively of a few people who testified at the Commission’s public hearing, a tiny 

smattering of parents whose children transitioned away from a sheltered workshop, and some 

people in Vermont, most of whom never worked in a sheltered workshop. It is not until page 99 

that the report divulges that 98 percent of the public comments submitted to the Commission 

support the continuation of 14(c).4

The Commission approvingly quotes Congressman Bobby Scott, who testified:

[P]eople with disabilities should be treated like everybody else. If they can make the 

minimum wage, if they can get a job, they ought to be able to make the minimum wage. 

You ought not to be able to pay them a differentiated wage just because they have a 

disability. And we found that in most of the people on 14(c) could, perhaps with a little 

support, make a full minimum wage.5

In adopting Congressman Scott’s well-intentioned and optimistic view, the Commission ignores 

the hundreds of public comments from parents whose children cannot make the minimum wage, 

even with support.

The report also approvingly quotes Neil Romano, chairman of the National Council on Disabilities, 

who testified:

The belief that someone would choose to make less money for their work is, in and of itself, 

a demonstration of how certificate holders do not believe that peoplewith disabilities are 

whole people capable of making even the most basic decisions beneficial to themselves.6

Mr. Romano misstates the issue and unfairly casts aspersions on 14(c) certificate holders. First, in 

many cases the person is not choosing between making a special minimum wage and making 

minimum wage. The person is choosing between making a special minimum wage and making no 

3 See, e.g., Public Comment 306 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights 

(“[My son] has tried traditional workplaces, but his disability prevents him from succeeding in those 

environments.”); Public Comment 313 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil 

Rights (“As we have experienced working in a community based job, [our daughter] was not included socially as a 

peer with co-workers.”); Public Comment 550 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on 

Civil Rights (“[My son] tried numerous competitive jobs but his work speed, work skill, or problem-solving ability 

was not satisfactory for these jobs, and he was let go due to unsatisfactory performance. The was discouraging and 

demoralizing.”); Public Comment 433 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil 

Rights (Son worked in a local grocery store one summer and for Monsanto another summer, but despite best efforts 

of job coach to teach “soft skills,” was unable to obtain competitive employment).

4 Report at p. 99 (n. 552).

5 Report at n. 26.

6 Report at n. 727.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 239

wage at all. Second, Mr. Romano asserts that, “certificate holders do not believe that people with 

disabilities are . . . capable of making even the most basic decisions beneficial to themselves.”

Well, in at least some of these cases, the people with disabilities at issue are, as a matter of law 

(and also as a matter of fact) unable to make basic decisions. This is why their parents orsiblings 

are their legal guardians after they have reached the age of majority. And those guardians believe 

that this is the best decision for their loved one. As one guardian wrote to the Commission:

If she [the ward] ever said [she wants to leave the workshop], I would let Vocational 

Rehabilitation try to find her a job because that would be her choice. However, it would

have to be an informed choice. She does not understand the consequences of some choices. 

That is why she has a guardian in the first place.7

A mother wrote:

There are people who think they know what is best for my son. They are wrong. He doesn’t 

understand, beyond a four year old, the concept of money or bills. Yes, we have focused 

on token economies and having him purchase things, as part of his education for 18 

years. . . .

I sat in a court of law, and testified that my son was incompetent. I cried when the judge 

asked me if I would be comfortable with him never voting, or driving, or getting married 

and having a family. That day almost broke me.8

Mr. Romano implies that 14(c) employers have a low opinion of their employees, but he appears 

to exhibit a low opinion of the dedicated family members and guardians who care for people with 

disabilities. Yes, sometimes people cannot make decisions for themselves. That is why other 

people who care for them make decisions for them.

Congressman Scott and our fellow Commissioners are well-intentioned. But we do not love these 

disabled people more than their parents, siblings, uncles and aunts do. We do not know the abilities 

and limitations of these disabled people as well as their family members do. In fact, we do not 

know these people at all. If it were possible for a person working for subminimum wage to earn 

the full minimum wage “with a little support,” don’t you think these devoted parents would have 

leapt at the opportunity? The truth is that these individuals are only able to make even the special 

minimum wage with a lot of support, not just a little support.

The report states:

7 Public Comment 458 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

8 Public Comment 154 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
240 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Some have argued that persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities have the 

most challenges and need the most protection or “a safe, supported, and understanding 

atmosphere.” Census data also shows lower employment rates among this group, compared 

with people without intellectual and developmental disabilities. But at the Commission’s 

briefing, Jennifer Mathis, Director of Policy and Legal Advocacy at the Bazelon Center for 

Mental Health Law and member of the Commission’s Maryland State Advisory 

Committee, provided testimony to the Commission that people with intellectual and 

developmental disabilities will find employment success in integrated settings if provided 

with the right supports. Mathis further explained that:

Supported employment is founded on the belief that every person with a disability is 

capable of working competitively in the community if the right kind of job and the work

environment, can be found. These services help people find jobs that align with their 

interests and strengths.9

Mathis asserts that anyone can succeed in community employment with the right supports, but she 

never gives concrete examples of how this works for severely disabled people. Concerned parents 

and siblings who wrote to the Commission, on the other hand, explained why competitive 

integrated employment is a poor fit for their loved ones. These are just a few of the comments that 

were submitted to the Commission and that were ignored by the report.

My sister, [AR], is 35 and has been a Lafayette Industries employee for the past 13 years. 

We tried competitive employment out of High School, and this is always an option for her. 

However, she was lost there, and it wasn’t an environment for her to succeed.10

One mother wrote about her son:

Every year at [S’s] ISP meeting, the option of training for competitive employment is 

discussed. All members in the room (me, [S’s] supports coordinator, and his managers) 

agree without question that [S] is not suited for competitive employment for the following 

reasons:

- Does not work at a fast pace,

- Requires monitoring,

- Sometimes has temper tantrums in the middle of the work day,

- Would not be able to defend himself if exposed to any form of abuse,

- Has no sense of stranger danger so he could easily put himself in harm’s way without

realizing,

9 Report at n. 226-228.

10 Public Comment 150 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 241

- Will take money and food from others (and from stores) if given the opportunity.11

One father, who is a pediatrician in addition to serving on the board of a 14(c) organization, wrote 

about his daughter:

[M]y wife and I investigated options for [S] after high school, and we looked at a number 

of organizations that provide services. In her last 2 years of high school, she worked at a

Tucson public library, assisted by a school job coach. [S] knows the order of the alphabet

and numbers quite well, so re-shelving books seemed like reasonable work for her. After 

she had been there several months, we met with the librarian, who made no bones about 

not considering hiring [S] because her productivity was not what would be needed to keep

a job there. The personnel there did not interact much with [S].12

A mother wrote:

[T]he government keeps trying to send [my daughter with Down Syndrome] into the

community for either work or for socializing, she does not want to leave her job at APS.

Frankly, moving her for work purposes would be inappropriate, frightening and a waste of

time, from both [S’s] perspective and mine. [S] needs constant oversight or she becomes 

confused. She needs structure. APS provides work she can do, given her disability, and the 

support she needs to get the job done.13

A mother commented:

I am writing to ask that you do not eliminate 14c which would close sheltered workshops. 

Sheltered workshops are vital to developmentally disabled adults who are not high 

functioning enough to be mainstreamed into the “normal” workforce and are too high 

functioning for Adult Day Care. My sister is autistic with 24/7 oversight because she cannot 

understand any abstract concept such as money, danger, or modesty. She is also non-verbal. 

She is not able to work at a “mainstream” job. NO employer would hire her. Regular 

employment does not offer protective oversight – a sheltered workshop does. Some days 

my sister is extremely productive and other days she is hardly productive at all. Mainstream 

employers would not tolerate that but her sheltered workshop does. They work with her 

because they understand her up and down days, and know that her up days are far more

than her down days. While a sheltered workshop needs their employees to be productive,

they understand that each employee’s level of production is going to be different, and that 

11 Public Comment 166 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

12 Public Comment 1,251 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

13 Public Comment 229 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
242 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

most will never be able to complete a task at the level of productivity a person without the 

developmental disability can.14

Another mother wrote to us:

I am a parent of an adult with Down Syndrome. [My daughter] is 37 years old and has

worked at Essex Industries in Mineville, NY, which was considered a sheltered workshop, 

for nearly 20 years. She has also received services for supported employment, but these 

jobs seldom last – either for the lack of work and transportation or due to her inability to 

maintain productivity.

Our area in the north country of NYS has limited opportunities for people with challenges. 

During this COVID shut down, [my daughter] has had limited contact with friends and has 

missed her work at Essex Industries.15

Legal Considerations

The report claims that Section 14(c) may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th 

Amendment. This can quickly be disposed of. 14(c) does not treat people with disabilities more 

harshly than people without disabilities. If a person without a disability is not productive enough 

to warrant the minimum wage (let us imagine a teenager who does not have the skill of his older 

coworkers), they aren’t paid commensurate with their productivity. They are fired. 14(c) is an 

accommodation for people with disabilities. Instead of being fired, they are paid commensurate 

with their productivity.

In regard to Section 14(c) possibly violating the ADA, it is a well-established canon of statutory 

construction that Congress is presumed not to abrogate an existing law unless it does so explicitly. 

The ADA does not explicitly abrogate 14(c). If one needed any further evidence of this, simply 

look to the fact that bills have been introduced to abrogate 14(c).

