- IdiomaAfrikaans Argentina AzÉrbaycanca
á¥áá áá£áá Äesky Ãslenska
áá¶áá¶ááááá à¤à¥à¤à¤à¤£à¥ বাà¦à¦²à¦¾
தமிழ௠à²à²¨à³à²¨à²¡ ภาษาà¹à¸à¸¢
ä¸æ (ç¹é«) ä¸æ (é¦æ¸¯) Bahasa Indonesia
Brasil Brezhoneg CatalÃ
ç®ä½ä¸æ Dansk Deutsch
Dhivehi English English
English Español Esperanto
Estonian Finnish Français
Français Gaeilge Galego
Hrvatski Italiano Îλληνικά
íêµì´ LatvieÅ¡u Lëtzebuergesch
Lietuviu Magyar Malay
Nederlands Norwegian nynorsk Norwegian
Polski Português RomânÄ
Slovenšcina Slovensky Srpski
Svenska Türkçe Tiếng Viá»t
Ù¾Ø§Ø±Ø³Û æ¥æ¬èª ÐÑлгаÑÑки
ÐакедонÑки Ðонгол Ð ÑÑÑкий
СÑпÑки УкÑаÑнÑÑка ×¢×ר×ת
اÙعربÙØ© اÙعربÙØ©
Inicio / Álbums / Etiquetas mental disabilities
+ discrimination 2
ADAPT (611)
THE DENVER POST Saturday, September 9, 1989 [Headline] New disabled-rights bill will challenge society By Charles Green Knight-Ridder News Service WASHINGTON — When Congress banned discrimination against blacks 25 years ago, the premise of the legislation was straightforward: Blacks and other racial minorities were supposed to be treated like everyone else. Now, as Congress moves to prohibit bias against the physically and mentally disabled, it is finding that discrimination is not so easy to define. ls it discriminatory, for instance, for a department store to stock merchandise that is out of reach of a customer in a wheelchair? Is it discriminatory for an employer to reject blind job applicants who would need someone to occasionally read memos and papers to them? Is it discriminatory for a child-care center to refuse to hire someone infected with the AIDS virus? Those are some of the questions that government regulators and the courts are likely to be addressing once the Americans with Disabilities Act, which passed the Senate Thursday night, becomes law. “In terms of its impact on American society, this is going to bring an equal if not greater change to society than the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” predicted the bill’s chief Senate sponsor, Democrat Tom Harkin of Iowa. But reconciling the sweeping promises of the new legislation with the economic realities of modern American life won't be easy. “I’m not sure we're not going to be revisiting this legislation" after its effects are better known, predicted Sen. Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee. The legislation still must clear the House and be signed by President Bush, but few obstacles are expected. Bush has already endorsed the measure and House sponsors predict swift consideration, starting with hearings next week. The bill holds both enormous promise for the estimated 43 million disabled Americans and countless questions for the employers, business establishments and transit operators that would have to comply with it. The bill’s promise stems from its rationale: that disabled Americans can participate more fully in society if barriers to their participation are removed. “It will be the legal and philosophical foundation on which to build a truly equal opportunity society," said Justin Dart, chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities. “Equal opportunity for the disabled is wonderful. Nobody is going to argue with that, but the practical realities are that there will be large costs associated with that,” said Nancy Fulco, an attorney with the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. And, as Fulco noted, Congress wants businesses to pick up the costs. Thus far, it has included no financial assistance or tax breaks to help firms comply with the expense of complying with the disabilities bill. The bill requires employers to make workplace changes to accommodate disabled employees unless they would cause an “undue hardship." But the determination of “hardship” is left for regulators and the courts to decide. Likewise, businesses must be made accessible to disabled customers so long as the alterations are “readily achievable,” another standard that will be left for regulators and courts to determine. The changes won't be required at once. Many provisions will not take effect for two years after enactment. Even so, it could take years for businesses to sort out what’s required and for the disabled to begin feeling the impact of the law. “There's no doubt in my mind that the first time some businesses find out about this is when they‘re slapped with a lawsuit," said Fulco. "Small businesses will have to hire an attorney to tell them what they should be doing or not doing.“
ADAPT (601)
THE DENVER POST / NATIONAL Friday: September 9, 1989 [Headline] Senate approves bill to guarantee rights of disabled By Knight-Rldder News Service WASHINGTON — An estimated 43 million America with disabilities won a major victory last night as the Senate approved a landmark bill aimed at moving them into the nation’s social and economic mainstream. The Senate, on a 76-to-8 vote, passed legislation that would extend for the first time sweeping civil rights protections to persons with hearing impairments, epilepsy, AIDS and dozens of other physical and mental disabilities. The measure, which now goes to the House for expected approval, would ban discrimination in the hiring of the disabled; require businesses, shops and transit systems to make their facilities more accessible to the wheelchair-bound; and force telephone companies to provide special operators for the deaf. The bill was endorsed last month by President Bush, and administration lobbyists joined advocates for the disabled yesterday in opposing efforts to modify the legislation to meet business objections that it will be too costly to small firms. Business leaders warned that the measure could put some employers out of business if.they were required to make expensive structural changes in their buildings to accommodate disabled customers and workers. Critics also said the compliance provisions of the bill were vague and would result in years of litigation in federal courts over what constituted discrimination against the disabled. Major provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act would: * Prohibit employers from discriminating against qualified job applicants with disabilities. Changes to accommodate the disabled in the workplace would be required unless they would cause an “undue hardship," a term critics say is too vague. * Require new business establishments to be accessible to the disabled and require existing establishments be made accessible if the alterations are “readily achievable." * Require new buses and trains to be equipped with wheelchair lifts. * Require telephone companies to provide operators who could relay messages from the deaf to hearing individuals. Deaf persons can communicate with each other by telephone now by using Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDDs), but can't communicate with people who don't have the TDDs. “We’re not asking for special treatment," said Pat Wright, government affairs director of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Inc. “Whether it’s putting a ramp in or providing a reasonable accommodation in employment, it makes you equal, not special." The bill, as originally written, would have exempted Congress from its provisions — but that exemption was deleted during debate. And in another concession to the intense interest of the disabled in the measure, the Senate for the first time allowed an interpreter using sign language to translate the televised proceedings of the floor debate so that the deaf and hearing impaired could follow the action. Extending civil rights protections to people with AIDS or the AIDS virus had been recommended by a Reagan administration commission on AIDS, but was opposed by President Reagan himself. Bush, however, has supported the protection. The bill bars employment discrimination against persons with AIDS but does permit employers to deny jobs if the employee poses a significant risk of transmitting the infection to others. However, homosexuals are not covered by the legislation. They can still be discriminated against solely on the basis of their sexuality. After an inquiry by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., sponsors agreed to delete transvestites from nation protections. Helms also raised questions about providing protection to schizophrenics, manic-depressives and psychotics, but their status remained intact in the measure.