The American with Disability Act

The American with Disability Act

       INTRODUCTION

Then-president George Bush signed the American with Disability Act (ADA). The purpose of this Act was to reduce discrimination against individuals with perception. The first chapter discussed the accommodation of the disabled in the workplace. That is the employers also to employ disabled people. The president so that it will affect the employers and so he enacted an Act that for the employer with twenty-five employees but later reduced to fifteen employees; hence employers become aware of the ADA. Due to this division of the number of employees in the business, it leads to the ineffectiveness of the Act. The research done shows that the ADA has not achieved its purpose and therefore needs some adjustments to be implemented for its effectiveness in the country. The disabled people were treated as a minority in society. They occupied the minority fields in the business, education, and even in the political spheres.

To understand the relationship between the ADA and the employment rate among disabled people, two central policies are explaining about it.  That is the unintended harm and judicial resistance (Wiener, & Willborn, 2010). The unintentional damage argues that the ADA fails employment by increasing the cost of employing persons with disabilities. The judicial resistance argues that ADA contributed nothing through undermining of the law by the court. Therefore, no force was enforced by the court; hence no action was put into place. The results show that the ADA affects the view of the employees negatively by raising the cost of employing the disabled people in their businesses. While the other one claims that they did not affect the employers since it had no power to be implemented.

Unintended Harm

The unintended harm demotivated the employees from hiring people with disabilities in their organization due to employees’ perception of the high cost of maintaining them. Since it’s the goal of the employer to minimize their cost as low as possible and to maximize their profits. Even before the ADA was enacted, the leadership of the business community we afraid even with current employees with disabilities not only with those who were seeking employment because of the cost (Horowitz, 2014). The research indicates that employers mostly feared people with heart problems and backache.  Also, they were afraid of employing disqualified workers, spend more on catering to the medical bills of them, and suffer more risks associated with disabled people. It resulted in employers refraining from hiring disabled people and as well as firing even the one they have because of the cost of litigating them.

                                                               Judicial Resistance

The judicial resistance argues the role of the court in implementing the discussed law. The ADA eliminates the employers in deciding about the disability status as well as hiring, firing, and accommodating disabled people. They should have allowed the employers to decide on the level at which the disabled should be allowed to participate in the ADA by evaluating the level of their disability to have reasonable conditions which can be controllable in the organization. Then the court argues that if the law was enforced and yet the employers were not involved, they can say that the condition is unfavorable for them and unreasonable for them to handle.

In conclusion, both the unintended harm and the judicial resistance compare the effect of ADA, whether it helped to increase or decrease in employment of the disabled. Therefore, due to the high cost of maintaining the wounded in the organization and lack of participation in the decision making of the employers in the ADA formation, it contributed to the high unemployment rate in the state.

REFERENCES

Horowitz, C. A. (2014). The legislative legacy of Edward M. Kennedy: Eleven milestones in pursuit of social justice, 1965–2007. McFarland.

Wiener, R. L., & Willborn, S. L. (2010). Disability and aging discrimination: Perspectives in law and psychology. Springer Science & Business Media.