The report’s invocation of Lane v. Brown is also inapposite. As the Commission is well aware, 

that litigation occurred under the Obama Administration, when a guidance was in effect that 

extended the ADA’s reach to define “segregation” as “congregate settings populated exclusively 

or primarily with individuals with disabilities;” “congregate settings characterized by 

regimentation in daily activities, lack of privacy or autonomy, policies limiting visitors, or limits 

on individuals’ ability to engage freely in community activities and to manage their own activities 

of daily living;” or “settings that provide for daytime activities primarily with other individuals 

14 Public Comment 267 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

15 Email from mother of disabled individual to Carissa Mulder, special assistant to Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, 

July 16, 2020.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 243

with disabilities.”16This guidance went beyond the text of the ADA and the applicable regulations. 

The definitions above included not a single citation to the relevant regulations – because this was, 

once again, a regulation masquerading as a guidance.

This guidance, like many others that exceeded the statutory authority of DOJ, was rightfully 

withdrawn by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The first draft of the Commission’s report 

continued to cite the withdrawn guidance as though it were still authoritative, although grudgingly 

admitting it had been withdrawn. The final draft of the report backed away from that, and instead 

cites the Lane v. Brown settlement as if it establishes standards that should be adopted by other 

states. No. The efforts to extend the ADA that were at work in the Lane v. Brown settlement have 

been rightfully withdrawn. The settlement in that case is only binding upon the parties, and other 

states should not consider it a guide to what course they should follow.

Conflation of Physical and Intellectual Disabilities

The report suffers from often conflating physical and intellectual disabilities. This is also a problem 

with some of the witness testimony and public comments.17

For example, the report approvingly quotes Derek Manners, who spoke during the public comment 

period at the briefing:

My current salary, not to brag, is $250,000 a year. My sub-minimum wage hourly rate was 

$2.25 an hour. I've had the same level of vision in that job and in my current job. . . . my

guidance counselor at my high school thought that because I was a person with a disability, 

that I would not be able to go to college, and that it was a good idea for me to get experience 

in the workplace. And so I was placed with a sub-minimum wage employer because she 

thought that's all that I would be capable of doing. I enjoyed that job. If you had polled me 

and asked me how I felt in that job, I would have said I felt rewarded. I would have said 

that I had friends there. I would have said that that $2.25 an hour was fair and that I enjoyed 

my job. . . . The idea that the repeal of 14(c) issomehow a violation of civil rightsfor people 

with disabilities is laughable and ignorant. . . . When I was at Harvard Law School, I 

thought I would be for sure the first blind person to ever go to Harvard. . . . To my surprise, 

there were six. . . . There were also people with other disabilities. The range of capabilities

for people with disabilities is not something that you can draw from a statistic.18

16 Statement of the Dep’t of Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, June 22, 2011, 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/q&a_olmstead.htm.

17 See Anil Lewis, Executive Director of Blindness Initiatives, National Federation of the Blind, Written Statement 

for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Nov. 15, 2019; see also Derek 

Manners Testimony, Subminimum Wages Briefing, pp. 354-55.

18 Report at n. 256.
244 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Here’s the thing: Mr. Manners left the sheltered workshop! He has excelled in his profession. If 

you want to leave the sheltered workshop, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. The same 

is true of Mr. Anton, an individual with Down Syndrome who testified that the work at the 

sheltered workshop was monotonous and did not challenge him. The people who have the 

capability to flourish outside the workshop can do so, and have done so. But many people who 

work in the workshops have tried outside employment, and it has not been a good fit, or their 

behavioral challenges mean that outside employment will never be a good fit.

One brother wrote:

My sister has had a learning disability with autism all her life. . . . She had several jobs in 

the general community that DVR helped her obtain. These were jobs that basically no one

else wanted. Jobs like cleaning public restrooms, cleaning restrooms in bars, taking out

garbage in restaurants. There were other jobs that were less demeaning but because of her 

autism she was not able to always meet the expectations made of her. She was abused by 

employers. She had no self-worth. She became so depressed by all the expectations being 

made of her that she threatened suicide. It was a life of failure after failure! No friends.19

A mother wrote:

My son has worked in a workshop for many years. Before that, he tried numerous 

competitive jobs but his work speed, work skill, or problem-solving ability was not 

satisfactory for these jobs, and he was let go due to unsatisfactory performance. This was 

discouraging and demoralizing.20

Another mother wrote:

My adult daughter, [G], has cognitive impairments. When she completed our special school 

district’s program at age 21, we sought employment for her. She worked in the private 

sector for about 1.5 years. We struggled to find consistent full-time employment in a place 

that had the supervision she needed.21

The pediatrician father quoted earlier wrote:

[S] cannot be left alone. Although she has remarkable gifts such as an uncanny memory

for dates and times, try as we might, she has not learned to look both ways before crossing

the street. She travels with my wife and me pretty much everywhere we go.22

19 Public Comment 1,176 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

20 Public Comment 550 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

21 Public Comment 666 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

22 Public Comment 1,251 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 245

The report also approvingly quotes Dr. Julie Christensen, who wrote:

I am often asked whether it is “fair to make an employer” pay the full minimum wage when 

an employee is not working at 100% productivity. I have several answers to this question. 

Given what we now know and have available to us in 2019, I fundamentally question the 

notion that someone simply cannot work competitively. If someone is truly not performing 

at 100%, my assumption is that something is missing or out of place:

• Perhaps the individual needs better or different training.

• Maybe the correct supports have not yet been put in place to ensure the individual’s 

success.

• Is it possible that there is a reasonable accommodation, perhaps the use of assistive or 

other technology, that is missing?

• At the end of the day – maybe it’s just not a good job match for that individual.23

The report also states, “Census data also show that very generally speaking, persons with 

intellectual or developmental disabilities may have the hardest time finding employment. However 

further data and testimony reviewed by the Commission indicates that when given the opportunity 

and support needed, the persons in this category are capable of competitive integrated 

employment.”24 The Commission’s Finding No. 3 also states:

People with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are currently earning 

subminimum wages under the 14(c) program are not categorically different in level of 

disability from people with intellectual and developmental disabilities currently working

in competitive integrated employment. [emphasis added]25

The Commission adduced no evidence supporting this assertion. In order to say that people 

earning 14(c) wages are not categorically different from people employed in integrated jobs, the 

Commission would have needed to conduct a far more in-depth study. The Commission would 

have needed to study the two populations in-depth. For example, in order to support this assertion, 

the Commission would have needed to have found representative samples of people with 

intellectual disabilities who are working in 14(c) employment and people with intellectual 

disabilities who are working in competitive integrated employment. The Commission then would 

have needed to study the level of the intellectual disabilities in both groups to ensure that both the 

average and median IQs of the two groups are comparable. The Commission then would have 

needed to study whether behavioral difficulties are comparable across the two groups.

23 Report at n. 259

24 Report at 450-451.

25 Commission Finding No. 3.
246 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

The Commission did none of this.

The finding’s assertion that people earning subminimum wages are not categorically different in 

level of disability than people working in mainstream jobs has no basis in the Commission’s 

research. Certainly, some people with intellectual or developmental disabilities are capable of 

competitive integrated employment. But as evidenced by the many public comments we received, 

some people with intellectual or developmental disabilities are not capable of competitive 

integrated employment, and would be incapable no matter how many supports they received.

The report also cites a statement from a National Council on Disability report. “Research indicates 

that employees receiving supported employment services generate lower cumulative costs than 

employees receiving sheltered workshop services and that, whereas the cost-trend of supported 

employees shifts downward over time, the opposite is the case for people receiving sheltered 

workshop services.”26 The report on which the NCD report relies compared people who had 

received services from sheltered workshops before entering competitive integrated employment to 

people who had not received services from sheltered workshops before entering competitive 

integrated employment.27

It is entirely possible that people who are referred to sheltered workshops before entering 

competitive employment become dependent on supports provided at the sheltered workshop. On 

the other hand, it is also possible that there is an unobserved variable that is responsible for people 

who started in sheltered workshops needing more services over time. Although the study attempted 

to match people in the two groups based on their characteristics, they could not match people based 

on the severity of their cognitive disability. As the author notes, this alone could account for the 

study’s findings.28 That is to say, people employed by sheltered workshops may in the aggregate 

have had more serious cognitive challenges than those who were never employed by sheltered 

workshops, and that may explain why the former make somewhat less per hour and require more 

services than the latter.

The study found that people who had not been employed in sheltered workshops were more likely 

to have been referred to vocational rehabilitation by their secondary schools than were people who 

were first employed in sheltered workshops.29 The study’s author believes this is evidence that 

vocational rehabilitation is the best way for people with disabilities to eventually find competitive 

integrated employment. On the other hand, it is possible that the people who were not referred to 

26 Report at n. 536.

27 Robert Evert Cimera, Does being in sheltered workshops improve the employment outcomes of supported 

employees with intellectual disabilities?, 35 J. of Vocational Rehabilitation 21 (2011).

28 Robert Evert Cimera, Does being in sheltered workshops improve the employment outcomes of supported 

employees with intellectual disabilities?, 35 J. of Vocational Rehabilitation 21, 25 (2011).

29 Robert Evert Cimera, Does being in sheltered workshops improve the employment outcomes of supported 

employees with intellectual disabilities?, 35 J. of Vocational Rehabilitation 21, 25 (2011).
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 247

vocational rehabilitation had more severe disabilities, and their high school counselors thought 

vocational rehabilitation was not the right fit. Because the people studied were (understandably) 

not matched by high school nor severity of intellectual disability, it’s impossible to say.

