This paper explores the definitional problems of visual handicaps, especially in terms of the legal definition of blindness. A brief history is given of the laws concerning visually handicapped people, and a discussion of case law describes legal precedent. A final section presents suggestions for strengthening the legal position of visually handicapped people in future litigation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, P.L. 90-480, amended through 1978 (42 U.S.C. § 4151 et seq.).
Atascedero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed. 2d 171 (1985).
4.
BallardJ. (N.D.) Public Law 94-142 and Section 504: Understanding what they are and what they are not.Reston, VA: Governmental Relations Unit, Council for Exceptional Children.
5.
Bevan v. New York State Teacher's Retirement System, 74 Misc. 2d 443,345 N.Y.S. 2d/921, mod. 355 N.Y.S. 2d 185, 187-188 (App. Div. 1974).
6.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 102 S.Ct. 3034 (1982).
7.
Borden v. Rohr, No. C2 75-844, Excerpts of Proceedings, Dec. 30, 1975 (U.S. Dist. Ct. 5, Dist. Ohio, East Div.).
CarrollT. (1961). Blindness: What it is, what it does, and how to live with it.Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
13.
Chavich v. Board of Examiners of the Board of Education of the City of New York, 23 A.D. 2d 57, 67-68, 258 N.Y.S. 2d 677, 678, supra. aff'd 16 N.Y. 2d 510, 263 N.Y.S. 2d 7, 210 N.E. 2d 359. (1965).
14.
Cincinnati Association for the Blind v. National Labor Relations Board, 672 F. 2d 567 (1982).
15.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1.
16.
Coleman v. Darden, 13 E.P.D. (D. Colo. 1977) aff'd 595 F. 2d 533 (10th Cir.).
17.
Connecticut Institute for the Blind v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, 176 Conn. 88, 405 A. 2d 618 (1978).
18.
CutsforthT. (1951). The blind in school and society.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
19.
Department of Labor, Bulletin #112 (1950). Proceedings of the National Conference on Workmen's Compensation and Rehabilitation, 8, 19.
20.
Department of Labor, Bulletin #234 (1961). Workmen's Compensation and the Physically Handicapped Worker.5, 6–8, 10, 20.
21.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.
22.
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company. (1982). Equal to the task.
23.
Facts about handicapped people.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, no date.
24.
Federal Register, August 4, 1982. 47 (150); 36 C.F.R. Part 1190. (accessibility specifications)
25.
Fischer v. Wisconsin Dept. of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, 19 E.P.D. 9010 (Wisc. Cir. Ct. 1979).
26.
GreenwoodL. (1949). Shots in the dark.Blind Veterans’ Bulletin.
27.
Gurmankin v. Costanzo, 411 F. Supp. 982 (E.D.Pa. 1976), aff'd 556 F. 2d 184 (3d Cir. 1977).
28.
Hairston v. Drosick, 423 F. Supp. 180, 184-185 (S.D. W. Va. 1976).
KirchnerC. (1985). Data on blindness and visual impairment in the U.S.: A resource manual on characteristics, education, employment and service delivery.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
33.
KirchnerC., and GreensteinZ. (1984). Statistical Brief #28: Networks for employment of blind and visually impaired persons: A review, with findings for AFB's “Job Index.”Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 78(6).
34.
KirchnerC., and PetersonR. (1979). Statistical Brief #5: Employment: Selected characteristics.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 73(6).
35.
KirchnerC., and PetersonR. (1980). Statistical Brief #9: Worktime, occupational status, and annual earnings: An assessment of underemployment.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 74(5).
36.
KirchnerC., and PetersonR. (1981). Statistical Brief #16: Trends and latest policy changes in social security programs for blind persons.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75(9).
37.
Levy v. City of New York, 38 N.Y. 2d 653, 382 N.Y.S. 2d 13, 345 N.E. 2d 556 (1976).
38.
LuckoffI., CohenO. (1972). Attitudes toward blind persons.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
39.
LukoffI., and WhitemanM. (1969). The social sources of adjustment to blindness. (Research Series No. 21). New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
40.
MonbeckM. (1975). The meaning of blindness.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
41.
National Council on the Handicapped. (1986). Toward independence: An assessment of federal laws and programs affecting persons with disabilities—with legislative recommendations. (Document #052-003-01022-4) Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
42.
National Labor Relations Board v. Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston, 653 F. 2d 206 (1981).
43.
Neeld v. National Hockey League, 439 F. Supp. 459 (W.D.N.Y. 1977), 594 F. 2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1979).
44.
PumoB. (1984). The future is now: Preparing the blind and visually impaired for employment in the computer age.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 78(3).
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, P.L. 93-112, 29 U.S.C amended through 1978, 87 Stat. 381.
47.
Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, P.L. 95-602 §314, 52 Stat. 2975; 29 U.S.C. 777(d) Supp. III (1979).
48.
ScaddenL. (1984). Blindness in the information age: Equality or irony.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 78(9).
49.
ScottR. (1981). The making of blind men.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
50.
Social Security Act of 1935, 42 U.S.C. 1382c (benefits—1976); originally P.L. 74-271, 49 Stat. 620, amended to P.L. 90-248 §416(i)(1)(B) in 1968; 42 U.S.C. 9819, 9821, and 1382c.
51.
Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 60 L. Ed. 2d 980 (1979).
