Talk:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:41, 20 July 2006 editMr.Executive (talk \| contribs)180 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:55, 8 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,277,952 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 7 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 7 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject Law}}, {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject Disability}}, {{WikiProject Barack Obama}}, {{WikiProject Human rights}}, {{WikiProject Discrimination}}. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(164 intermediate revisions by 78 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~talkheader~~}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=High\|USGov=yes\|USGov-importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Law\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Medicine\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Disability}}
			{{WikiProject Barack Obama\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Human rights \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Discrimination \|importance=Low}}
			}}
			<!--- this measure is specifically mentioned in the Obama agenda; see http://en.wikisource.org/The_Change.gov_Agenda for context --->
			{{OnThisDay\|date1=2010-07-26\|oldid1=375616726\|date2=2014-07-26\|oldid2=618572703\|date3=2015-07-26\|oldid3=673103673}}

			== Apparent whitewashing of issue of perception of ADA ==
	__TOC__

			] removed certain longstanding text (that I had originally inserted) on 2 September 2014. It appears that User:Aponoka is POV-pushing. The critique made by ''The Onion'' article is notable, incisive, and accurate in that it correctly reflects the perception then and now of the ADA. (Notice how I am referring to the perception, not whether that perception ''itself'' is accurate.) After all, the joke that they were trying to make would have made no sense if the perception of the audience were otherwise. If I don't see any good reasons to the contrary, I will be putting that back in soon. --] (]) 10:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	----
			:Okay, no objections, here goes. --] (]) 03:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
	I fully intend to summarize each section and provide a number of cases that are important to the implementation of this act. For this reason, I removed the remarks about public accommodations, which are only a small part of this act, but the most visible. Further, public accomodation has to be defined and this is not that simple. I ask that everyone be patient, or base their entries on the act itself and other "ADA" documents.
	The most important recent case, here, is one decided this year, that, incredibly enough, the Supreme Court, by one vote, found that the states immune from lawsuits against them under the ADA. This means that if a state facility is inaccessible to a job applicant and he cannot work there, he cannot sue on the grounds of discrimination. If the same thing happened at a city faility, or even, your public library, that would be grounds for a suit. That was one step backward, that was provided by the courts. They may be forced to act, but not necessarily in everyone's best interest.

			Sorry--I hadn't seen this earlier. But upon looking, I would strongly suggest removing this section. First, there appears to be no active link (at least at this point) to the law review article you cite, so without accessing a law library, I'm not sure what point was made there. But upon reading the Onion article itself (written eight years after the ADA was passed, I question whether it actually was a satire of the ADA at all. It seems far more a satire of the pop culture idea of the talentless slacker, as well as middle management positions.
	----
	I added the link to the law itself, but if you intend (as seems apparent) to wikify the whole text of the law that would of course be much better. The public accommodations part may be a "small part" (by some measure) of the law, but it is indeed very visible and often talked about, and should be prominently mentioned in the article for precisely that reason; perhaps saying exactly that would be best, e.g., "a small but controversial part of the law..." etc. I will "be patient" as you suggest and let you finish before commenting further.

			But even if one accepts your (and the referenced law review's) claim that this Onion piece is a satire of the ADA, it still seems a tenuous example of criticism of the ADA at best. Misplaced Pages is built on primary sources, not secondary interpretations of pop culture satire. The rest of section 3 contains actual primary examples of criticism. This does not, and I respectfully would argue that it does not belong here. ] (]) 20:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
	I share your revulsion at the very concept of "sovereign immunity" on which the decision you mention was based. It has led to many greater injustices than discrimination as well.----
	I am not entering the entire law here. It is available on line. I am trying rather to summarzie the 5 titles and later offer the most important or controversial decsions that
	have resulted from lawsuits, orders by the doj, eeoc, etc., under each title. Also, I intend to put up a page on how to make an ADA complaint, which is much easier than most people think. I am actually working from paper copies of all relevant laws which I have had for, well, 10 years, including The Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, etc. Since 1990, bodies like the Architextural Guidelines Board have been established. Their regulations take up many books, are quite technical, and probably not of interest to the average reader. They can simply be linked to, as I believe they are online too.