On the other hand, the Commission received numerous public comments explaining in detail why 

particular disabled individuals are unable to be sufficiently productive to make minimum wage. 

Ernest M. Dodge, who is the President/CEO of JM Murray in Cortland, New York, which, 

although a non-profit, operates as a business.30 Among other services, JM Murray fulfills contracts 

for “injection molding, liquid filling, assembly, product imaging, packaging, and distribution.”31

JM Murray employs over 240 people, 110 of whom are people with disabilities.32 Most of the 

individuals with disabilities who work at JM Murray work under a 14(c) certificate, but some are 

as productive as workers without disabilities and are paid accordingly.33 Mr. Dodge also writes 

that the prevailing pay rate at JM Murray is not the federal minimum wage, but is $12.67 per hour, 

based on the wages its local for-profit competitors pay. Mr. Dodge writes:

The majority of individuals working under our 14(c) certificate were born with 

developmental disabilities. No matter how hard they try or how much assistance we can 

provide through training and adaptive work spaces and accommodations they were born 

with disadvantages they simply cannot overcome. Life is not fair. Time and experience on 

the job does not equate to greater productivity. What they do have that cannot be taken 

away is a desire to work and the dignity and pride of EARNING a paycheck that is 

threatened by the discussion to eliminate the CHOICE presented them. Of the over 100 

individuals less than 7 work at efficiencies exceeding 50%. The majority of them work at 

less than 30%. What employer has the ability to fully compensate their employees for less 

than 30% efficiency?34

A father and mother wrote to me and said:

30 Public Comment 522 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

JM Murray was recognized in December of 2017 by New York state as one of the first approved community based 

integrated employers in the state as part of the Office of People with Developmental Disabilities Transformation 

Plan initiative. We add the word “competitive” when we describe ourselves because we do not rely on state 

preferred source contracts and we have no federal work. The majority of our work is derived from providing 

competitive pricing, expected on time shipments and meeting or exceeding quality standards that are demanded 

from our private for-profit customers. We don’t shuffle papers or “make work”. Our work component comprises 

almost $9 million dollars of our almost $21 million dollar budget and we employ over 240 people. Further 

separating us from most not-for profits is our annual fundraising is less than $10,000. We operate as a business.

31 Contract Manufacturing, JM Murray, https://www.jmmurray.com/business-division/contract-manufacturing/.

32 Public Comment 522 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

33 Id.

34 Public Comment 522 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
248 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Our son . . . was born with Downs Syndrome and is legally blind. While he is able to 

perform some simple routine tasks like clearing the supper table and personal care

responsibilities with good consistency, he has difficulty with tasks that involve reasonable 

vision and understanding of technique, such as rinsing dirty dishes and loading them in the 

dishwasher – for which he requires supervision to ensure the dishes are properly rinsed and 

positioned. There is no cure for Downs Syndrome, and [our son’s] eyesight has worsened

considerably, resulting in him being declared legally blind.

[Our son] entered a disabled job program just after he turned twenty and subsequently

obtained a job as a bagger in a grocery store. While everyone enjoyed him for his affable 

personality and ability to perform his work duties, [he] was easily distracted and could not 

grasp the concept of limited break times, even with on-site coaching. He was subsequently 

let go after a few months employment.The disabled job program staff were unable to offer 

opportunities for his employment.

. . .

[Our son] has been evaluated by many experts who concur that his Downs Syndrome and 

limited vision make it impossible for him to hold a minimum wage paying job. [Our son]

understands that. But, it does not matter, because he has a job at a workplace where he is

considered an equal by hisfellow employees and is often praised for his work.35

Dr. Christensen is the head of APSE, an organization dedicated to promoting competitive 

integrated employment for people with disabilities. Based on its website, APSE primarily engages 

in lobbying, though the website does include a list of resources available to disabled people.36 It 

does not appear that APSE itself engages in large-scale training of people with disabilities, though 

Dr. Christensen may have done this at other times in her life. There is nothing wrong with APSE 

being a lobbying organization, but there is no reason to privilege APSE’s view that every person 

with a disability is capable of competitive integrated employment over that of parents and 

employers who deal with real people with disabilities every day. This is nothing something that is 

theoretical to them. Maybe the people Dr. Christensen works with can be 100% productive with 

the right supports, but it seems far-fetched to think that everyone can.

Dr. Christensen also states that people currently employed at 14(c) facilities will be harmed unless 

the federal government pays more for their products and services. She writes:

Federal contracts largely drive the 14(c) economy, and these contracts are awarded and

funded based on an assumption of low labor costs. Were 14(c) to be eliminated without a

35 Email from parents of disabled individual to Carissa Mulder, special assistant to Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, 

July 3, 2020.

36 APSE Mission, Vision & Values, APSE, https://apse.org/about/mission-vision/.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 249

simultaneous increased investment on the part of the Federal government for the products 

and services currently received under 14(c), there is a real possibility of doing harm. If the

contracts cannotsupport the payment of the Federal minimum wage, people will likely lose 

their jobs and the system will collapse.37

If people working under 14(c) certificates were just as productive as people who don’t work under 

14(c) certificates, why would the system collapse? Under 14(c), employers must engage in time 

trials to determine an employee’s level of productivity and base the employee’s wage on that. If 

these employees are just as productive as non-disabled workers, there should be two options: 1) 

They are fully as productive, and therefore their wages are already close to or at the federal 

minimum wage, and therefore the contracts should have already taken that into account during the 

bidding process; 2) If they are fully as productive and they are not working at 100% capacity due 

to low expectations on the part of management, they can get additional contracts so they will work 

at 100% capacity. It is only if the employees are truly not as productive as non- disabled employees 

in the same position that disaster looms, because in that case, these firms will not be competitive 

if they are required to pay minimum wage.

In many cases, an accommodation can be made for a physical disability, particularly given 

technological advances. Some accommodations can also be made that assist individuals with 

intellectual disabilities. However, some individuals with intellectual disabilities, as a consequence 

of their disability, have behavioral problems that cannot be solved with adaptive technology.

Our grandson, who has both autism and intellectual disability, has been working in a 14c

sheltered workshop since finishing high school. He is a highly motivated and diligent 

worker. He takes pride in being able to work every day and earn a paycheck. He chose his

workshop, because he wanted to work and earn money, but due to his disability, he cannot 

work in the community. His disability causes behavioral complications and anxiety that are 

incompatible with community employment. Additionally, he works at a pace that is quite 

slow and lacks the communication skills that are necessary for a typical job.38

A mother wrote:

Some disability advocates are telling lawmakers that all people, no matter how disabled, 

can find integrated, competitive employment.

This simply is not true.

We are working hard with [B’s] school to decrease his behavior issues (such as impulsively 

taking food from someone’s plate or loud yelling) and increase his vocational skills (such 

37 Christensen Statement at 6.

38 Public Comment 563 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
250 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

as folding t-shirts, sorting silverware and shredding paper). [B] cannot read, write, or 

talk. . . .

We have been working on IEP goals for years to get [B] ready for the real world when he 

turns 21. In doing so, I have learned about the post-21 REAL world of employment for the 

disabled. Who is going to hire [B] especially when a nondisabled or more high functioning 

disabled person is available who can do 20x the work?

Unfortunately, if we are all being honest, the answer is no one. No one is going to hire 

[B].39

A sister wrote:

[D] is the most loving person you will ever meet. He is also the most trusting person on

earth. He sees total strangers as friends, someone he would want to shake hands with and 

strike up a conversation. He would do anything anyone asked of him. [D] has severe 

cognitive impairments, but is willing to do anything he is capable of. He has very limited 

speech and his cognitive delay also causes his understanding of what a person may mean 

to be limited and possibly misunderstood.40

The report has completely lost touch with reality by the time it approvingly quotes panelist Finn 

Gardiner:

The problem with sub-minimum-wage work is that it engenders stereotyping. It sends the

message, as several other panelists have said, that if you are a worker with a disability, who 

is deemed to be somehow less productive than other members of society, then you are only 

worth being paid pennies on the dollar.41

Let’s break that down: “a worker with a disability, who is deemed to be somehow less productive 

than other members of society”. Does Mr. Gardiner, and the Commission, reject the objective fact 

that some people are more productive than others? This is the sort of thing that can literally be 

measured, and in order to pay subminimum wage, it is measured. If an average worker without a 

disability can pack sixty widgets in a box in an hour, and a particular person with a disability can 

only pack thirty widgets in a box in an hour, the person with a disability is objectively less

productive.

39 Public Comment 403 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

40 Public Comment 484 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

41 Report at n. 257.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 251

Our colleagues seem to conflate “productive” with “worth”. Just because someone can only pack 

thirty widgets in an hour does not mean he has less intrinsic worth than someone who can pack 

sixty widgets in an hour.

The report does quote people who support the continuation of 14(c). It then waves away their 

concerns without engaging the issues. Congressman Grothman, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and 

Kate McSweeny testified to the importance of 14(c) in providing an opportunity for people with 

disabilities to work and receive a paycheck.42 The report replies triumphantly that the National 

Council on Disability says that 14(c) workplaces couldn’t survive unless they paid subminimum 

wage43, and that former Governor Tom Ridge says there will still be Community Rehabilitation 

Programs to provide respite for caregivers.44

That is exactly the problem! Many people with disabilities who work under a 14(c) certificate are 

not productive enough to earn minimum wage. If you have to hire twice as many people to make 

widgets as your competitor, and you have to pay your workers the same wage, of course your 

business is going to fail. And Community Rehabilitation Programs without work is exactly what 

so many parents wrote and told the Commission is not a good option for their children – glorified 

babysitting, day after day.

