----

----

----

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) held apublic hearing on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on November 12�13,1998, in Washington, D.C.[1]The Commission originally analyzed disability discrimination in its 1983 report,*Accommodating the Spectrum of IndividualAbilities*.[2]This report recognized that �there are spectrums of physical and mentalabilities that range from superlative to minimal or nonfunctional.�[3]*Accommodating the Spectrum* wasinstrumental in bringing the �spectrum of abilities� concept into themainstream of disability rights analysis.[4]The Commission�s report noted that the �handicapped-normal dichotomy�[5]�meaningthere are �normal� people who can participate fully in society and there arepeople with physical and mental disabilities who cannot��isthe wellspring of handicap discrimination.�[6]The 1983 report made the following official finding:

> 
Historically, society has tended to isolate and segregatehandicapped people. Despite some improvements, particularly in the last twodecades, discrimination against handicapped persons continues to be a seriousand pervasive social problem. It persists in such critical areas as education,employment, institutionalization, medical treatment, involuntary sterilization,architectural barriers, and transportation.[7]

When the ADA was enacted in 1990, it was considered alandmark statute. It marked the first comprehensive equal opportunity law forindividuals with disabilities. Its intent is �to ensure that people withdisabilities are given the basic guarantees for which they have worked so longand so hard: independence, freedom of choice, control of their lives, theopportunity to blend fully and equally into the rich mosaic of the Americanmainstream.�[8] Specifically, the ADAensures (1) employers covered by the act cannot discriminate against qualifiedindividuals with disabilities; (2) access to public accommodations andgovernment services; (3) expanded access to transportation services; and (4)equivalent telephone services for people with speech or hearing impairments.[9]

The purpose of the Commission�s 1998 hearing was toinvestigate how the ADA was accomplishing its objective. The hearing was timelybecause there was significant discord among the federal Courts of Appealsregarding the impact of the ADA. There were also developing controversies as tothe impact of an application for disability benefits on a person�s right topursue an ADA claim, including whether blanket employment policiesdiscriminating against whole classes of individuals with disabilities could bejustified under the ADA; whether ADA�s nondiscrimination requirement mandatedcommunity versus institutionalized treatment for some individuals withdisabilities; and whether the definition of disability included consideration ofmitigating measures. The ADA was being heavily litigated, which, in effect,created more questions about the act�s intent and scope.

The Commission agreed to hear testimony on disability issues that werecurrent and to some extent controversial, so that the Commission couldmeaningfully contribute to the national discourse on the ADA. The hearing topicswere neither exhaustive nor demonstrative of the many ADA-related issues thatwarrant national attention. As the chairperson of the Commission, Mary FrancesBerry, emphasized, �the resulting topics in no way reflect a diminishing ofour interest in or commitment to equal rights for the disability community inall facets of American life.�[10]Because some of the issues are not as heavily disputed as they were at the timeof the hearing, they are not included in this report.

Shortly following the hearing, the Supreme Court rendered severaldecisions interpreting the ADA, some directly addressing issues discussed bypanelists. In the interest of producing a current and useful report, Commissionstaff has provided a summary of these decisions. In addition, as the hearing wasbeing planned, a central issue was whether an asymptomatic HIV positive personwas entitled to protection under the ADA. There was substantial litigationsurrounding this issue because a person infected with HIV has not developed themost serious symptoms related to HIV infection. Indeed, an entire hearing panelwas dedicated to the issue of AIDS/HIV and the ADA. Prior to the hearing, theSupreme Court in *Bragdon v. Abbott*[11]**determined that HIV infection was a covered disability under the ADA.[12]In light of the Supreme Court�s unequivocal ruling, and despite the fact thatthis issue was the substance of testimony before the Commission, the topic ofAIDS/HIV and the ADA is not addressed in this report.

The panelists testifying at the hearing provided valuableinsight on their topics. The Commission appreciates the time and effort expendedby all the panelists in helping produce an informative hearing and this report.

In the chapter that follows is a summary of the history of disabilitypolicy and the events leading to the ADA. Since the act�s provisions becameeffective, there has been ongoing disagreement over the success of the ADA andwhether it has accomplished its mandate. Chapter 2 highlights the practicaleffects of the ADA on individuals with disabilities and businesses. The recentSupreme Court decisions and the flood of ADA cases in the lower courts warrant adiscussion on the judicial trends in ADA enforcement, discussed in chapter 3.Substance abuse and the ADA is a critical issue as some companies haveimplemented hiring policies that discriminate against former substance abusers,who are typically covered under the ADA. Chapter 4 addresses issues surroundingthese types of policies and the ADA coverage of substance abusers. Chapter 5discusses psychiatric disabilities, a topic that has received much attentionbecause of the increasing prevalence of these disabilities and the recentSupreme Court decision banning unjustified segregation of persons withpsychiatric and mental disabilities. The final chapter sets forth theCommission�s findings and recommendations.

[1] Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104    Stat. 327 (codified at 42 U.S.C. �� 12101�12213 (1994)).

[2] U.S. Commission on Civil    Rights, *Accommodating the Spectrum of    Individual Abilities,*1983 (hereafter cited as Commission, *Accommodating    the Spectrum*).

[3] Ibid., p. 87.

[4] Robert L. Burgdorf Jr., *Disability    Discrimination in Employment Law* (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National    Affairs, 1995) p. 2.

[5] The term �handicapped�    is used here because that was the term used in the Commission�s 1983    report.

[6] Commission, *Accommodating    the Spectrum*, pp. 93�94.

[7] Ibid., p. 159.

[8] President George Bush�s    Remarks on Signing the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, *Public    Papers of the Presidents of the United States, George Bush* (Washington    D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1990), book 2, p. 1068.

[9] 42 U.S.C. ��    12101�12213.

[10] Opening Remarks of Mary    Frances Berry, chairperson, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Americans with    Disabilities Hearing, Washington, D.C., Nov. 12�13, 1998, p. 2.

[11] Bragdon v. Abbott, 118 S.    Ct. 2196 (1998).

[12]*Id*.    at 2201.