	== ~~Neutrality?~~ ==		== External links modified ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	"The ADA is notable because many disparate groups, many of which had never worked before..." C,mon if this article is not biased then my name is Jim Crow. Lets have some real information on the act, what it entails, and who it effects. Such information as the "undue hardship clause" or what the act considers disabled would be appropiate. ] 05:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC) John Titancloud

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	In my personal opinion, this article is not very neutral. It seems to me that it's taken from a critical standpoint of the act. I'm not one to rewrite it, as I do not know much about it (I merely found it when editing supreme court cases), but I do think the neutrality of this does need to be looked into. ], 22:06, March 10, 2005 (UTC)
			*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081218062400/http://edlabor.house.gov/issues/adaaa.shtml to http://edlabor.house.gov/issues/adaaa.shtml#1

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
	I think the criticism presented is generally valid, although it needs to be toned down a bit, and balanced with a discussion of views in support of the ADA. The ADA is still one of the most controversial parts of American law.

			== Propose Deletion of Section 3.1 ==
	-- 146.64.26.3, 04:12, March 11, 2005 (UTC)

			Section 3.1, title "Abuse," consists of a few sentences centered around an Onion article (seriously!) which is neither noteworthy nor particularly relevant. Unless there is more that people can add under this topic, I suggest that the whole bit be deleted. Any objections? ] (]) 20:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
	: On that topic, does the 'political support' section really needed to be included? If so, it should probably be edited for NPOV (i.e. if it's supported by the "political Left", why is it opposed by the "political Right"?) Is this even still accurate/relevant? ], 20:33 12 May 2005 (UTC)

			:Realized that this was discussed earlier--will address it there. Sorry. ] (]) 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
	Dudes, this article is not neutral. Somebody should revise it to be more balanced or remove the criticism, which is overlarge. Rhombus {{date}}

			== Linkfarm ==
	The large majority of this article is over the controversy and criticism, not about the Act or what the Act grants. Claiming that the Act makes a haven for "professional plaintiffs" is not in the best interest of an article that is about the act and its provisions itself. Moreover, the supporters section has more information and justification on the detractors of the bill than its supporters, adding to a growing trend of a bias against the Act in this article. More information needs to be added about the Act itself and/or its benefits to balance the article, or much of the criticism/controversy section should be deleted. ]

			IMHO the long list of External links is excessive, but I'm not sure which can be deleted and which to keep. ] (]) 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
	Well,
	I believe that the criticism here is Netrual POV, BUT...the ratio of introduction to criticism makes the article POV. Removing the criticism makes the article to short, so therefore an additional section(such as ACCOMPLISHMENTS/History) would be nice instead of "here is its name, why its bad, and oh.. here is one link with all the text of the act...have fun"
	Just my 2 pennies. ] 23:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

			Here is the list, I've stuck the ones I think should go:
	I am disabled, but somewhat critical of this act. In fact the criticisms mentioned I mostly agree with to varying degrees. That said that isn't the whole story of it. Right now the article is not very informative at all. I'm not very knowledgeable in the ADA debates though, many disabled people aren't, so I don't feel comfortable trying to fix it just yet.--] 08:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
			*
			*
			*
			*
			*
			*
			*
			*
			* <s></s>
			* <s></s>
			* <s></s>
			* <s></s>
			* <s></s>
			* <s></s>
			* <s></s>
			* <s></s>
			*
			*
			*
			* <s></s>
			*
			*
			*
			===Discussion===
			* I would say everything but should go (or maybe ) . -- ] 19:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

			== American with disabilities act ==
	==Latest addition==
	I'm hoping that my addition of groups who worked to pass ADA will help swing it in the NPOV direction, as it shows the large amount of support for it. (By the way, it's an incomplete list -- those were just the most active players, according to my source). I was thinking of making it a separate article, but after I read this page I decided it would do more good here, at least for now. --] 18:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

			Was enacted during the Clinton administration, it wasn't signed into law by George W. Bush. If you can not publish factual information, then the validity of the informaiton on your site is questionable. Despite how you feel about the people responsible for it. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== A Question ==
			:The original Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush. The Amendment Act was signed into law on September 25, 2008 by President George W. Bush with changes effective January 1, 2009. President Bill Clinton was not in office in any of those years (he was in office from January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001).   — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">] ]</span>''' 11:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

			== Merge/Move/? with ADA litigation in United States and More Limiting Cases and ==
	Who would I contact in the event I'm being discriminated against due to my disability?