The report also assumes that no one has ever thought of this great idea of “supports” before, and 

no one who works under a 14(c) certificate ever tried to find a mainstream job. Again, we received 

many comments from people whose loved ones tried mainstream employment before settling on a 

14(c) job. “[My son] tried numerous competitive jobs but his work speed, work skill, or problemsolving ability was not satisfactory for these jobs, and he was let go due to unsatisfactory 

performance. This was discouraging and demoralizing.”45 Dr. Christensen stated in her testimony 

that people of all abilities are often let go from jobs when it is not working out, and we just look 

42 Report at n. 356-361.

43 Report at n. 366. Nat’l Council on Disability, National Disability Employment Policy, From the New Deal to the 

Real Deal: Joining the Industries of the Future, pp. 52-53 (Oct. 2018).

Opponents of eliminating the use of 14(c) certificates frequently argue that 14(c) employers would not be able to 

employ the people with disabilities that they do at minimum wages or above without going out of business. Several 

national experts and numerous employment providers that we spoke with, reflecting upon this assertion, stated that it 

is an acknowledgment that, even with substantial set aside contracts and federal, state, and local funding, the 

workshop business model is largely unsustainable unless people are paid sub-minimum wages. Or, plainly stated, 

subminimum wage is not a bug of the workshop model, it is its primary feature.

44 Report at n. 371.

There are some well-intentioned advocates that express concern that the elimination of 14(c) would severely limit 

opportunities for new Americans with disabilities, who may use these workshops as both a place for meaningful 

social intervention and a respite for caregivers. We understand these concerns, but remind them that there are other 

options available. 14(c) is not a funding program, it is a certificate. Federal funding will still be available to support 

individuals with disabilities in other ways.

45 Public Comment 550 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
252 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

for a better fit.46 But some people with disabilities have tried multiple mainstream jobs, and it 

turned out that a sheltered workshop was a better fit for them.

The report quotes Brian Collins from Microsoft, who says that Microsoft has successfully 

integrated disabled employees without resorting to 14(c) wages.47 As James White, who is a 

Business Coordinator at Maryhaven Center of Hope, a 14(c) employer, pointed out in an email to 

me, the ADA only requires that employers make reasonable accommodations for qualified 

individuals.48 Mr. White notes that the EEOC’s guidelines for “reasonable accommodations” 

states:

An employer does not have to eliminate an essential function, i.e., a fundamental duty of 

the position. This is because a person with a disability who is unable to perform the 

essential functions, with or without reasonable accommodation, is not a “qualified”

individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Nor is an employer required to 

lower production standards – whether qualitative or quantitative – that are applied 

uniformly to employees with and without disabilities.49

Mr. White notes in his email, “If a person’s disability doesn’t allow him or her to meet industry 

defined productivity standards, “with or without” reasonable accommodations[] then that person 

is not QUALIFIED for the job and will not be hired. . . . Therefore, those with the most significant 

disabilities need 14 c to provide an employment option not provided by the ADA.”50 Responding 

to Mr. Collins’s testimony about Microsoft’s success employing people with disabilities, Mr. 

White writes, “There are corporate success stories such as Microsoft, which presented at the 

briefing. These initiatives are to be celebrated and congratulated. But these programs are again 

limited to qualified individuals, who may require reasonable accommodations, but meet essential 

job functions.”51

Eliminating 14(c) Will Cost Some Disabled Employees Their Jobs

The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.52 The federal minimum wage is not the real 

minimum wage. The real minimum wage is zero.

46 Christensen Statement at 4-5.

47 Report at n. 389.

48 Email from James White to Carissa Mulder, special assistant to Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, June 29, 2020.

49 Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the ADA, Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, Oct. 17, 2002, https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reasonableaccommodation-and-undue-hardship-under-ada#general.

50 Email from James White to Carissa Mulder, special assistant to Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, June 29, 2020.

51 Email from James White to Carissa Mulder, special assistant to Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, June 29, 2020.

52 Minimum Wage, U.S. Department of Labor, https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/minimumwage.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 253

Why is the real minimum wage zero? Well, an employee must be sufficiently productive to justify 

the payment of whatever wages she earns. The employer needs to make a profit in order to stay in 

business, and that is impossible if labor costs are so high that the employer can’t sell his products 

or services at a competitive price. To put it in simple terms, assume an employer can sell 50 widgets 

for $10. The materials to make 50 widgets cost $2. It takes a worker of average productivity one 

hour to make 50 widgets. If the worker makes minimum wage, that means the total cost to produce 

50 widgets is $9.25, which leaves the employer $0.75 of profit.

Now imagine that the state raises the minimum wage to $8.00 an hour. The employer now only 

breaks even when he sells his 50 widgets. This isn’t sustainable. The employer has a few options. 

He can close down his business. He could move his business across the state line to a state that 

still has a $7.25 minimum wage. He could invest in new machinery that eliminates the need for so 

many widget-makers (fast-food restaurants have begun doing similar things by replacing some 

workers with tablets that customers can use to order).53 He could move his business to another 

country, such as Mexico or China. Or he could hire a more skilled widget-maker who produces 60 

widgets per hour, which will allow him to make a profit.

The most likely outcomes for disabled people who are employed under the special minimum wage 

are either that their employer will simply close or that they will be replaced by more efficient 

workers (labor-labor substitution). Or, as economists put it, “If the minimum wage exceeds the 

value of a worker’s output, a firm can potentially find a replacement worker whose productivity 

meets or exceeds the floor.”54 As a dad wrote in regard to his son who has I/DD:

That ability to pay my son a reduced rate allows you to consider hiring him for a real job

at your widget factory. If Section 14(c) were to be eliminated and you were required to pay

every worker $10 per hour regardless of their ability to perform the task, from a business 

perspective you would not be able to consider hiring my son nor many other individuals 

with intellectual and developmental disabilities. (Sure you could hire one or two people 

with I/DD out of a sense of social responsibility, but those would be token employees. You 

can imagine how that would feel.)55

Recent initiatives in major cities to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour give us an idea of what 

would happen to disabled employees who are currently working under 14(c) certificates if 14(c) 

53 Rachel Greszler, Would a $15 Minimum Wage Help or Hurt Low Income Workers?, The Heritage Foundation, 

Sept. 16, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/commentary/would-15-minimum-wage-help-or-hurt-lowincome-workers.

54 Jeffrey Clemens, Lisa B. Kahn, Jonathan Meer, Dropouts Need Not Apply? The Minimum Wage and Skill

Upgrading, NBER Working Paper 27090, May 2020, https://www.nber.org/papers/w27090.

55 Public Comment 708 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
254 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

was eliminated. It is, of course, not possible to predict what will happen with absolute certainty, 

but we can make some informed guesses.

Why does the $15 minimum wage debate pertain to workers with disabilities? First, if 14(c) is 

eliminated, workers who formerly worked under a 14(c) certificate will earn the minimum wage 

– if they can earn any wage at all. In some jurisdictions, the minimum wage is $15. That means 

that the worker has to produce at least $35,000 worth of value annually in order to keep a job.56

That is a tall order for an employee who is only fifty percent as productive as an average worker 

without disabilities. It will be hard for many 14(c) employees to be productive enough to earn the 

federal minimum wage of $7.25, let alone $15.

Second, a 14(c) worker who is now expected to earn $7.25 an hour is in a similar position as a 

non-disabled worker making $7.25 who is now expected to earn $15.00 an hour. Both employees 

are faced with the necessity of dramatically increasing their productivity in order to justify an 

increased wage.57

In a 2018 study published in The American Economic Review, economists Paul Beaudry, David 

Green, and Ben Sand predicted that Seattle’s minimum wage hike would lead to significant job 

loss among workers who were then making $10 an hour or less, and would have a smaller effect 

on workers making between $10 and $15 an hour.58 They predicted similar, although smaller, 

effects on workers in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Other research reveals that this is indeed what happened in Seattle, with the caveat that rather than 

job loss, prospective new entrants into the job market were never hired. A recent study examined 

the effects of the first two hikes of Seattle’s minimum wage on the way to $15/hour. The 

Washington State minimum wage remained flat throughout this period. The authors found:

Essentially all of the earnings increases accrue to the more experienced half of the lowwage workforce. The less experienced half saw larger proportionate decreases in hours

worked, which we estimate to have fully offset their gain in wages, leaving no significant

change in earnings. More experienced workers were also more likely to supplement their 

Seattle income by adding hours outside the city. Finally, conditional on being employed,

56 Rachel Greszler, Would a $15 Minimum Wage Help or Hurt Low Income Workers?, The Heritage Foundation, 

Sept. 16, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/commentary/would-15-minimum-wage-help-or-hurt-lowincome-workers.

57 There are some people, of course, who argue that a higher minimum wage will not lead to job loss. See Noah 

Smith, A $15 Minimum Wage Isn’t So Scary, Bloomberg, July 11, 2019, 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-11/-15-minimum-wage-won-t-cause-the-job-losses-predictedin-econ-101.

58 Paul Beaudry, David A. Green, and Ben M. Sand, In Search of Labor Demand, 108 Am. Econ. Rev. 2714, 2753-

2755, 2018 (“for workers below $10 an hour in Seattle, the employment rate declines by over 10 percent in response 

to raising the minimum wage to $15. Meanwhile, for the larger group with wages at or below $15, the decline is 

under 7 percent.”), https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20141374.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 255

both less and more experienced workers were more likely to remain employed by their 

baseline Seattle employer, implying an 8% reduction in labor turnover rates.

