What happens if an applicant for a job in your firm has a disability — is blind or infected with HIV or epileptic? Will you know how to treat that applicant without discrimination? The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed to make sure that the 15 million disabled people not already covered by antidiscrimination legislation would be assessed for jobs on their skills and abilities, not on their disabilities. This article will help you begin to plan for the day that applicant walks in your door.
1. Studies cited by the EEOC in 56 Federal Register at 8581.
2. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires federal contractors and subcontractors with contracts exceeding $2,500 per annum to practice nondiscrimination and employ affirmative action in their hiring practices. In addition, those contractors and subcontractors with annual contracts of $50,000 and more, and more than fifty employees, must develop and maintain written affirmative action plans that satisfy requirements of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
3. All materials, references, and direct quotations are drawn either from the Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 329) or from the EEOC’s Proposed Rules on the ADA in 56 Federal Register 8577, 28 February 1991, or Final Rules and Regulations in 56 Federal Register 35726, 26 July 1991.
4. 56 Federal Register at 35736. This section also states, “Homosexuality and bisexuality are not impairments, and so are not disabilities as defined in this part.”
5. 56 Federal Register at 35736. The reference is to those “currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs.” However, “the terms disability and qualified individual with a disability may not exclude an individual who (1) has successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs, … [or] (2) is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in such use.”
6. 56 Federal Register at 35748.
7. 56 Federal Register at 35743. The EEOC cites Treadwell v. Alexander, 707 F. 2d 473 (11th Cir. 1983) and Dexler v. Tisch, 660 F. Supp. 1418 (D. Conn. 1987) in support of both possibilities.
8. 56 Federal Register at 35748. See Carter v. Bennett, 840 F. 2d 63 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
9. 56 Federal Register at 35726.
This research was funded, in part, by a grant from First Interstate Bank of Nevada and the Center for Business and Economics, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.