The House Committee on Education & Labor's hearing on the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 (H.R. 3195) was well-attended by both Members of Congress as well as advocates.
Who Showed Up:
MEMBERS:
DEMOCRATS (who attended for some or part):
- Robert Andrews (NJ-1)
- Tim Bishop (NY-1)
- Joseph Courtney (CT-2)
- Phil Hare (IL-17)
- Mazie K. Hirono (HI-2)
- Ruben Hionjosa (TX-15)
- Rush Holt (NJ-12)
- Dale Kildee (MI-5)
- Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
- Dave Loebsack (IA-2)
- Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4)
- Donald Payne (NJ-10)
- John Sarbanes (MD-3)
- Joe Sestak (PA-7)
- Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1)
- Lynn Woolsey (CA-6)
- David Wu (OR-1)
- John Yarmuth (KY-3)
REPUBLICANS (who attended for some or part):
- Michael Castle (DE)
- David Davis (TN-1)
- Vernon Ehlers (MI-3)
- John Kline (MN-2)
- Randy Kuhl (NY-29)
- Ranking Member Howard McKeon (CA-25)
- Thomas Petri (WI-6)
- Todd Platts (PA-19)
- Tim Walberg (MI-7)
- Joe Wilson (SC-2)
WITNESSES:
Panel 1 - Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Chief Sponsor of H.R. 3195
Panel 2
- Andrew Imparato, Pres. & CEO, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD)
- Carey McClure, Plaintiff in ADA Lawsuit v. General Motors
- Robert L. Burgdorf, Professor of Law, University of the District of Columbia
- David K. Fram, Esq., Director, National Employment Law Institute
What Went Down:
The House Committee on Education & Labor's hearing on the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 (H.R. 3195) was well-attended by both Members of Congress as well as advocates, who filled the hearing room as well as an overflow room. 27 Members were in attendance.
Opening Remarks
Robert Andrews (D-NJ) chaired the committee in place of Chairman Miller (D-CA), who was delayed in a markup. Andrew began the hearing with opening remarks, referencing some of the most damaging court decisions as "tortured interpretations" of the ADA by the courts.
Next, Ranking Member McKeon (R-CA) gave opening remarks, stating that while the goals of H.R. 3195 are well-intended, he holds concern that protections for those with the most significant disabilities may be "diluted" by the bill, with finite resources spread too thin.
First Panel
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer offered his testimony as the sole Member witness on the first panel. Referencing the ADA as the world's first "declaration of equality" for people with disabilities, Hoyer voiced his dismay with narrow court interpretations of the definition of disability that have weakened the protections the ADA offers as well as his strong support of H.R. 3195 to restore Congress's original intent.
Second Panel
Mr. Andrew Imparato, President and CEO of the American Association (AAPD) testified first on the second witness panel. Mr. Imparato stated that the courts' interpretation of the ADA has made it look more like a disability retirement law than a civil rights law. He referenced the need for the bill in the broader policy context of the discouraging employment rates of people with disabilities as well as other laws like the Social Security Act, which have the effect of penalizing people with disabilities who function well by removing their health care and income supports.
After Mr. Imparato, Carey McClure provided a real-life story of how the Supreme Court's narrow interpretations are affecting everyday people with disabilities in profoundly negative ways. Mr. McClure, who has a form of muscular dystrophy and is an electrician of over 20 years, was offered a job by GM in Texas after passing both a practical and written test. After being offered the job by GM, where his brother and father also worked, Mr. McClure quit his existing job, sold his house in Georgia, and moved his family to Texas. Following a doctor's exam in which his muscular dystrophy was "discovered," his offer of employment was revoked, despite the fact that he had successfully worked as an electrician for over 20 years and had passed both GM tests. When he brought his discrimination case, the courts told him he wasn't "disabled" for purposes of the ADA according to Supreme Court precedent.