Evidence of earningsincreasesforworkers employed at baseline appearsto contrast with our 

earlier work suggesting that total earnings in Seattle’s low-wage labor market declined 

after the second phase-in. Our analysis of the entry rate of new workers into Seattle’s lowwage labor market reconciles the findings. As Seattle’s minimum wage increased, the entry 

rate fell significantly behind the rate observed in outlying portions of Washington State. 

Overall, evidence suggests that employersresponded to higher minimum wages by shifting

their workforce toward more experienced workers. . . .

Seattle’s minimum wage increase appears to have successfully increased the labor market 

income of the most experienced workers in low-wage jobs, arguably those for whom lowwage work most resembles the “dead-end” archetype. The losses in employment 

opportunity appear to have been concentrated among the least experienced workers, or 

those attempting their first entry into the labor market.59

Minimum wage hikes are most detrimental to those who are already at a disadvantage in the 

workforce, including the young, black men, and those with less formal education.60 Minimum 

wage hikes also encourage employers to shift toward automation for routine jobs. Jobs that are 

most vulnerable to automation include manufacturing and services – both fields in which many 

14(c) people are currently employed, and the fields in which they likely would seek employment 

if 14(c) was eliminated.61 As the authors of one study wrote, “While these adoptions [of new 

59 Ekaterina Jardim et al., Minimum Wages Increases and Individual Employment Trajectories, NBER Working 

Paper 25182, October 2018, at 4-5, https://www.nber.org/papers/w25182.

60 Jeffrey Clemens, Lisa B. Kahn, Jonathan Meer, Dropouts Need Not Apply? The Minimum Wage and Skill 

Upgrading, NBER Working Paper 27090, May 2020, at 14-15, https://www.nber.org/papers/w27090.

We find that states with statutory increases in the minimum wage see the average age increase in these occupations .

. . . the age effect primarily manifests through a nearly 1 percentage point drop in the young adult employmentshare

. . . .The decline in employment share for those without a high school diploma is just over half a percentage point (4 

percent on a base of 17 percent), is statistically significant at the 5 percent level, and is almost exactly offset by the 

increase for high school and some college.

See also Martha J. Bailey, John DiNardo, and Bryan A. Stuart, The Economic Impact of a High Minimum Wage: 

Evidence From the 1966 Fair Labor Standards Act, NBER Working Paper 26926, May 2020, at 3-4, 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w26926.

61 Grace Lordan and David Neumark, People Versus Machines: The Impact of Minimum Wages on Automatable 

Jobs, NBER Working Paper 23667, Jan. 2018, at 13-14, https://www.nber.org/papers/w23667.
256 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

technology] undoubtedly lead to increased job opportunities for some workers – for which we find 

some evidence – it is likely that there are workers who will be displaced that do not have the skills 

to do the new tasks.”62 Even if the overall effect of minimum wage increases is small, it can have 

a marked effect on disadvantaged subgroups of the workforce. For example, the minimum wage 

provisions of the 1966 Fair Labor Standards Act had serious negative effects on both the 

employment levels and hours worked of black men, while white men were not seriously affected.63

“In summary, even if aggregate employment responded little to the 1966 FLSA, the legislation 

engendered compositional changes in employment and impacted some of the more disadvantaged 

workers in the economy.”64 Workers with disabilities are certainly “disadvantaged workers”. If 

history is any guide, minimum wage increases will have a particularly negative effect on their 

workforce participation and hours worked.

Anecdotally, a mother and disability advocate from Seattle wrote and shared what happened to 

people with disabilities in Seattle and King County, Washington, after the elimination of 14(c) in 

those jurisdictions.

I live in Seattle and when the elimination of certificates was passed in Seattle there were 8

people working in COMMUNITY jobs – all earning between $9.30 and $11.50 an hour 

(Seattle minimum wage was $15.00). All but the one person who only worked 6 hours a 

week had their job hours reduced 20-40% due to the elimination of certificates. This meant 

that they had much less integration and community engagement – yes, their hourly wage

increased but their overall income stayed the same or decreased.

Interesting to note that not one of those 8 people was in favor of elimination of certificates. 

In fact, public comments sent to the Office of Labor Standards were clearly in favor of 

In the aggregate across all industries . . . we find that minimum wage increases cause a statistically significant 

reallocation of labour away from automatable tasks. We find that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage leads 

to a 0.31 percentage point decrease in the share of automatable jobs done by low-skilled workers, implying an 

elasticity of -0.10.

When we look separately by industry, the estimated effects in construction, wholesale, retail, finance, and public 

administration are small, centered around zero, and not statistically significant. In contrast, the effects are larger for 

manufacturing, transport, and services, and significant at the 5- or 10-percent level for manufacturing and transport. 

For example, the estimates imply that the elasticity of the share of automatable jobs among low-skilled workers in 

manufacturing with respect to the minimum wage is -0.18.

62 Grace Lordan and David Neumark, People Versus Machines: The Impact of Minimum Wages on Automatable 

Jobs, NBER Working Paper 23667, Jan. 2018, at 25-26, https://www.nber.org/papers/w23667.

63 Martha J. Bailey, John DiNardo, and Bryan A. Stuart, The Economic Impact of a High National Minimum Wage:

Evidence from the 1966 Fair Labor Standards Act, NBER Working Paper No. 26926, April 2020, 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w26926.

64 Martha J. Bailey, John DiNardo, and Bryan A. Stuart, The Economic Impact of a High National Minimum Wage:

Evidence from the 1966 Fair Labor Standards Act, NBER Working Paper No. 26926, April 2020, at 3-4, 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w26926.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 257

continuing to use special certificates. The elimination of certificates not only affected those 

8 people but eliminated employment opportunities for others that had already arranged for 

employment. Jobs were lost. [emphasis in original]

In King County, Washington, the pre-vocational program was eliminated over the past 4 

years. There were 142 people who had an average community engagement of 15 hours a 

week with their job or other activities at a facility/community center. As of August 2019

only 23 out of the 142 had any employment at all. Their average work week is only 8.75

hours a week. Yes, they are making minimum wage but the employment rate for this group 

went from 100% to 17% with fewer hours of engagement a week in employment. This was

not the choice of those who had been employed.65

Although one would not know this from the report, the fact that eliminating 14(c) results in lost 

jobs was even admitted at the roundtable in Vermont held by the subcommittee. Monica Hutt, who 

is the Commissioner of Vermont’s Department of Disabilities, Aging, and Independent Living 

said:

I think maybe the piece that we didn’t articulate because it’s really obvious to us and we 

aren’t seeing it so that you all are getting the trajectory is that we didn’t close the sheltered 

workshops and that everybody that was working in the sheltered workshop went to work 

in the community. That would be an impossibility. . . . But people’s hours were still filled.

They were not just left abandoned because there wasn’t some minimum wage to keep them 

busy at an employment somewhere. So these community-based supports were not only 

about building community but about building people’s skills so that they became job ready 

to enter competitive employment in a different way.66

That would be an impossibility. That is exactly what the many parents and guardians who wrote 

the Commission have been saying, but the majority ignored those comments. Only 40-50 people 

who worked in the sheltered workshop were able to move into competitive employment.67 What 

happened to the other people who worked in the sheltered workshop? Well, “[T]hen others decided 

that they were going to retire or arrange other services.”68 In other words, they lost their jobs.

States with 14(c) Have Better Outcomes for People with Disabilities

65 Public Comment 334 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

66 Vermont Site Visit Transcript 76, 77 (March 4, 2020).

67 Vermont Site Visit Transcript 79 (March 4, 2020).

68 Vermont Site Visit Transcript 79 (March 4, 2020).
258 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

The Commission’s staff studied six states – three that allow payment of subminimum wages, and 

three that do not allow the payment of subminimum wages or are phasing it out. Of these six states, 

only one state that does not permit the payment of 14(c) wages has a higher full-time employment 

rate for people with disabilities than the three states that permit the payment of subminimum 

wages. The accompanying chart, Chart 4.1, is reproduced below.

The text accompanying the chart states:

The chart above shows that at the macro level, the state that has phased out the payment of

subminimum wages completely (Vermont) hasthe highest employment rate for people with 

disabilities, but the state allowing subminimum wages (Missouri) has the same rate as 

states that are phasing subminimum wages out (Maine and Oregon).69

No. The chart above shows that in Vermont, 28.2% of people with disabilities have full-time 

employment. In Arizona, Missouri, and Virginia, all of which permit the payment of 14(c) wages, 

24-24.2% of people with disabilities have full-time employment. In Oregon, only 21.2 percent of 

people with disabilities have a full time job, and only 20.4 percent of people with disabilities in 

Maine have a full time job.

69 Report at p. 152 (n. 820).

VT AZ MO VA OR ME

30

25

20

15

Full-time Employment Rates of Persons with 

Disabilities Aged 18-64
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 259

Furthermore, Vermont usually has a lower unemployment rate than other states, as shown in the 

chart below.70

70 The Economics Daily: Unemployment rates in Arkansas and Oregon at record lows in February 2017, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, March 31, 2017, https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/unemployment-rates-in-arkansas-and-oregonat-record-lows-in-february-2017.htm.
260 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

In 2017, Vermont’s unemployment rate dropped from 3.1% to 2.7%.71 Maine’s unemployment 

rate fell from 3.6% to 3.1%.72 Oregon’s unemployment rate hovered around 4.1% - 4.2%.73

Virginia’s unemployment rate declined from 4.0% to 3.4%.74 Arizona’s unemployment rate fell 

from 5.1% to 4.7%, and Missouri’s from 4.1% to 3.5%.75

In other words, in 2017, Vermont and Maine had the lowest unemployment rates of all six states, 

and Oregon had a lower unemployment rate than Arizona. Yet still, Arizona, Missouri, and 

Virginia – the three states that permit 14(c) wages — managed to have more people with 

disabilities in full-time work than Oregon and Maine.

