iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Anne Stevenson

GET UPDATES FROM Anne Stevenson
 

Corporate Lobbyists Discriminate, Declare War on Disabled (Show This to Your Legislator)

Posted: 04/30/2012 12:15 pm

As millions of disabled vets return home from 'Gulf War II,' corporate lobbyists and their legislative henchmen have declared war against the disabled. Suddenly, it's OK for legislators to portray disabled citizens who seek equal access to education, employment, programs, and services as whores, parasites, or leaches. Calls to minimize society's investments in the contributions of disabled citizens are everywhere. Citing the cost of trivial compliance measures, some pro-corporate legislators recently called for legislation scaling back the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008 (ADAAA). The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) has repeatedly rejected the call from disability advocates for public input on new regulations and instead held secret meetings this week to revise its guidelines. This is not pro-tax payer tort reform legislators are proposing -- it is a uniform policy of state-sponsored retaliation, exclusion, and extortion of the disabled which is out of touch with the average disabled person's every day struggles.

A prime example of discrimination-based legislation would be California State Senator Bob Dutton's bill entitled "Special Access: Liability" which would operationally shift the cost burden of corporate compliance with the ADAAA onto the disabled citizen seeking access, then bureaucratically and financially starve them out of a remedy. Should the disabled citizen successfully file suit, the corporation could never be sued again. The elected judge hearing the case can then brand the disabled person a "vexatious litigant," and the disabled person's name will then be placed in the public registry to ensure that they can never assert their access rights in a court again without the judge's written permission. How will Senator Dutton's legislation do anything except ensure the exclusion of the disabled, indemnify corporations from accountability, and drum up campaign contributions?

To really understand why the ADAAA is necessary, one needs to understand how Senator Dutton's proposed legislation will harm the disabled. Let's be clear that Senator Dutton's proposed reforms will exclude millions of disabled veterans, especially those who suffer from invisible impairments such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI.) The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that a staggering 29.1 percent unemployment rate for young veterans under 25 who served in Gulf War II. These statistics do not take into account the 908,000 veterans who were still waiting for the Veterans Administration to decide their disability claims as of October 2011.

Born nearly blind in one eye, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is a person with a disability who keenly understands the every day discrimination and exclusion persons with disabilities face because he too has fought for equal access. During Senate hearings in 2008, Veteran and Sen. Patrick Leahy explained that:

We passed the ADA in recognition that the bedrock principles of human dignity and equal opportunity require all Americans to be judged on their individual merits and not on the prejudices of others... Despite these significant advances, recent decisions from the Supreme Court and lower courts attempt to erode the ADA's protections and threaten to turn back the clock on our progress.

As Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Leahy expressed his specific concerns that the courts had become too pro-corporation:

I am particularly disturbed by rulings that have narrowed the ADA in ways we never intended... As a consequence, millions of Americans who suffer discrimination are now excluded from ADA protection... The message sent by these rulings is as unfortunate as it is undeniable: The courts no longer consider certain persons ''disabled enough'' to be protected. That means an employer could fire or refuse to hire a qualified worker on the basis of his or her disability, and defend that action in court on the grounds that the worker was not ''disabled enough'' to be protected under law.

Sen. Leahy went on to state his specific concerns for those who courageously serve sacrifice for our country through military service:

I am particularly concerned that these rulings will undermine the rights of thousands of veterans with disabilities who, upon returning from the war, will enter the civilian workforce to support their families. Many of these veterans have disabilities, including post-traumatic stress syndrome, that may be controlled with medication. If any of them suffer job discrimination, we must make sure they will have a remedy.

Here we are nearly four years later, the corporations still have voluntarily elected not to comply with certain ADAAA reforms, and Sen. Dutton has proposed pro-corporate legal reforms which covertly deny disabled persons remedy under the law. Sen. Dutton's argument also fails because it assumes that the courthouse itself is ADAAA compliant, or that the disabled litigant will not need accommodations for his impairment in order to access to the court's programs and services. Justice Department reports show that many courts and law offices voluntarily refuse to comply with the ADAAA, but only become compliant when sued for damages.

Since the disabled fought this battle and won the right to equal access in 1990, then AGAIN in 2008, it is time we ask ourselves how Dutton's bill will benefit the disabled, and whether disabled citizens truly have "equal access" if, in order to have equal access to noncompliant corporations, they must spend years litigating their fundamental right to have equal access to due process at the court hearings itself? Should disabled litigants be forced to elect between the loss of wealth and opportunities, or alternatively, going broke engaging in excessive litigation? Isn't that just another way of starving the little guy's interests out of court on account of their disability?

 
FOLLOW POLITICS
As millions of disabled vets return home from 'Gulf War II,' corporate lobbyists and their legislative henchmen have declared war against the disabled. Suddenly, it's OK for legislators to portray di...
As millions of disabled vets return home from 'Gulf War II,' corporate lobbyists and their legislative henchmen have declared war against the disabled. Suddenly, it's OK for legislators to portray di...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:34 PM on 05/17/2012
Yes! --

What about the courthouses becoming ADAAA compliant, what about PTSD ? Consider the causes: serving abroad- or inhabiting- the USA can cause serious, very real disabilities -- and the 2008 amendments address that not all these involve swimming pool lifts or wheelchair ramps.