			There is an article ] that is a stub of a couple of cases (well actually denials of cert) about the ADA. Would it be more appropriate to move the more extensive list of cases here to that page (or simply redirect it here?). Sorry I usually only ever edit math pages where this stuff doesn't come up as much.
	--] 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

			The number of major cases described on this page is quite nice but if anyone happens to know of cases limiting ADA application it would be nice to include some limiting cases too if anyone knows some important ones off the top of their head. Excepting the two cases about the internet none of the decisions limit the scope of ADA applicability and it seems like having both sorts of decisions would be more informative. Of course I don't know what ADA cases are important hence the talk page post but some editor might. ] (]) 21:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
	If it's an employment matter, the EEOC. If it's a non-employment matter, the DOJ.--] 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

			Ok, I noticed there is already a comment about the ADA lit in US page and I'm going to add at least one limiting case myself (is there any order to the cases in the section?) which probably renders this whole new section pointless but one isn't supposed to delete talk comments so... <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	==Neutrality Part Deux==
	I've placed {{]}} back on this article in light of the fact that it seems heavily slanted against the ADA. We either need to remove some of the "criticisms" and "inherent flaws", or we need to point to some of the good this law has done. —] • ] • ] 14:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	:What this article needs is a good description and a lot more information. The criticisms are valid, but the article is so short and crappy that the criticisms take up most of it. What it needs is someone who really knows about the law and can describe all of the relevant issues - the cost of low-floor vehicles in comparison to high-floor ones, for example. That's why I came to this article. I'm generally very much opposed to this sort of act, but I'd like to have a lot more information about its specifics, the provisions, requirements, mandates, etc. The specifics. ] 15:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::Actually a lot of the criticisms aren't valid (as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned anyways) because they're original research/unsourced, and tend to use ] ("some believe", "others complain"). I wish I knew more about it (it was actually part of the reason I came here), but I don't. If I find some reliable info elsewhere I might try and rewrite parts of this, but I'd rather someone with a better legal background worked on it. —] • ] • ] 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

			I have just modified {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:::The criticisms which I added to this page were a paraphrase of the articles in Linda Krieger's book (cited in References). Of course, I should have provided specific page cites, but that was before I learned how to do WP footnotes using the ref and note notation. Unfortunately, I don't have the book now or the time to go fish it back out of the library (I'm planning a major revision of the ] article mess as discussed at ]). --] 17:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122142738/http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/Smith_v_Hotels_com.php to http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/Smith_v_Hotels_com.php

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx\|Sourcecheck}}).
	I added four references to what seem to be some of the most cited evaluations of the ADA and tried to write a neutral summary. To be blunt, I think this is a crappy article... ''I wish more effort were put into into describing the Act rather than worrying about the POV.'' ] 03:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	I am not really sure how to use this. I like the changes Amead. I started tooling around with it even though I know practically nothing about it because the previous version seemed like a poorly written hit job on the ADA. I hope someone who knows what they are doing finishes this page!!!!!!--] 04:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 15:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
	== Use as a law overview ==

			== It doesn't effectively prohibit discrimination. ==
	Regarding the article as an overview of the ADA, it provides a useful reference for the basic structure, criticisms, and basis of the law. However, with regard to specific details it was lacking as a representation of the law as passed by congress. In my research on this site for government actions I have seen many well written articles. If a section detailing the history preceding the law and statistics on its effects were including it would provide great factual help. As for NPOV, by representing the view points of both the propponents of the law and the opponents (Congress members, lobbyists), and structuring extant and future view point content under these headings, both views could be represented, allowing readers to make informed decisions with all sides in mind on this law, which encompasses a still largely unresolved and controversial issue. In this way cntent and POV concerns could be addressed while expanding the use of the article. ] 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

			Anti-disabled discrimination and anti-disabled policies are everywhere in America. And the government's own interpretation mandates discrimination, intead of prohibiting it: http://www.ada.gov/1991standards/1991standards-archive.html ] (]) 19:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
	Hi! I am new to Misplaced Pages. I know quite a bit about the ADA and I think I have a pretty balanced view. This article needs a lot of work. When I have an opportunity, I hope to continue working on this article to make it one of the best articles on wikipedia.--] 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