A state like Vermont that has a very tight labor market is better able to find employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities.76 When there are very few people available to hire, an 

employer is more willing to hire someone who works more slowly or needs additional assistance. 

Someone working at 70% may be better than no one working in that position at all. But when there 

are many people out of work – as is the case now – employers will want to hire the most efficient 

person for the job. In particular, given Oregon’s historic sharp spikes in unemployment (see the 

chart above), workers with disabilities will be at a real disadvantage, especially because their rate 

of employment had already dropped sharply between 2016 and 2017.77

71 Databases, Tables, & Calculators by Subject, Bureau of Labor Statistics (data extracted July 7, 2020), 

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet.

72 Databases, Tables, & Calculators by Subject, Bureau of Labor Statistics (data extracted July 7, 2020), 

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet.

73 Databases, Tables, & Calculators by Subject, Bureau of Labor Statistics (data extracted July 7, 2020), 

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet.

74 Databases, Tables, & Calculators by Subject, Bureau of Labor Statistics (data extracted July 7, 2020), 

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet.

75 Databases, Tables, & Calculators by Subject, Bureau of Labor Statistics (data extracted July 7, 2020), 

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet.

76 Furthermore, Vermont is also unique in that the state does not require people with disabilities to work and 

provides sufficient funds to support people if they do not wish to work. Most states do not have that luxury. See 

Transcript at 235-236.

COMMISSIONER KLADNEY: I think you said 47 percent of people have found – DR. DAGUE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER KLADNEY: - competitive integrated employment. DR. DAGUE: Right.

COMMISSIONER KLADNEY: So, that would leave 53 percent that have not, is that correct? DR. DAGUE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER KLADNEY: So, what do those folks do?

DR. DAGUE: Well, some of them are looking for work. Some are choosing not to work. We’re sort of more of an 

Employment First state, the policy and philosophy, more than policy, so we don’t require people to work, so if 

people choose not work, that is up to them. Others are choosing community-based services rather than employment.

77 Report at Table 4.1 (n. 821) (showing that employment rates for all individuals with disabilities declined from 

40.1% to 37.0%, and for individuals with cognitive disabilities from 32.5% to 29.8%).
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 261

It is also worth noting that the employment rate for people with disabilities in general, and 

cognitive disabilities in particular, increased across five of the six states from 2016-2017. This is 

likely due to the nationwide strong economy in those years. Aside from Vermont, the states that 

permit the payment of 14(c) wages saw greater increases in the employment of people with 

disabilities and people with cognitive disabilities than did states that prohibit or are phasing out 

14(c) wages. Nonetheless, the report states, “It is not clear whether reducing subminimum wage 

programs correlates with better employment rates.”78 Actually, it seems clear that reducing 

subminimum wage programs correlates with poorer employment rates. The relevant table from the 

report, Table 4.1, is below.

State Disability 2016 2017

Arizona All 35.1% 36.9%

Cognitive 25.1% 27.1%

Maine All 32.4% 32.9%

Cognitive 23.3% 24.1%

Missouri All 34.2% 35.9%

Cognitive 24.9% 28.7%

Oregon All 40.1% 37.0%

Cognitive 32.5% 29.8%

Vermont All 41.4% 45.9%

Cognitive 24.4% 41.3%

Virginia All 39.5% 41.3%

Cognitive 27.3% 29.5%

It is also worth noting that the report found that employees with cognitive disabilities in Virginia 

and Arizona (which permit the payment of 14(c) wages) had the highest annual mean earnings 

every year since 2008 (with the exception of 2008 itself, in which Oregon barely beat out Arizona). 

Vermont and Maine, which have ended 14(c), overall have the lowest annual mean earnings for 

employees with cognitive disabilities. The chart from the report is reproduced below.

78 Report at n. 822.
262 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Nevertheless, the Commission writes:

The Commission’s research corroborates that Oregon is a good model for coming into 

compliance with civil rights prohibitions against segregation of persons with disabilities. 

The Oregon and Vermont experiences also show that transition from sheltered workshops 

to competitive integrated employment may also be accomplished by concurrently 

eliminating subminimum wages.79

It is a mystery how Oregon can be considered a good model for anything involving employment 

of individuals with disabilities when it has had declines in employment and has lower wages than 

Arizona and Virginia.

What Does “Competitive Integrated Employment” Really Mean?

The purpose of this report is to promote “competitive integrated employment” instead of 

employment at a special minimum wage or in a sheltered workshop. What does “competitive 

integrated employment” look like in reality? We have already seen that even the people involved 

in making competitive integrated employment a reality in Vermont admit that not everyone who 

was in the sheltered workshop was able to move to a mainstream work environment. What is 

79 Report at n. 1303.

Missouri

2016 2017

Vermont

2013 2014 2015

Oregon Virginia

2010 2011 2012

Maine

2008 2009

Arizona

$35,000

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

Mean Annual Earnings for People with Cognitive Disabilities prior to 2017
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 263

competitive integrated employment like for people who can move to a mainstream work 

environment?

Well, let’s first look at the testimony of Neil Romano, approvingly quoted by the report. Mr. 

Romano testified:

At [the National Organization on Disability], we love our executive director, Carol Glazer, 

and her son Jacob, severely disabled. But he has meaningful part-time employment. Thanks 

to a person-centered planning model, Jacob works part-time, above minimum wage, at the 

NBA store in New York City. Medicaid pays for his job coach in the store.

He also volunteers in integrated settings the rest of his time, takes weekly classes in art, 

music, cooking, fitness, self-improvement.80

In short: 1) Jacob Glazer only works part-time; 2) Essentially, there is a second person there to 

help him with his job – two people are being paid for doing one job (it’s just that one is being paid 

by Medicaid rather than Nike); and 3) He has to fill the rest of his time with other things. And this 

is what Romano considers a success story!

Although Romano did not specify how many hours per week Jacob Glazer works, a mother whose 

son works in the community, wrote to the Commission, warning about the consequences of 

eliminating special minimum wages. She wrote:

My son needs 1:1 support in order to keep his job and is only able to work 9 hours a week.

He makes a little more than minimum wage and has had his job for 4 years. The cost of his 

job coach last month was $3078 – that is to provide the support for my son to work 36 

hours a month. My son will ALWAYS need this support – it’s not a matter of “learning the 

ropes” and then being on his own with someone just keeping an eye out for him.

It’s terrific that my son is able to work and there is funding for support. This is a concern

that we all have when our loved ones are forced into “community” settings – how is the 

support going to be funded and sustained. This is a very real question that needs to be

addressed prior to making ideological changes to real life concerns for real people.81

Another mother noted in her comment to the Commission that the only community-based jobs 

available to her daughter were for 8-12 hours per week, and usually nights and weekends.82 In 

contrast, Lafayette Industries, the sheltered workshop where her daughter has now worked for 

twelve years, offers a full workday, Monday-Friday, and even has paid time off.

80 Report at n. 780.

81 Public Comment 334 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

82 Public Comment 475 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
264 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Similarly, the report notes that one of the individuals interviewed by Commission staff in Vermont, 

C.B., works only one day per week at one integrated job, and three three-hour shifts per week at 

another integrated job. C.B. indicated that he preferred his current jobs to working in the sheltered 

workshop.83 That is great! But other people with disabilities might prefer a full workday, even if 

it is at a sheltered workshop.

The lack of hours and jobs is something disability advocates like those at the briefing are aware 

of, but are careful not to mention. Here are some provisions from the settlement agreement in Lane:

9. DHS [Oregon Department of Human Services] shall adopt a rule requiring 

community development disabilities programs (“CDDPs”) and support services brokerages 

to encourage individuals in the Sheltered Workshop Target Population to choose options 

other than sheltered employment.

a. If appropriate for the individual, these options shall include non-facility- based 

employment and integrated day options and community inclusion services, provided in 

settings other than Sheltered Workshops.

b. Integrated day options include, but are not limited to, services that include regular 

opportunities for community-based recreational, social, educational, cultural, and athletic 

activities, including community volunteer activities and training activities, as well as other 

regularly-occurring non-facility based activities of a person’s choosing that are provided 

in settings with allow individuals with disabilities to interact with individuals without 

disabilities in a community proceeding to the fullest extent possible for the individual.84

Please remember that this litigation began when eight individuals sued, alleging that they wanted 

to pursue competitive integrated employment and were not being provided with appropriate 

supports. Then in the settlement, “more support to pursue competitive integrated employment” 

morphs into an effort to push people out of sheltered workshops and into competitive employment 

and “day programs.” The witnesses who testified at our briefing were well aware that many people 

with disabilities will be unable to find full-time work if the sheltered workshops are closed down, 

and some will not be able to find work at all. They know this because they made provisions for it 

in the settlement and required organizations that run sheltered workshops to push their clients 

toward day programs. Yet Alison Barkoff, who was formerly at DOJ, spoke glowingly of lawsuits 

brought by DOJ during the Obama Administration to end sheltered workshops, saying, “These 

lawsuits have given thousands of people the opportunity to work in competitive integrated 

employment.”85 Maybe so. Those lawsuits have also given many people the opportunity not to 

work at all.