(http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/30/42665.htm)
"The Pentagon has "systematically and wrongfully discharged" more than 22,000 veterans since 2001 "on the basis of so-called 'personality disorder'" - rather than [PTSD] - to deny them medical care and save ... $12.5 billion in medical and disability payments"

I used to think differently -- until it happened to me after about 25 years in SF Bay Area, a season of serial trauma and unbelievable, needless losses. Custody policies in the courts literally prevented my family from leaving a serial batterer husband after first helping us separate from him through DV restraining order. Payback was essentially federal ownership of our children through the courts. Shock & horror became routine.

Long-term spousal abuse may cause physical injuries, work losses, and PTSD which abates with safety. But -- got kids? Then the "therapy" the family is prescribed is YEARS of ongoing, often weekly, contact with the abusive partner AND with the enabling courthouses= more and more primary triggers of PTSD with cumulative impact (http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/sc563/mcgu/sc56341.pdf).
(cont'd...)
03:49 PM on 05/18/2012
Comment continued @ blog (http://wp.me/psBXH-14M) I think this is vital information
09:54 PM on 05/01/2012
If the real target of the legislation is unethical attorneys, then why aren't they proposing legislation that is (a) attorney specific, and (b) goes after the CA Bar Association for failing to protect consumers from their own members? Seriously, why would anyone introduce legislation which requires every disabled person to go to law school and write demand letters, then sit around for 90 days outside hospitals, police stations, COURTS, pharmacies, etc. seeing if the corporation will comply? I mean, if they were going to voluntarily comply, wouldn't the corporation have changed over the last 3 1/2 years since the law passed? Why would they comply voluntarily if the odds of getting caught just got worse? And since when is getting caught, the threshold for whether or not discrimination occurred?
10:34 AM on 05/01/2012
Read the bill. It simple would provide a 90 day window to fix the problem before a lawsuit can be filed.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Anne Stevenson
07:45 PM on 05/01/2012
The link to the bill is within the article, and I stand by my statements. My concern here is that this argument needs to be framed in terms of the fact that ADAAA noncompliance is a health and safety issue for ALL citizens, not just the disabled. Business owners have had a 3 1/2 year window to comply, and the fact is that the focus now needs to shift to why Sen. Dutton believes that getting caught discriminating is the threshold to whether or not discrimination occurred? What if it is an emergency and that "business" is a police station, a hospital, a courthouse, a grocery store, or a pharmacy? The dangerous contradiction is that we do not apply the same legal standard to say, FDA regulations, or workplace safety laws under OSHA. If there were a listeria epidemic, we would not allow the corporation an additional 90 days to decide whether or not to impose a recall or shut down the plant.
05:56 PM on 04/30/2012
As the mother of a child with a disability and having served 5 years on the California State Council on Developmental Disabilities, I have to respectfully disagree to some extent. No one wants to 'punish the disabled' or roll back hard won rights. They want to punish the Trial Attorneys who have made an art form of putting small businesses out of business with countless lawsuits for which they settle for cash. This hurts people with disabilities AND businesses. We need some 'right to cure' legislation and protection from predatory trial attorneys. I'm open for suggestions...
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Anne Stevenson
08:00 PM on 05/01/2012
Your point about consumer protection is well taken. If the real target of the legislation is unethical attorneys, why is the scope not limited to attorneys, and is the real question the California Bar Association doing its' job to enforce the attorney codes of professional conduct? The State of California already has passed statutes which apply to ALL types of vexatious litigation, and judges are free to apply those statutes and discipline (and refer to the bar as well) any attorney who litigates in bad faith. What is different about this legislation is that it singles out disabled persons as a class and imposes extraordinary sanctions and restrictions upon them, but does not consider the merits of the complaint itself. In CA, judges are elected, and many of their donors are attorneys. This legislation would make it all too easy to force disabled persons out because no one would ever voluntarily defend a disabled person in court.
photo
cimmereo
manu ad ferram
02:27 PM on 04/30/2012
Senator Leahy is right when he says the courts have become too pro-corporation. I just had a nasty experience in the Los Angeles court system where I learned this the hard way. There is no justice there for the small guy, even if he manages to get a contingency-based lawyer. You are victimized twice: once by the corporation's hellions and once by the judicial system that is supposed to look out for the "little guy".
09:55 PM on 05/01/2012
Senator Leahy is never right.
01:16 PM on 04/30/2012
Bringing jobs back to America One Veteran at a time.

A company named Workspace Communications has created the Workspace Warrior Initiative whereas companies who outsource jobs offshore can bring a small percentage back and employ military veterans and their families. These are the higher paying jobs like tech support, product support and customer retention. The positions are staffed virtually from the veteran’s home in order to employ remote and disabled veterans including caretaker family members. With all the Federal and state(s) tax credits available including training, the cost per hour is just slightly above what companies are paying offshore.

Vets2Work is asking all veterans to identify local businesses that outsource offshore and ask them to bring back a small percentage and hire military veterans. We feel that this small contribution will grow after these companies see the benefits of US veterans over offshore employees.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Izzy66
Agree to Disagree
12:34 PM on 04/30/2012
The Greed of these 'American' Corporations knows no bounds.
If they choose to provide facilities and operations overseas instead of in the U.S.
If they prefer to hire foreign - thus cheaper - workers instead of U.S. Labor
If they do everything possible to prevent paying taxes to the country that provides the Military to protect their interests abroad
If they don't even have any measure of decency left for the wounded soldiers that have given their all....

Then why are these Corporations still called "American?"
For the governmental subsidies and tax breaks. Talk about Parasites....