Mr. David Fram testified next, acknowledging the need for a legislative fix of problematic court cases but offering opposition to H.R. 3195 and suggesting that far less than the bill would amply address the current problem. Mr. Fram stated that people with chipped teeth or alopecia (male pattern hair loss) would be free to bring discrimination claims or requests for accomodations under H.R. 3195. Mr. Fram questioned whether H.R. 3195 made for good policy, referencing his own male pattern baldness and asserting that an employer would be required under H.R. 3195 to give him hair treatments (his claims were addressed and countered in turn by both Members as well as fellow witnesses).
Mr. Robert Burgdorf was last to testify and began his oral remarks by refocusing attention on the thousands of people with disabilities who were told by Congress and the President in 1990 that they would be protected from discrimination by the ADA who have found, like Mr. McClure, that they are not. Mr. Burgdorf provided legal analysis of the bill and gave Members a chart that outlined what Congress had said in writing the original ADA in legislative history and what the courts have said that has directly contradicted each of those statements of intent.
Question and Answer
The question and answer period from Members was robust and at times lively. Chairman Andrews referenced New Jersey's state law, which has a far broader definition of "disability" than does the ADA and said to Mr. Fram that there was no spike in the percentage of claims brought in New Jersey or in other states with broader definitions once the definition was put into place and that claims of a flood of litigation are not founded.
Rep. Kildee commented that it seemed the courts had created a Catch-22 for people with disabilities regarding access to civil rights protections. Mr. Imparato agreed. Mr. Burgdorf added that it's sometimes worse than simply a Catch-22 scenario and asserted that many employers have an incorrect presumption that people are only disabled if their lives are "really messed up."
Rep. Loebsack was particularly interested in how the ADA Restoration Act would benefit returning veterans, referencing his two trips to visit troops in recent times.
Rep. Sarbanes stated that he was "fascinated by the courts' mischief" in how they've managed to create a 180-degree turn away from Congressional intent.
Rep. Payne referenced the lessons he and other Members of Congress had learned from the late Justin Dart, Jr., recalling the panic that naysayers stirred up prior to the passage of the original ADA. Drawing parallels, Payne stated that critics of the legislation were likely creating more hysteria about the fixes needed than was warranted.
Rep. Woolsey took Mr. Fram to task. After referencing her 20 years of human resources experience, she stated that people taking advantage of situations were the exception and not the rule, and that the notion of accomodating baldness was a horrible illustration.
The hearing ended following legal clarification regarding the bill's burden of proof for showing that an individual is qualified for a job. Rep. Andrews stated that Members will have seven days to submit additional questions to the witnesses in writing.
MORE INFO:
- Read Mr. Imparato's testimony
- Read Carey McClure's testimony
- Stay up to date on all breaking ADA Restoration news at the ADA Restoration Blog.
I think it would be helpful for your readers if you acknowledged that I testified that the Sutton triology of cases were inconsistent with legislative history and should be reversed. I testified that individuals should be analyzed without mitigating measures, medication, or behavioral modifications. I also testified that changing the definition of disability to be simply any "impairment" would include sprained ankles, the flu, and any other impairment (not only alopecia). By the way, if alopecia is a medically-recognized impairment, it is indeed the case that it would be covered by the bill (whether or not a legislator happens to like that example).
Posted by: David Fram | January 29, 2008 at 06:45 PM
To Whom This May Concern:
We The People must take back our government & do not vote for people who have special intrest groups in their pockets like the Bush's & Clonton's. We must damand that the auto manufactures compete with world markets & build more fuel efficient vehicles that excede the minimom of 35mpg by 2010.
We must demand that Social Secyrity who we paid into is there when we become unable to work. I lost my left leg below the knee, broke my left hip, received a blood transfussion after the accident in 1983 contaminated with hepatitis C. I now have asthma, & diabetis. I suffer with lower lumbar pain & arthritis in my hips & left knee. I hurt my back while on active duty in the U S Navy. I worked for as long as I could after being discharged rather than apply for Social Security disability right away, & now when I need the benefits my claim gets turned down three times. My claim is now before the appeals board in Falls Church Va. I have been diagnosed with depression between moderate to severe, & have contemplated suicide or doing a Timothy McVey on the Social Security bldg in Falls Church, but I do not wsnt to give the bastards the satisfaction of giving up or leave that legascy behind me. I know a Vietnamese Refugee who is a total drunk who got benefits for depression. I know a guy who robbed a church & pulled a knife on the arresting officer & upon his release from prison he received benefits for diabetis. Hell in Florida he would never get out of prison for attacking a police officer. I served my country for 9 & a half years I I get turned down. What is wrong with this picture. vote wisely this election!
