- តម្រៀបតាមលំដាប់លំនាំដើម
ចំណងជើងរូបថត, A → Z
ចំណងជើងរូបថត, Z → A
ថ្ងៃដែលបានបង្កើត, ថ្មី → ចាស់
✔ ថ្ងៃដែលបានបង្កើត, ចាស់ → ថ្មី
ថ្ងៃដែលបានដាក់ផ្សាយ, ថ្មី → ចាស់
ថ្ងៃដែលបានដាក់ផ្សាយ, ចាស់ → ថ្មី
ពិន្ទុនៃការវាយតម្លៃ, ខ្ពស់ → ទាប
ពិន្ទុនៃការវាយតម្លៃ, ទាប → ខ្ពស់
ចំនួនអ្នកទស្សនា, ខ្ពស់ → ទាប
ចំនួនអ្នកទស្សនា, ទាប → ខ្ពស់ - ភាសាAfrikaans 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©
ទំព័រដើម / សៀវភៅរូបថតទាំងអស់ / ស្លាក discrimination 17
- 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 (708)
Chicago Defender, Thursday May 14, 1992 ADAPT shuts down Illinois center ADAPT protests budget cuts by Dobie Holland Hundreds of wheelchair-bound demonstrators shut down the State of Illinois Center after they converged on the building Wednesday to protest the impending budget cuts in the Home care program for the disabled. The shut down occurred after members of the Americans Disabled for Attendant Programs Today (ADAPT) were denied access to the governor’s 16th floor offices. The group retaliated with a blockade of escalators and elevators. Although ADAPT members faced barricades outside the center, once they had stormed inside, security police operating the elevators refused to allow most of the wheelchair-bound protesters upstairs. Mike Ervin, one of the Chicago coordinators for ADAPT, said they had no choice but to block the paths of pedestrians in the building by setting up wheelchair blockades of escalators and elevators in the center. They demanded a meeting with the governor. Gov. Jim Edgar was in Springfield but it was not clear by the Chicago Defender's press deadline if he would meet with the group. Gary Mack, a spokesman for the governor, said the State of Illinois has one the most “liberal programs" in the country for the disabled and cuts are being made “across the board” in the wake of a severe budget deficit. Mack said the program will lose $3 million — “a small amount" — a reduction from $68 million to $65 million. Mack added the governor was not responsible for denying the protesters access to the elevators. "They (security) have been trying to keep this place operating," Mack said. “But as l understand it, we are letting some people up here (on the 16th floor). One oi those people allowed up in the elevators to sit in the governor’s 16th floor lobby was Paulette Patterson. Patterson, who was not a member of the protest group, said she was denied access to the elevators on Tuesday when she came to the building to eat breakfast. Patterson, 35, of Chicago, said she has filed a discrimination suit against the state because she was not allowed free passage through the building “simply because I was in a wheelchair. “l was not with this group before,” she said. “But I am a member now." Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, commenting on the conflict between security personnel and protesters, said during a Tuesday press conference: “My job is not to judge anybody but to make sure no one's rights have been violated."