*CHP Archives: ADA Appendix of Information to Accompany Manual

Bibliography of Resources:

  • The ADA training program for self-advocates: A simplified training on titles II and III of the Americans with disabilities act. (In press). The Arc.
  • The Americans with Disabilities Act – At work. (1994). The Arc.
  • The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and working – An easy-to-read book for people with disabilities. (1993). The Arc.
  • The Americans with Disabilities Act – Questions and answers. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
  • The Americans with Disabilities Act – Your employment rights as an individual with a disability. (1991). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
  • Blanck, P. D. (1992). Empirical study of the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Methods, preliminary, and implications. New Mexico Law Review, 22, 119-241.
  • Employment for all! – A guide to employment. (1996). Toronto: People First of Canada.
  • Employment for all! – A guide for employers. (1996). Toronto: People First of Canada.
  • Goldberg, D. & Goldberg, M. (1993). The Americans with Disabilities Act: A guide for people with disabilities, their families, and advocates. Minneapolis: PACER Center, Inc.
  • Huang, W. & Rubin, S.E. (1997). Equal access to employment opportunities for people with mental retardation: An obligation of society. Journal of Rehabilitation, 63(1), pp. 27-33.
  • Learning about the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title II – Opening up government services for people with disabilities. The Arc.
  • My rights: A book about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (1993). Lansing, MI.: ADA Committee and Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc.
  • Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter. Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law – The American Bar Association.
  • Parry, J. (Ed.). (1994). Mental disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act: A practitioner’s guide to employment. Insurance, treatment, public access, and housing. Washington, D.C.: The American Bar Association.
  • Taylor, S.J. & Bogdan, R. (1993). Promises made and promises to be broken. In Wehman, P. (Ed), The ADA mandate for social change (pp. 255-268). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
  • Wehman, P. (Ed) (1993). The ADA mandate for social change. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Some Relevant Cases about Employment, Mental Retardation, and the ADA

There have not been many complaints filed under the ADA regarding mental retardation and employment. To our knowledge, only one complaint has developed into a court case. You can get information on this by calling the EEOC (the number is listed in the manual).

