The Americans with Disability Act ADA

History and Background

The law is one of the America’s most comprehensive civic rights laws that prevents
discrimination of individuals regarding their disabilities and provides these individuals with the
same rights and equal opportunities as any other mainstream American to enjoy employment
opportunities, purchase goods and services, and participate in both local and state government
programs and services (Cooper & Friedman PLLC, 2017).
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law and enforced by president
George H. W. Bush in the year 1990 (Lussier & Hendon, 2013).

Major Components of the ADA

Enacted in 1990, and amended in 2008 by P.L. 110-325
the ADA is a civil rights statute that has as its purpose “to provide a clear and comprehensive
national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.”

Observations on the ADA

The impact of this law in the workplace is that the and condition as confidential

(Gunderson, 2014). Correspondingly, the

Employer must treat medical history of disabled employees confidentially.

Employers must provide data of disabled individuals to unions for proper representation.

Employer must adjust their business models to accommodate disabled employees.

The ADA can also detrimental to the company’s precious time.

with relevant data to repre

sent membership of. Additionally, the company/employer must find ways to. This is why I

believe the ADA is important especially for the disabled workforce but it can be detrimental to

the company’s precious time.

Court Case on ADA

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 15-497
In a suit brought by parents of Stacy Fry, a child with a severe form of cerebral palsy,
challenging a kindergarten's refusal to permit her trained service dog to join the child in school,
alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The Frys' complaint alleges only disability-based discrimination, without making any reference
to the adequacy of the special education services E. F.'s school provided.
 The District Court granted the school districts' motion to dismiss the suit, holding that §1415(l)
required the Frys to first exhaust the IDEA's administrative procedures. See App. to Pet. for Cert.
50.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) offers federal funds to States in
exchange for a commitment to furnish a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE) to children
with certain disabilities, 20 U. S. C. §1412(a)(1)(A)
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed on the same ground. In
that court's view, §1415(l) applies if "the injuries [alleged in a suit] relate to the specific
substantive protections of the IDEA." 788 F. 3d 622, 625 (2015). And that means, the court
continued, that exhaustion is necessary whenever "the genesis and the manifestations" of the
complained-of harms were "educational" in nature. Id., at 627 (quoting Charlie F. v. Board of
Ed. of Skokie School Dist. 68, 98 F. 3d 989, 993 (CA7 1996)). On that understanding of §1415(l),
the Sixth Circuit held, the Frys' suit could not proceed: Because the harms to E. F. were
generally "educational"--most notably, the court reasoned, because "Wonder's absence hurt her
sense of independence and social confidence at school"--the Frys had to exhaust the IDEA's
procedures. 788 F. 3d, at 627. Judge Daughtrey dissented, emphasizing that in bringing their
Title II and §504 claims, the Frys "did not allege the denial of a FAPE" or "seek to modify
[E. F.'s] IEP in any way." Id., at 634.

References
PUBLIC LAW 110–325—SEPT. 25, 2008
‘‘ADA Amendments Act of 2008’