I’m very pleased with the actions of our U.S. House of Representatives and its; apparent commitment to people with disabilities.  A House subcommittee is currently considering a bill entitled the Ada Restoration Act of 2007.  The purpose of this proposed legislation is to restore the protection of the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) to the original protections mandated by the ADA when first enacted in 1990.

Why should this be necessary, you may wonder?  Well, regrettably it’s necessary because our Courts have consistently eroded the intent of Congress with respect to judicial rulings concerning people with disabilities protected under the definitions and provisions of the ADA.  Courts have narrowed the scope of the definition of “disability” under the ADA, and Congress is attempting to restore what has been lost.

Of course, not everyone is happy about it.  For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes such a move saying that “the bill would change the definition of "disability" so that any individual with an impairment such as poor eyesight correctible by wearing glasses-would be considered disabled and would trigger the employer's duty to accommodate.”    The fact is, according to a longtime attorney who has litigated ADA claims, the Courts have limited the inclusion of people who clearly have a disability, and such individuals are now, by judicial interpretation excluded from protection under the ADA.

The second objection, by the Chamber of Commerce is that employers should have the right to determine the “essential functions” of each position within their company.  The ADA, and the ADA Restoration Act of 2007, to my knowledge, have never interfered with such determinations.  Employers have every right to make decisions about the work-related tasks that employees are asked to perform as long as those work-related task requirements are not applied unfairly and preclude people with disabilities from employment, based on their disability.

MY DAILY REFLECTION:

When discussing the merits of the ADA Restoration Act of 2007, I think it’s important to remember one thing.  Employers and businesses need to realize that if there were no discrimination against hiring or providing access  to services for people with disabilities, there would not have been a need for the ADA in the first place.  I have personally been told by an employer that they will not hire anyone with a disability.  Those comments were made prior to the enactment of the ADA.  Also, I have experienced blatant misrepresentation, on the part of an employer, who tried to make me believe that a Federal agency classified blindness as creating a danger in the work-place.  Fortunately, I knew such statements were a misrepresentation.  I pursued employment all the way to the regional corporate offices; and I was eventually hired.  The reason I was hired, I’m certain, was because of my potential ADA claim.  Without that potential ADA claim, that employer would have been able to engage in discriminatory hiring practices, unimpeded.  I say, thank goodness for the ADA and the ADA Restoration Act of 2007.

God’s blessing to all who read this.

Enjoy the splendor of truth on EWTN.