Hillary Clinton says she has been working for change for 35 years! What has changed? A president can't change all that much, it's part of thr checks & balances between the senate, congress, & the president. The president is the commander & chief & he chooses who sits on the supreme court. I want an honorable person as my comander & chief. John McCaine has prooven he is an honorable man. When in the "Hanoi Hilton" when the Vietnamese leaders found out who his father was they tried to release him. He refused saying that their had been men in there longer than him. He told them to release those before him & then he would go. That's guts, thats honor, thats the kind of leader we need in Washington. A man who will not back down to special interest. A man who talks straight, & lives up to his word!
Posted by: Mike Miller | January 29, 2008 at 08:19 PM
I agree that the courts have created a catch-22. However, both the legislature and employees, as well as Social Security Adm, have done thier own mischief.
There seems to be too large a polarity here.
Some see almost anything as a disability, while others act as though any one with a disability is committing fraud and needs to be investigated!
I believe that we need to do more work to connect, and speak the same language. Disability advocate agencies don't understand what employers and others not disabled are coming from, and the employeers do not understand what PWDs are talking about.
This results in tremendous miscomunication. And unfortunate confusion.
Here are the facts as I see them.
Some folks have disabilities atat are not serious impairments to life functions, while others do have serious impairment. How does one determine the difference?
Some PWDs are able to work, although they have serious impairments, ie, blind or paralized using a wheelchair, while others are not able to work. How does the idea that someone is able to work affect the understanding of what is a qualified person with a disability?
ie: If a person is unable to work at any job due to his/her disability but is neither blind nor paralized, is that person considered disabled? Are we still going by what we "see" and not what we "understand?"
If a person is blind, or paralized, but able to work and works well, does that mean that they are not disabled?
What I am trying to illustrate is the confusion between employment (law) and Civil Rights in general.
Obviously someone who is blind is seriousl impaired, but that doesn't preclude employment, while others, who do not "appear" to be disabled may be so impaired that they are unable to work.
This is the Issue that needs to be better understood. This needs to be explored thouougly.
Too many folks give in to mental disability classification because they cannot prove thier physiological condition seriously impairs them.
Illustration: When I was finally approved for SSI after not being able to work at any job for 19 years, and only 3 months after a correct dx was finally "discovered" the examiner exclaimed, but you could have been approved three years ago when you were dxed as Psychotic! Why didn't you apply then? Answer, because I was not and am noy psychotic. Examiner: but you could have gotten onto SSI. "My response was I am not trying to get onto SSI, I am trying to find out what is wrong with me, so I can get the appropiate treatment!"
Gee. Doesn't anyone think about that?
take care
Kathy
Posted by: Kathy Podgers | January 30, 2008 at 10:56 AM
"Heritage Foundation: Congress and The Disabled -- More Harm" Than Help (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327727,00.html)
The link will take you to the article that was printed on Feb. 1. The article's heading is posted before the link. Would someone please take a look at this article and provide some response to the accusations.
Thanks,
Posted by: Shawn Friedkin | February 03, 2008 at 07:24 AM
Shawn,
The Heritage Foundation has been anti-ADA since the very beginning.
Majority Leader Hoyer and Congressman Sensenbrenner responded to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's similar assertions last fall.
You can read their response at: http://www.aapd.com/News/adainthe/071003cus.htm
Posted by: Anne - JFA Moderator | February 05, 2008 at 11:11 AM
The president is the commander & chief & he chooses who sits on the supreme court. I want an honorable person as my comander & chief.
Posted by: buy generic viagra | February 02, 2010 at 03:19 PM