Gun Control Law Importance
The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) is a Federal Anti-Discrimination statute intended to assimilate individuals with disabilities into the mainstream society. In order to develop strategies for which the disabled are accommodated in the job design of criminal justice, one needs to have a working understanding of the law itself. This civil rights legislation was adopted to bar discrimination against persons with disability and was signed in law officially by President George Bush on July 26 1990. The aim of the act is to provide access to employment, government programs, services and activities and public accommodations and telecommunication to disabled persons as stated in the 5sections of The Act.
Reasonable accommodation is whereby working environment is altered or improved to offer equal employment opportunity for one with a disability. Law enforcement is not relieved from the Act. “The selection and treatment of employees by criminal justice community is brought into compliance with ADA as stated in Title2 of the Act”. This presents a distinctive challenge for the criminal justice system due to “the physical nature of law enforcement work coupled with security and integrity” (National Institute of Justice, 1992).Nonetheless, the criminal Justice can provide this in aspects such as making facilities available to and usable by an individual with disability such as identifying designated waiting areas, reassignment to vacant posts, job restructuring if work demands physical ability that the individual cannot perform , modifying work schedules, acquiring or adapting equipment or devices , modifying examinations and training materials or an information system that uses accessible formats such as braille, audiotape digital media, making available qualified readers or interpreters .
The ADA focuses on “eradicating the barriers by establishing a process in which an employer assesses a disabled individual’s ability to perform the job desired” and accommodation is hence “tailored to match needs of the disabled individual” (Technical Assistance Manual:Title I of the ADA, 1992). In providing the said accommodations persons with disabilities can work under conditions that do not provide undue stress or difficulties.
Tennessee v. Lane case is “about sovereign immunity and congressional power” (A.Levy). In 1996 a paraplegic defendant, George Lane, was summoned to a county court house in Tennessee on criminal traffic offence. He was assigned to the 2nd floor court room and the lack of elevators led him to crawl up the stairway. He declined to make subsequent appearances and hence arrested and jailed for this. “Plaintiffs Lane and Beverly Jones sued the state of Tennessee contending refused access and service of state court system on account of their disability.” (A.Levy)
“Tennessee was not entitled to immunity not because its claim to immunity was abrogated by Congress but because the 11th Amendment does not confer immunity in federal question cases” (A.Levy). “Divided Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not exceed its authority under Americans with Disability Act.” (Camara, 2009)It found authority under section 5 of 14th amendment and hereby subjecting states to private lawsuits by persons with disability.
“Majority opinion held that the legislation is constitutional if the access at issue is a fundamental right such as access to courts” (A.Levy).Similar legal precedents to lane case include Dilworth v. City of Detroit case, United States v. Georgia, Board of Trustees University of Ala. v. Garret and the Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs cases. Lane and Hibbs confirm that “a state can be sued by private persons in certain actions under the 14th amendment.” (A.Levy) Justice Steven’s opinion swayed in the direction of the Garrett case which in relation brings an understanding to the dissenting opinion of Justices e.g. CJ Rehnquist dissented in Lane and reaffirmed his brand of federalism.
In conclusion there two aspects to the Lane case. Following the majority’s analysis, it did not exceed its power it was constitutional .Contrary to it, given the facts in Lane that power does not exist and that Congress negated illegitimated claim under section 5 of 14th amendment.
Bibliography
1. Technical Assistance Manual:Title I of the ADA. (1992, January). Retrieved April 12, 2013, from Job Accomodation Network: http://askjan.org/links/adatam1.html
2. A.Levy, R. (n.d.). Tennessee v. Lane:How Illegitimate Power Negated Non-Existent Immunity. illigititmatepower, 162-184.
3. Camara, J. E. (2009). ADA Compliance and Reasonable Accomodation in Crisis Management:A Suggested Action Plan For Employment. ALSB Journal of Employment and Labour Law, 21.
4. National Institute of Justice. (1992). The Americans with Disabilities Act and Criminal Justice:An Overview. Retrieved April 12, 2013, from The AEGIS LAW LIBRARY: http://ww1.aegis.org/law/journals/1992/ALAWOO24.html