  • Hertz Corporation Case Filed from the Detroit EEOC (note this case has yet to go to court)
    The EEOC filed its first case involving people labeled with mental retardation, employment, and the ADA in May of 1996. The case involves two people labeled with mental retardation who worked part-time for the Hertz corporation. Each employee had a job coach hired for them by a non-profit agency, Arkay. The two employees had received very positive job ratings and were potentially down to have their employment increased to full-time. However, they arrived at work one day to find they had been fired. Apparently, Hertz fired the two employees because their job coaches were allegedly caught kissing in the parking lot. The two employees filed a discrimination complaint with the Detroit office of the EEOC and the EEOC agreed that discrimination had taken place, claiming that Hertz failed to provide reasonable accommodation by not requesting that Arkay provide new job coaches. Hertz has filed a third class action suit against Arkay, which has implications for non-profit agencies that support people with disabilities in open employment. (REF: personal communication with Ardele Rapert at the Detroit EEOC)
  • Department of Social Services ex. rel. Jenny S. V. Mark S., 593 N.Y.S.2d 142 (N.Y. Family Court, 1993)
    Although his case does not relate directly to employment, it does relate to the testifying of persons with communication difficulties in court in general under the ADA. In 1993 this New York family court held that a child or children with autism, who allegedly had been sexually abused, would not be permitted to testify in court through the use of facilitated communication because:
    (a) facilitated communication is not a form of communication that is generally accepted within the scientific community
    (b) the use of facilitated communication is not required by the ADA
    (REF: 1993 MPDLR 17(4), p. 385)
  • Marvello V. Chemical Bank, 923 F. Supp. 487 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
    Marvello, a SSI and SSD recipient with a traumatic brain injury, alleged that he had been discriminated against by his potential future employer, Chemical Bank, having been denied the job as a result of requesting the reasonable accommodation of a “job coach” in his job interview. Chemical Bank claimed that Marvello could not request reasonable accommodation as he was a recipient of SSI and SSD. Here, it was found that a person who receives SSI or SSD was not automatically precluded from ADA employment discrimination protections. (REF: 1996 MPDLR 20(4), p. 508)
  • Fernbach v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, No. 95 C 5252 (N.D. Ill. July 30, 1996)
    Michael Fernbach sued under the ADA alleging that he had been discriminated against at his work place on the sole basis of his cognitive disability. Fernbach, who was caught removing unpurchased merchandise form his work locker and consequently fired, lost on the basis that he was fired not because of his disability, but for violating the store’s employee merchandise policy. (REF: 1996 MPDLR 20(5), p. 689)
  • Greenberg v. New York, 919 F. Supp. 637 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)
    Greenberg alleged that he was discriminated against when not hired to a position as a corrections officer because he was perceived as having a mental disability (problems making safety decisions and performing under stress). However, despite this claim, the court found that under the ADA Greenberg was not considered to have a disability because his disability did not substantially limit one or more of his major life activities. (REF: 1996 MPDLR 20(3), p. 352)
  • Patterson v. Glickman, No. 01953173 (EEOC January 26th, 1996)
    Here, the EEOC reduced relief granted to an employee of the Department of Agriculture in an earlier decision. Patterson was denied a foreign service position at the Department of Agriculture due to his daughter having a disability, in violation of the prohibition on discrimination based on a person’s association with a person with a disability. (REF: 1996 MPDLR 20(3), p.366)
  • Miller v. CBL Cos., Civ. No 95-24-SD (D.N.H. November 29th, 1995).
    Miller was manager with CBL Companies. She also had a son, born in 1988 with Down Syndrome. Miller requested time off from her job to accompany her young son to his speech therapy sessions, claiming that this time off was a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Following this request, Miller’s employment with CBL was terminated. She alleged that the termination and a number of other denied promotions and career development opportunities were the direct result of her having a son with a disability. That is, she alleged that she was being discriminated against under the ADA for being associated with a person with a disability. The court found that CBL was not liable for the denied promotions and career development opportunities as these events took place before the ADA became law. The court also ruled that Miller’s job termination was discrimination under the ADA, but her claim that time off to accompany her son as a reasonable accommodation was not valid since reasonable accommodations apply to the employee and not an employee’s family member with a disability. (Note: The judge suggested that Miller did have claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act regarding time off to accompany her son). (REF: 1997 MPDLR 20(1), p. 77)
  • Kent v. Derwinski, 790 F. Supp. 1032 (E.D Wash. 1991)
    Dianne Kent was hired by a Veteran’s Administration hospital under a special work program for persons with disabilities. Kent was labeled with having mental retardation and emotional difficulties and had previously had her work at the hospital rated as “fully satisfactory.” A second, new supervisor did not prevent Kent’s coworkers from taunting Kent on the job. Kent experienced two nervous breakdowns and eventually resigned after the hospital failed to reassign her to another position. The court found that although the hospital had accommodated Kent in the past, recent accommodations had been insufficient to meet Kent’s needs and that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her having a disability. (REF: 1992 MPDLR 16(4), p. 519)

Places to Go for More Information

  • The Arc – Publications Department National Headquarters
    For Arc documents:
    P.O. Box 1047, Arlington, Texas 76004
    (800) 433-5255
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
    (202) 663-4900 (Voice)
    (800) 800-3302 (TDD)
    (202) 663-4494 (TDD for 202 Area Code)
    For ADA documents:
    (800) 669-3362 (Voice)
    (800) 800-3302 (TDD)
    For ADA questions:
    (800) 669-4000
  • Regional Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers – to contact a Disability Business Technical Assistance Center (DBTAC) in your region, call 1-800-949-4232 (Voice/TDD). You can also visit the ADA Technical Assistance Program that coordinates the DBTACs. In New York: (609) 392-4004 (Voice), (609) 392-7004 (TTD)
  • ADA Information Line for Documents and Questions
    (800)-514-0301 (Voice)
    (800)-514-0383 (TDD)
  • Job Accommodation Network – President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
    (800)-526-7234 (Voice/TDD)

Just a Reminder: Your local advocacy organizations may also be helpful.