As many of you may already know, today is the 20^th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); one of the few good things Papa Bush ever did. The ADA essentially built on protections granted on the federal level through the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, extending those protections to the private sector. Here in California, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (passed in 1959, before the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964; sometimes the states get ahead of the federal government…) and the Disabled Persons Act (passed in 1968), both of which preceded federal legislation, also provide legal equality and protections for the disabled. The state and “internal” federal laws (the Rehab Act’s sections, especially 503 and 504, applied to agencies and institutions receiving federal funding, but did not apply to the private sector at all) dovetailed with the ADA’s broader reach to cover just about all of the possibilities in our society, both private and public.

Of course, there were and are glaring exceptions, especially where closed captioning was concerned. Quite a few organizations and groups, from Caption Action (and now Caption Action II) to the NAD are working hard to remedy this. But in general, the ADA theoretically promised that legally discrimination was not permitted, and that equal access to housing, employment, and other vital aspects of life is to be guaranteed.

The reality has been far from perfect. The ADA has been put to the test over the years, and the first few years were uncertain, especially as the first cases wound their way through the courts. Even now, cases continue to be filed, and the decisions handed down by the judges shaped the ADA, either broadening, or more often, narrowing the scope of the law.

What was promised in theory, and what is on the books in legal language, hasn’t translated into true equality for disabled people, including the deaf. One area I get frustrated with is employment. Yes, theoretically we are supposed to have equal access for consideration when applying for jobs, we are supposed to be provided interpreting services at all steps in the employment process, and in the jobs thereafter (assuming we get hired!), and we are supposed to have equal opportunities for job mobility, instead of hitting the famous glass ceiling.

But the reality is, things are far from ideal. Unemployment/underemployment continues to be high in our community, and those that do get hired often don’t advance. Employers balk at providing interpreters, or try to find ways to squirm out of having to interview people. Even when the hiring manager or actual on-site manager is receptive, their supervisor or the company senior management decline the opportunity to interview/hire us.

Today, there are many articles and retrospectives on the ADA. But some are more blunt than others. In an opinion piece for CNN (worth reading in its entirety), Joni Eareckson Tada noted that

The U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor reported that in 2004, plaintiffs lost 97 percent of ADA employment discrimination claims that went to trial. “People who are not hired or are fired because an employer mistakenly believes they cannot perform the job — or because the employer does not want ‘people like that’ in the workplace — have been denied protection from employment discrimination due to these court decisions,” the committee’s report stated.

97%. That means that virtually all employment discrimination claims were denied. How are we supposed to make inroads when even the courtroom decisions are against us?

Part of the problem is that you can write as much legislation as you want, you can finesse the wording to your liking, you can penalize employers to the max, but you can’t change human behavior. You can, but it will take a lot of work and effort. Eareckson Tada notes this in her essay, and I agree. It often will come down to the personal background, experiences, and attitudes of the actual managers, employees, and human resources staff in each individual business, whether independently owned or a corporate franchise.

This becomes a problem, because for every certain number of great potential workers who are out there, there are a smaller but more vital number of people who are bad workers, terrible representatives of the community. The difficulty is that far too many people out there are still prone to stereotypes, and one bad experience often translates into a refusal to consider hiring another deaf person (or another blind person, another person in a wheelchair, another person with CP, mental retardation, a medical condition such as diabetes, etc., etc.). It doesn’t help that in retail or other corporate businesses where turnover is high and pay is low, too many people with limited intelligence and imagination can’t wrap their minds around alternatives that would permit the deaf person (or blind, wheelchair-bound, CP, etc., etc.) to be employed.

I’ve discussed the issue of employment before, in a personal rant (sad to say, my opinion at the time could’ve been written today, and is still 100% true; nothing has changed since I originally posted it), and the challenge I posted is still the same: employers will end up paying for us, one way or another; either they will hire us and pay our salaries, with the result that we are productive, tax-paying citizens, or they will pay their share of the fund that provides assistance: SSI, SSDI, SDI, and other forms of welfare.

There’s other flaws in the ADA, yes, and other areas where improvements need to be made (I’m still seeing a few hotels and motels that have non-captioned TVs (yes, some places still have sets that are more than 17 years old!), or do not have “ADA kits), but employment is a big one (and worthy of a post of its own).

Let’s hope the next media-worthy “significant” anniversary, the 25^th, brings us real reason to cheer. As a friend noted earlier today, “Happy Birthday, ADA. Someday you will be taken seriously.”