This article offers a glimpse of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) of 1990, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), at its 30th anniversary. It considers current issues before the courts, primarily legal cases from 2020 and 2021, and new questions in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, such the latitude of the ADA’s antidiscrimination protections and its definition of disability. It provides a quick primer on the basics of the ADA: employment discrimination under Title I, antidiscrimination mandates for state and local governments under Title II, and commands to places of accommodation offering services to the public under Title III. The ADA at 30 remains a beacon for a future in which all people, regardless of individual difference, will be welcomed as full and equal members of society.
AbrahamK.HousemanS. (2019). The importance of informal work in supplementing household income. Employment Research, 26(4), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.17848/1075-8445.26(4)-2
2.
Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago v. Uber Technologies, 958 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 2020).
3.
AliM.SchurL.BlanckP. (2011). What types of jobs do people with disabilities want?Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 199–210.
4.
BagenstosS. (2020). Who gets the ventilator? Disability discrimination in COVID-19 medical-rationing protocols. Yale Law Journal Forum, 130, 1–25.
Bell v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, 972 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2020).
7.
Berardelli v. Allied Services Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, 900 F.3d 104 (3d Cir. 2018).
8.
BlanckP. (2001). Civil War pensions and disability. Ohio State Law Journal, 62, 109–249.
9.
BlanckP. (2008). Flattening the (inaccessible) cyber world for people with disabilities. Assistive Technology, 20(3), 175–180.
10.
BlanckP. (2014). eQuality: The struggle for web accessibility by persons with cognitive disabilities. Cambridge University Press.
11.
BlanckP. (2016). The first “A” in the ADA: And 25 more “A”s toward equality for Americans with disabilities. Inclusion, 4(1), 46–51.
12.
BlanckP. (2017a). Disability in prison. University of Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 26(2), 309–322.
13.
BlanckP. (2017b). Web accessibility for people with cognitive impairments: A legal right? In SteinM.LazarJ. (Eds.), Global inclusion: Disability, human rights, and information technology (pp. 41–57). University of Pennsylvania Press.
14.
BlanckP. (2019). Why American is better off because of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the individuals with disabilities education act. Touro Law Review, 35, 605–618.
15.
BlanckP. (2020a). Disability inclusive employment and the accommodation principle: Emerging issues in research, policy, and law. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 30, 505–510.
16.
BlanckP. (2020b). Disability law and policy. Foundation Press.
17.
BlanckP. (2021). Thirty years of the Americans With Disabilities Act: Law students and lawyers as plaintiffs and advocates. N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change, 45, 8–24.
18.
BlanckP.Abdul-MalakY.AdyaM.HyseniF.KilleenM.Altunkol WiseF. (2020). Diversity and inclusion in the legal profession: Preliminary findings from a national study of lawyers with disabilities. University of the District of Columbia Law Review, 23, 23–87.
19.
BlanckP.FlynnE. (Eds.). (2017). Routledge handbook of disability law and human rights. Taylor & Francis.
20.
BlanckP.HarpurP. (2020). California’s response to the status of gig workers with disabilities: An update. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 30, 689–690.
21.
BlanckP.HyseniF.Altunkol WiseF. (2020). Diversity and inclusion in the legal profession: Workplace accommodations for lawyers with disabilities and lawyers who identify as LGBTQ+. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 30, 537–564.
22.
BlanckP.HyseniF.Altunkol WiseF. (2021). Diversity and inclusion in the legal profession: Discrimination and bias reported in a national study of lawyers with disabilities and lawyers who identify as LGBTQ+. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 46, 21–53.
23.
BlanckP.MartinisJ. (2015). “The right to make choices”: National resource center for supported decision-making. Inclusion, 3(1), 24–33.
24.
BlanckP.MartinisJ. (2019). “The right to make choices”: Supported decision-making activities in the United States. In Pereña VicenteM. (Ed.), The will of the protected person: Opportunities, risks and safeguards (pp. 27–38). University of Madrid.
25.
BlanckP.RotellaM. (2017). Universal design and people with disabilities: “Destiny arms,” a global universal design commission living laboratory. Numbers Magazine by Kreab, 19, 59–61. (In Spanish and English)
26.
BlanckP.SchurL.KruseD.SchwochauS. (2003). Calibrating the impact of the ADA’s employment provisions. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 14, 267–290.
27.
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998).
28.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
GouskovaE. (2020). Why self-employment rates are higher among people with work limitations. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 31(1), 15–25.
49.
Guerra v. West Los Angeles College, 808 Fed. Appx. 467 (9th Cir. 2020).
50.
Guerra v. West Los Angeles College, 812 Fed. Appx. 612 (9th Cir. 2021) (Order and Amended Memorandum).
51.