83 Report at n. 1183-1187.

84 Settlement Agreement, Lane v. Brown, No. 3:12-cv-00138, § 9 (D. Ore. 2013), 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lane_sa.pdf.

85 Alison Barkoff, Transcript at p. 41.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 265

The report elevates “inclusion” and “integration” over every other concern. Of course people with 

disabilities who can and want to work in integrated workplaces should be able to do so. The 

Commission report, however, takes the position that integration is a mandate, not an option. This 

seems to have been the position of the Obama-era Department of Justice, but as was so often the 

case in those days, DOJ went beyond the law to enforce its own policy preferences.

As the father of a woman with disabilities wrote of his daughter:

Some of the most harmful situations in her life occurred when others – well-meaning

though they may have been – attempted to impose their untested ideas and one-size-fits-all 

notions upon her, assuming they knew best. These supposedly well-educated people, 

saturated with academics but lacking the two elementsmost essential in dealing with our 

kids: PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE & COMPASSION, exposed [G] to repeated ridicule 

and bullying from inconsiderate classmates, and misjudgments and constant guinea-pig 

experimentation by inadequately trained teachers and staff, to the point that some mornings 

she was afraid to return to class. What these do-gooders neglected to understand: in their 

quest to “improve society” by mainstreaming and inclusion, they never asked [G] (nor us) 

first. She neither wanted to [nor] benefited from their unwanted changes, and they only 

made things worse for her.86

The do-gooders did not stop making his daughter’s life worse after she left school. In an email to 

me, the same father explained that due to a constant drive for “integration,” his daughter and some 

of her coworkers were separated from the larger group of individuals with whom she had worked 

for nearly ten years. In her time at her original facility, she had progressed to being an office clerk, 

a “job she dearly loved”. Yet because the authorities considered the situation insufficiently 

integrated, she and her team had to move locations three times. Furthermore, he wrote:

It needs to be noted that under the new rules imposed by CMS and the changed WIOA 

[Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act], while it lends the ‘appearance’ of 

inclusiveness to force the disabled into integrated community settings, in their previous

center-based employment, these citizens – working where they CHOSE to work – they had 

the option of working up to 40 hours per week if they wished or were capable. After the 

forced changes, however, these same employees had their work hours cut to half or less, 

sometimes no more than two- hours per day a couple days per week, because in their new 

community-based employment setting, the new bosses had to work extra hard to carve out 

a whole gamut of new job titles for disabled persons they had never had on theirworkforce 

86 Public Comment 268 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on CivilRights.
266 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

before, and with such a government-imposed influx of less-than-skilled employees, they 

simply did not have enough work available for everyone.87

There is a happy ending, of sorts, for this young woman. After being dragged from pillar to post 

to comply with “integration” mandates, she and her team work at a large commercial laundry 

facility. Yet still, after three different moves, she works at a laundry facility, instead of doing the 

office work she enjoyed so much.

Even if Olmstead is a correct interpretation of the ADA, it does not require integration at all costs. 

Rather, Justice Ginsburg wrote, placement of individuals in community setting may be required 

when “the State’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement is 

appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the 

affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the 

resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities.”88 Nothing in this 

holding suggests that States are required to close sheltered workshops when such action is opposed 

by people with disabilities or their guardians, who represent their interests.

Justice Ginsburg continued:

Unjustified isolation, we hold, is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability. 

But we recognize, as well, the States' need to maintain a range of facilities for the care 

and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities, and the States' obligation to 

administer services with an even hand. Accordingly, we further hold that the Court of 

Appeals' remand instruction was unduly restrictive. In evaluating a State's fundamentalalteration defense, the District Court must consider, in view of the resources available to 

the State, not only the cost of providing community-based care to the litigants, but also 

the range of services the State provides others with mental disabilities, and the State's 

obligation to mete out those services equitably. (emphasis added)89

It seems as though the Commission simply assumes that it is preferable to spend time among those 

without disabilities than among those with disabilities. Those of us who do not have disabilities, 

particularly cognitive or behavioral disabilities, may well prefer to spend time among those who 

are similarly situated. Likewise, those who do have cognitive or behavioral disabilities may prefer 

to spend time among those who have similar disabilities – their own peers. Justice Ginsburg wrote 

in Olmstead, “We emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones 

termination of institutional settings for those unable to handle or benefit from community 

87 Email from father of disabled individual to Carissa Mulder, special assistant to Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, 

June 23, 2020.

88 Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 587 (1999).

89 Olmstead at 597.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 267

settings.”90 Once again, the Commission mostly ignored the many family members who testified 

and commented as to why an “integrated” setting is not good for their children.

The report quotes Linda Hau, the mother of a man who works at a 14(c) facility. Ms. Hau said, 

“[w]e have also learned that inclusion is often the cruelest form of isolation” and “Many of these 

individuals are unable to function in a typical workplace due to behavioral, medical, or physical 

limitations. They are generally socially ostracized, as they have nothing in common with their 

coworkers.”91 Ms. Hau’s comments are included in the report, but no effort is made to respond to 

them. If we are honest, it is because there is no response.

Many other family members struck similar notes in their comments to the Commission. “While I 

drove [my daughter] to her previous job in the private sector she would breakdown of sobbing. 

Her difficulties in dealing with the pressures and pace of regular employment were too much for 

her.”92 “[My son] works with adults that have similar needs so they are his family as much as I 

am.”93

Whomever it was that came up with the idea to get rid of the workshops plainly doesn’t 

have a family member in the situation to need one. This reminds me very much of when

my sister was in junior high school and was mainstreamed. She went from the protected

environment of special education classes to the “normal” classes with other students, and

this wasthe most traumatizing experience of her life. I was young, but I remember how bad 

it was. Forty years later, [D] still refers to her school as “that place.” It was “that place” at 

which [D’s] self-esteem was completely destroyed. She was at the mercy of a society to 

whom she was a freak, a retardo, a weirdo – she was different, and our society doesn’t like 

different. And that’s exactly what the proponents of getting rid of 14c will be doing to [D] 

again if they strip her of the protections 14c provides.94

Another mother wrote:

Even the definition of “integrated” employment is flawed. From [L’s] point of view, the

community-based thrift store where she currently works (operated by our DT&H program 

by primarily handicapped people) is “integrated” with a few non-handicapped work 

supervisors. From the legislative point of view, many people would prefer to keep her in

the minority and feel that “integrated” means she needs to work with a majority of nonhandicapped employees. Truth be told, her work pace is so slow and her anxiety needs are 

90 Olmstead at 601-602.

91 Report at n. 364-365.

92 Public Comment 525 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

93 Public Comment 535 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

94 Public Comment 352 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
268 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

so great that if she were thrust into a competitive job market, there is no possible way she

could continue to be employed. Nor would she enjoy the incredible social/emotional benefits

she has been receiving from her current supported work setting. A mandate of minimum 

wage work is equivalent to no work for her. [emphasis in original]95

The Commission even received comments from individuals with disabilities who support the 

continuation of 14(c). J.S. is an individual with multiple disabilities. J.S. wrote:

At MaryHaven I am able to work to the best of my abilities and earn money. I would be 

unable to do this anywhere else. I am treated with dignity and respect by everyone at 

MaryHaven. This is very important to me as I suffered from bullying and ridicule my 

whole life. [emphasis added]96

Consequences for Individuals and Families if 14(c) is Eliminated

We are assured that if 14(c) is eliminated, those formerly employed under 14(c) will be gainfully 

employed in competitive integrated employment with all the support they need. When they are not 

working in mainstream employment, they will be participating in enriching extracurricular 

activities. Everything will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

There are many problems with this, but just let us address one: cost. The mother from Seattle wrote 

that it costs $3078 per month for a job coach to support her son for 36 hours of work per month. 

The pediatrician father, whose daughter works at Beacon Industries in Tucson, Arizona (and who 

is a board member at Beacon), wrote:

Beacon is currently paid $6.10 per hour from the Arizona Division of Developmental 

Disabilities to supervise [S] at Beacon’s Center Based Employment.

If [S] would choose not to work in production and instead spend her time in a Day 

Treatment program, Beacon would receive $10.61 per hour from the Arizona Division of 

Developmental Disabilities for providing Day Treatment and Training services. That’s 

$4.51 per hour more than if [S] works in production.97

The economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic are causing massive shortfalls in tax revenues 

for state and local governments everywhere. Many services will have to be cut. Most of us 

remember the local budgetary retrenchments of the 2007-2009 recession, when, for example, 

public libraries reduced the days and hours they were open. The pandemic will likely result in even 

more austerity, and it is very likely that supports such as funding for job coaches and day programs 

95 Public Comment 419 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

96 Public Comment 669 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

97 Public Comment 1,251 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 269

will be cut. If there is nowhere for these individuals to spend their days, what will happen to them? 