			:But it does prohibit discrimination against the physically disabled for newer structures. Doesn't mean that the government enforces it. ] (]) 20:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

			::I have sensory processing disorder. It mandates strobe lights. The particular frequencies might not be an issue for people with photosensitive epilepsy, but they definitely can be painfully disorientng and painfully incapacitating for some of us with sensory processing disorder. ] (]) 12:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

			:::Discrimination isn't the same as accommodation, though, and that's why I noted that this law is not particularly enforced. ] (]) 15:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

			::::I just reverted an attempt to add an unsourced assertion about the ADA guidelines on strobe lights to the article. It's not enough to cite to the guidelines themselves and then trash them in the very next clause with no support cited for that criticism. Under ], you ''must'' find a reliable source published elsewhere which specifically asserts that the Access Board made the wrong public policy choice in favor of other types of persons with disabilities and threw epileptics under the bus, then add a citation to ''that''. You cannot use Misplaced Pages as a first publisher of original research. ] is non-negotiable. --] (]) 22:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
	==When will the eggshell marathon end?!==

			This section had been removed on March 7th of lat year, on the grounds of "Removing sections that do not appear to be about the article content"
	I am disabled. At birth, I was stricken with spina bifida, a very severe spinal affliction that relegates most to either crutches or a wheelchair, and usually causes any level of learning disability or mental retardation (luckily I am not in the latter group). Personally, I witness daily blind and unflagging support of the ADA, due in large part to some people's unwillingness to speak what they actually feel, because they don't want to "step on our toes". I fear this article is slowly going in that direction. Although the references begin to address this, I would love to see a list of links to detractors, just like there's that loooooong list of "Groups who worked to pass the ADA". It would be a lot clearer than sifting through the references.

			This is directly relevant to the content - the article claims that the act prohibits discrimination against disabled people, so the article should discuss ways that it has been interpreted to mandate violence and other discrimination against some disabled people. ] (]) 22:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
	Also, neutralize the language a bit. I like Misplaced Pages for its NPOV, but the article is too far in support of the ADA withough giving space to the detractors.

			== External links modified ==
	"The late Justin Dart worked tirelessly, travelling to all 50 States, to bring these many groups together in common cause." Tirelessly?!?! Sappy, and very npov (Pro ADA).

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	"Criticism
	The ADA is frequent target of criticism. For example, conservatives claim that lesser disabilities including clinical depression or minor neck or back pain (see neuropathy) are being accommodated when they should not be. Second, the ADA allegedly creates a class of "professional plaintiffs" who make a living out of collecting monetary damages from noncompliant businesses."
	Those dang conservatives.

			I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	On the bright side, this article does mention how the ADA collides with capitalism. I do appreciate that.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220065328/http://isc.temple.edu/neighbor/ds/disabilityrightstimeline.htm to http://isc.temple.edu/neighbor/ds/disabilityrightstimeline.htm
			*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C1866666%2C00.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705103922/http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php to http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094028/http://www.dralegal.org/cases/public_entities/barden_v_sacramento.php to http://www.dralegal.org/cases/public_entities/barden_v_sacramento.php

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	http://walterolson.com/articles/nrdisable.html --] 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:I concur that this article is now far too liberal. Formerly it was too biased against the ADA in that it had too much of the downsides and not enough of the upsides. Now it is too biased in favor of. It needs to be merely neutral. --] 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==

	Since ] frequents this page, I request that any of the editors on this page that have an opinion of ] to express it on a recently filed ]. You may also add further evidence there to support your view, as well as explain all situations/attitudes/etc. about the user. I urge anyone that has any sort of opinion about this user leave a comment, and comments cannot be used against you in any way on the arbitration page in the future. Thanks for your time. --] 08:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
			== External links modified ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,

			I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205192712/http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=78926 to http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=78926
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151206204300/http://www.presidentialtimeline.org/ to http://presidentialtimeline.org/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060419075839/http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/bushspeech.html to http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/bushspeech.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060419075839/http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/bushspeech.html to http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/bushspeech.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