Hamer v. City of Trinidad, 924 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. City of Trinidad v. Hamer, 140 S. Ct. 644 (2019).
52.
HarpurP.BlanckP. (2020). Gig workers with disabilities: Opportunities, challenges, and regulatory response. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 30, 511–520.
53.
HarpurP.BlanckP. (2021). Workplace COVID-19 health surveillance and algorithmic disability discrimination. Journal of Cancer Survivorship. In Press.
54.
HarpurP.ConnollyU.BlanckP. (2017). Hierarchies of impairments at work in Australian and Irish workers access to compensation for injuries. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 27(4), 507–519.
55.
Heit v. Aerotek, 726 F. App’x. 648 (9th Cir. 2018).
56.
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012).
57.
HyseniF.BlanckP. (2021). Diversity and inclusion in the legal profession: Disclosure by lawyers with disabilities and lawyers who identify as LGBTQ+. Journal of Cancer Survivorship. In Press.
58.
Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco v. Lyft, 2020 WL 6462390 (N. Dist. Calif. 2020).
JesteD.EglitG.PalmerB.MartinisJ.BlanckP.SaksE. (2018). An overview of supported decision in serious mental illnesses. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 81(1), 28–40.
61.
Jones v. McDonough, 2021 WL 964045 (M. Dist. Tenn. 2021).
62.
Kotaska v. Federal Express Corporation, 966 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2020).
63.
LawsonA. (2007). The United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: New era or false dawn. Syracuse Journal International Law and Commerce, 34, 593–595.
64.
LogueL.BlanckP. (2010). Race, ethnicity, and disability: Veterans and benefits in post-Civil War America. Cambridge University Press.
65.
LogueL.BlanckP. (2018). Heavy laden: Union veterans, psychological illness, and suicide. Cambridge University Press.
66.
LogueL.BlanckP. (2020). Before the accommodation principle: Disability and employment among union army veterans. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 30, 565–574.
67.
MartinisJ.BlanckP. (2019). Supported decision-making: From justice for jenny to justice for all. Something Else Solutions Press.
68.
MartinisJ.HarrisJ.FoxD.BlanckP. (2021). State guardianship laws and supported decision-making in the United States: Analysis and implications for research, education, and advocacy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073211028586
69.
Mayle v. City of Chicago, 803 Fed. Appx. 31 (7th Cir. 2020).
70.
McCray v. Wilkie, 966 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2020).
71.
Merrill v. People First of Alabama, 141 S. Ct. 190 (2020).
72.
MorrisM.GoodmanN.BakerA.PalmoreK.BlanckP. (2019). Closing the disability gap: Reforming the community reinvestment act regulatory framework. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, XXVI(3), 347–374.
73.
MorrisM.RodriguezC.BlanckP. (2016). ABLE accounts: A down payment on freedom. Inclusion, 4(1), 21–29.
SchartzH.SchartzK.HendricksD. J.BlanckP. (2006). Workplace accommodations: Empirical study of current employees. Mississippi Law Journal, 75, 917–943.
92.
SchurL.AmeriM.KruseD. (2020). Telework after COVID: A “Silver lining” for workers with disabilities?Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 30, 521–536.
93.
SchurL.HanK.KimA.AmeriM.AdyaM.BlanckP.KruseD. (2017). Disability at work: A look back and forward. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 27(4), 482–497.
94.
SchurL.KruseD.BlanckP. (2005). Corporate culture and the employment of people with disabilities. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(1), 3–20.
95.
SchurL.KruseD.BlanckP. (2013). People with disabilities: Sidelined or mainstreamed?Cambridge University Press.
96.
SchurL.NishiiL.AdyaM.KruseD.BruyèreS.BlanckP. (2014). Accommodating employees with and without disabilities. Human Resource Management, 53(4), 593–621.
97.
ShogrenK.WehmeyerM.MartinisJ.BlanckP. (2019). Supported decision-making: Theory, research, and practice to enhance self-determination. Cambridge University Press.
98.
Silva v. Baptist Health South Florida, 856 F.3d 824 (11th Cir. 2017).
99.
Silva v. Baptist Health South Florida, 838 Fed. Appx. 376 (11th Cir. 2020).
100.
SteinM. (2004). Same struggle, different difference: ADA accommodations as antidiscrimination. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1, 579–673.
101.
Taylor v. Burlington Northern Railroad Holdings, 801 Fed. Appx. 477 (9th Cir. 2020).
UyanikH.ShogrenK.BlanckP. (2017). Supported decision-making: Implications from positive psychology for assessment and intervention in rehabilitation and employment. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 27(4), 498–506.
107.
Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797 (5th Cir. 2020).
108.
Waskul v. Washtenaw County Community Mental Health, 979 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2020).