A mother wrote to the Commission to tell us that her daughter works 18 hours per week in group 

supported employment. “If she does not have this time to train, I would have to leave my job to be 

at home with her and my job pays for health insurance for her and our family.”98

A father wrote:

Having [S] work at Beacon allowed my wife and me to work full time as a pediatrician and

a pediatric nurse. It is not safe for [S] to stay at home alone. She is pretty high maintenance,

and always has my wife or me direct her activities when she is at home. She does not watch

TV. This is one instance where it would be nice to have your children watch a little TV.99

The Loudest Voices Do Not Speak for Everyone

The witnesses and public commenters with disabilities who spoke at our briefing are not 

representative of the full spectrum of the disability community. As evidenced by the fact that they 

were able to come and speak at the Commission, these are some of the highest-functioning 

members of the disability community. As one mother wrote:

There are those within the disabled adult community, employed by sheltered workshops,

who are higher-functioning and have the skills necessary to hold higher paying jobs. They, 

unfortunately, are in the minority. However, because they are able to articulate their 

frustration and dissatisfaction with their lower wages, their voices are the ones the public 

hears. Their voices become the rallying cry for the whole movement, but do not fairly 

represent their peers.

In attempting to raise the wages for all within the disabled adult population, doing away 

with 14(c) will raise the wages of a few and guarantee failure for the masses of others who

are not, and will never be, able to hold a job that justifies a minimum wage of $15.

My daughter is fifty-nine years old. We won’t address the years it took to get special 

education classes in our Arkansas schools. Rather, we’ll look at the results of decisions 

made by those tasked with determining what was best for our children academically, a 

commission much like yours.

After functioning happily and successfully in a classroom designed for children with 

special needs, and because a commission decided that she, and those like her, were being 

labeled and discriminated against, she was ‘mainstreamed’.

98 Public Comment 342 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

99 Public Comment 1,251 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
270 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

At the age of fifteen, my lovely daughter endured the ridicule of classmates; the inability 

to grasp what was being taught (by teachers who had to teach the many and not ‘the one’) 

. . . the terrible isolation that comes with being different. And, her family endured the 

heartbreak of watching our [D] being broken by the system.

After a few years it was determined a mistake had been made; special education classes

were indeed needed. Unfortunately, history repeats itself as we see from the proposal to do 

away with 14(c). It won’t work; it’s designed to fail. It will be enormously expensive, both 

monetarily and emotionally.100

Another mother wrote:

Unfortunately, a number of disability rights groups is advocating for the removal of the 

14c clause. These groups certainly do not speak for me or for my son! . . .

I believe another objection by the disability rights groups is their fervent belief that 

everyone should have a job in an inclusive work environment. As I have stated above, in 

my son’s case, this is simply not an option secondary to his lack of employable skills. In 

addition, I think much of this desire to eliminate workshops is driven by parents of young 

children who are often fed the myth that everyone, regardless of their level of disability, 

can work in competitive employment. This myth is perpetuated by many of these disability 

rights groups which is very unfair. They may be dismantling something that these very 

parents may desire and need once their children reach adulthood and reality sets in that 

jobs in the competitive employment arena are few and far between. Parents of young 

children with severe cognitive and behavioral deficits do not yet understand that their 

children may not be capable of performing even the most basic jobs in the community. 

People with mild intellectual delay who possess relatively strong speech skills and have

minimal behavioral concerns can often find jobs as bus boys in a restaurant or as clerk 

assistants (bag boys) in a local grocery store. However, the reality is that companies are not 

under any obligation to hire people with disabilities and people withsevere intellectual 

delay, poor to nonexistence speech skills and significant behavioral issues are not hired by 

competitive employers. Sheltered workshops can be one productive and welcoming outlet 

for this group of people with disabilities.101

Yet another mother wrote:

I am well aware there are parents with adult disabled children who have advocated for the 

closing of sheltered workshops because they are fortunate to have a loved one capable of 

100 Email from mother of disabled individual to Carissa Mulder, special assistant to Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, 

July 3, 2020.

101 Public Comment 433 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 271

competitive employment so they want more work opportunities to be developed (and they 

need to be). But these parents fail to understand that competitive employment is not a one 

size fits all concept. Those with a developmental disability fall on a continuum ranging

from adult day care programs for the most severely disabled to competitive employment 

with short term job coaching support for high functioning individuals. Somewhere in 

between is [A] and many other adults who need the support and safety of an employment 

training center. Please Please Please do not relegate my son to a day program by eliminating 

the sheltered workshops as you will break his heart and spirit. He feels like the man that he 

is – allow him to work as one.102

The Report is Untethered from Reality

This report is unmoored from reality in ways too numerous to count. However, one example might 

be missed. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, (D-MO) wrote to the Commission supporting 14(c) workshops. 

The report quotes his letter:

In many of the rural towns in my district, sheltered workshops are essential to disabled 

individuals’ feelings of dignity, self-worth and of being able to contribute to their 

communities. My staff and I have visited sheltered workshops, such as Richmond and

Higginsville, and have seen first hand the importance of the disabled individual’s ability to 

get up every morning and go to work with their friends.

Most of the towns in the rural areas of the 5th District and all of Missouri do not have the

job opportunities or public transportation for disabled individuals. Section 14(c) programs 

provide transportation for employees. Many rural community jobs for these workers are

part-time if available. Most programs that use Section 14(c) provider [sic.] closer to full

time hours. Do not discount what this means to families. If the person with disability has 

shorter hours per week or no job at all, this means that another family member cannot work 

in order to be the caretaker.103

The report then comments:

The data from the Congressman’s letter suggests that lack of public transportation and 

employment opportunities may contribute to over-reliance on 14(c) sheltered workshops

that pay subminimum wages to persons with disabilities in his state. The Americans with

Disabilities Act requires that employment opportunities and public transportation be 

reasonably accessible to persons with disabilities.104

102 Public Comment 355 for the Subminimum Wages Briefing before the U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights.

103 Report at n. 1035.

104 Report at n. 1036.
272 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

This throwaway comment from the report perfectly encapsulates the arrogance and unreality that 

underpins the entire report. None of us have visited the workshops in Congressman Cleaver’s 

district. Most of us have never even visited the small towns in his district. Yet somehow, we think 

we know better than a seven-term congressman about the needs of his district.

Furthermore, the report says that the ADA “requires that employment opportunities and public 

transportation be reasonably accessible to persons with disabilities.” Rural areas and small towns 

often will not have public transportation at all. There isn’t a sufficient tax base to support public 

transportation, and the area is not dense enough to make public transportation feasible. The ADA 

doesn’t require small towns to create public transportation systems out of whole cloth.

Complaining that public transportation in rural Missouri isn’t reasonably accessible to people with 

disabilities is like complaining that the train to Hogwarts isn’t handicapped-accessible. “[B]y 

regulation a public entity is required only to make ‘reasonable modifications in policies, practices, 

or procedures’ when necessary to avoid discrimination. . . . It follows that a State may not be forced 

to create a community-treatment program where none exists.”105

The ADA cannot be interpreted to require closing sheltered workshops and requiring integration 

over the objections of people with disabilities or their guardians. In Lane v. Kitzhaber106, which 

resulted in the settlement that ended sheltered workshops in Oregon, the court dismissed the 

plaintiffs’ claims. The court wrote:

[S]ome of the allegations in the Complaint go beyond the clarification offered by plaintiffs 

at the hearing and seek the forbidden remedy of requiring defendants to provide an 

adequate level of employment services to enable plaintiffs to obtain a competitive job. In 

particular, plaintiffs allege that defendants are violating Title II of the ADA and the 

Rehabilitation Act by “failing to offer an adequate array of integrated employment and 

supported employment services” and “to provide them with supporting employment

services that would enable them to work in integrated employment settings. These 

allegations are subject to dismissal because they demand that defendants provide a 

competitive job in the community and a certain standard of care or level of benefits.

Instead, to comply with the scope of plaintiffs’ claims as described at the hearing, these 

allegations (and other related allegations) must be amended to clarify that defendants are 

violating Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by denying employment services 

for which they areeligible with the result of unnecessarily segregating them in sheltered

workshops.107

105 Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 613 (1999)(Kennedy, J., concurring).

106 Lane v. Kitzhaber, 841 F.Supp.2d 1199 (D. Ore. 2012).

107 Lane, 841 F.Supp.2d at 1208.
Commissioners’ Statements, Dissents, and Rebuttals 273

This opinion does not suggest that sheltered workshops must be eliminated, or that 14(c) wages 

must be eliminated. Rather, it simply says that the state must provide some supported employment 

services to individuals with disabilities who are capable of availing themselves of those services 

and wish to do so.

Conclusion

Whether to maintain or eliminate 14(c) is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Our colleagues 

note in their findings and recommendations that there is bipartisan support for eliminating 14(c). 

True. They failed to note that there is also bipartisan support for maintaining 14(c). 

Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat, wrote to the Commission in support of 14(c), as did 

a number of Republican Members of Congress. Rather, it is a matter of realism and trust. The

realism lies in recognizing, as so many parents have, that there are some people whose disabilities 

mean that their life choices are limited. The trust lies in trusting that the parents and guardians of 

these individuals, who know them far better than we do, can decide whether a job in competitive 

integrated employment, a 14(c) job in an integrated environment, a sheltered workshop, or day 

activities are best for their loved ones.
274 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

[This page is left intentionally blank]
Appendix A 275

Appendix A: Settlement Agreements Revoking 14(c) Certificates
276 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 277
278 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 279
280 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 281
282 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 283
284 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 285
286 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 287
288 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 289
290 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 291
292 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 293
294 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 295
296 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 297
298 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 299
300 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 301
302 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 303
304 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 305
306 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 307
308 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 309
310 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 311
312 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 313
314 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 315
316 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 317
318 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 319
320 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 321
322 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 323
324 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 325
326 Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities
Appendix A 327