Corrective Justice and Title I of the ADA

S. Hoffman
{"title":"Corrective Justice and Title I of the ADA","authors":"S. Hoffman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.386641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several recent studies have shown that employment discrimination plaintiffs filing lawsuits in federal court under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) win only approximately five percent of their cases. This Article argues that this phenomenon is attributable at least in part to the ADA's very flawed definition of the term \"disability.\" It suggests that the current definition be abandoned and that a new approach be adopted, one that would reshape the ADA's protected class so that it more closely resembles a discrete and insular minority, such as those traditionally protected by the civil rights laws. While Title I of the ADA embraces the goals of participatory and distributive justice for all individuals with disabilities, these objectives should be subordinated to the goal of providing corrective justice for those who commonly suffer discrimination. \"Individuals with disabilities\" should be redefined as those with mental or physical impairments that have been targeted for systematic discrimination by public policy or widespread private practice. The ADA should further authorize the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to develop an exclusive list of covered impairments and categories of conditions that are known to be associated with discrimination, such as mental illness, disfigurement, and paralysis. The proposed definition and the list of covered categories would provide much clearer guidance to plaintiffs, employers, and the courts and would significantly enhance the efficacy of Title I of the ADA.","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American University law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.386641","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Several recent studies have shown that employment discrimination plaintiffs filing lawsuits in federal court under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) win only approximately five percent of their cases. This Article argues that this phenomenon is attributable at least in part to the ADA's very flawed definition of the term "disability." It suggests that the current definition be abandoned and that a new approach be adopted, one that would reshape the ADA's protected class so that it more closely resembles a discrete and insular minority, such as those traditionally protected by the civil rights laws. While Title I of the ADA embraces the goals of participatory and distributive justice for all individuals with disabilities, these objectives should be subordinated to the goal of providing corrective justice for those who commonly suffer discrimination. "Individuals with disabilities" should be redefined as those with mental or physical impairments that have been targeted for systematic discrimination by public policy or widespread private practice. The ADA should further authorize the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to develop an exclusive list of covered impairments and categories of conditions that are known to be associated with discrimination, such as mental illness, disfigurement, and paralysis. The proposed definition and the list of covered categories would provide much clearer guidance to plaintiffs, employers, and the courts and would significantly enhance the efficacy of Title I of the ADA.
矫正司法和《美国残疾人法》第一章
最近的几项研究表明,根据《美国残疾人法》第一章向联邦法院提起的就业歧视诉讼中,只有大约5%的原告胜诉。本文认为,这种现象至少部分归因于《美国残疾人法》对“残疾”一词的定义存在很大缺陷。它建议放弃当前的定义,采用一种新的方法,这种方法将重塑《美国残疾人法》的受保护阶层,使其更接近于一个离散的、孤立的少数群体,比如那些传统上受民权法保护的群体。虽然《美国残疾人法》第一章包含了为所有残疾人提供参与和分配正义的目标,但这些目标应该服从于为那些普遍遭受歧视的人提供纠正正义的目标。“残疾人”应该被重新定义为那些有精神或身体缺陷的人,他们是公共政策或广泛的私人行为的系统性歧视的目标。《美国残疾人法》应进一步授权平等就业机会委员会(EEOC)制定一份已知与歧视有关的残疾和疾病类别的独家清单,如精神疾病、毁容和瘫痪。拟议的定义和涵盖类别的清单将为原告、雇主和法院提供更明确的指导,并将大大增强《美国残疾人法》第一章的效力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信