			== addition to court cases 16 9 2018 ==


			Boose v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon

			https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1499096.html <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC V. ROBLES, GUILLERMO ==

			https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100719zor_m648.pdf

			https://www.levelaccess.com/ninth-circuit-reverses-robles-v-dominos-pizza-llc-holds-ada-title-iii-suits-dont-violate-due-process-rights/

			https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dominos-pizza-llc-v-robles/

			http://www.adasoutheast.org/ada/publications/legal/Robles_v_Dominos-Pizza.php <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== The "See also" list needs a trim ==

			The list of "See also" links is excessive. Several items in the list should be (or possibly already are) linked within the article body text. Several others are only peripherally relevant, and some are simply trivial. ] (]) 09:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

			== Supreme Court cases in the infobox ==

			Many of the cases listed in the infobox are redlinks, should they be removed? ] (]) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

			:A few cases have recently been added, so I think the links can be kept for now in case more will come. ] (]) 15:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:55, 8 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

Barack Obama (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 26, 2010, July 26, 2014, and July 26, 2015.

Apparent whitewashing of issue of perception of ADA

User:Aponoka removed certain longstanding text (that I had originally inserted) at this edit on 2 September 2014. It appears that User:Aponoka is POV-pushing. The critique made by The Onion article is notable, incisive, and accurate in that it correctly reflects the perception then and now of the ADA. (Notice how I am referring to the perception, not whether that perception itself is accurate.) After all, the joke that they were trying to make would have made no sense if the perception of the audience were otherwise. If I don't see any good reasons to the contrary, I will be putting that back in soon. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no objections, here goes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry--I hadn't seen this earlier. But upon looking, I would strongly suggest removing this section. First, there appears to be no active link (at least at this point) to the law review article you cite, so without accessing a law library, I'm not sure what point was made there. But upon reading the Onion article itself (written eight years after the ADA was passed, I question whether it actually was a satire of the ADA at all. It seems far more a satire of the pop culture idea of the talentless slacker, as well as middle management positions.

But even if one accepts your (and the referenced law review's) claim that this Onion piece is a satire of the ADA, it still seems a tenuous example of criticism of the ADA at best. Misplaced Pages is built on primary sources, not secondary interpretations of pop culture satire. The rest of section 3 contains actual primary examples of criticism. This does not, and I respectfully would argue that it does not belong here. Mgllama (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081218062400/http://edlabor.house.gov/issues/adaaa.shtml to http://edlabor.house.gov/issues/adaaa.shtml#1

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose Deletion of Section 3.1

Section 3.1, title "Abuse," consists of a few sentences centered around an Onion article (seriously!) which is neither noteworthy nor particularly relevant. Unless there is more that people can add under this topic, I suggest that the whole bit be deleted. Any objections? Mgllama (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Realized that this was discussed earlier--will address it there. Sorry. Mgllama (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Linkfarm

IMHO the long list of External links is excessive, but I'm not sure which can be deleted and which to keep. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the list, I've stuck the ones I think should go:

Discussion

I would say everything but ADA.gov should go (or maybe this page from ADA.gov that gives a more welcoming historical text and easy links to the language of the law itself ) . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

American with disabilities act

Was enacted during the Clinton administration, it wasn't signed into law by George W. Bush. If you can not publish factual information, then the validity of the informaiton on your site is questionable. Despite how you feel about the people responsible for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.173.249 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The original Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush. The Amendment Act was signed into law on September 25, 2008 by President George W. Bush with changes effective January 1, 2009. President Bill Clinton was not in office in any of those years (he was in office from January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001). — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/Move/? with ADA litigation in United States and More Limiting Cases and

There is an article ADA Litigation in the United States that is a stub of a couple of cases (well actually denials of cert) about the ADA. Would it be more appropriate to move the more extensive list of cases here to that page (or simply redirect it here?). Sorry I usually only ever edit math pages where this stuff doesn't come up as much.

The number of major cases described on this page is quite nice but if anyone happens to know of cases limiting ADA application it would be nice to include some limiting cases too if anyone knows some important ones off the top of their head. Excepting the two cases about the internet none of the decisions limit the scope of ADA applicability and it seems like having both sorts of decisions would be more informative. Of course I don't know what ADA cases are important hence the talk page post but some editor might. Peter M. Gerdes (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I noticed there is already a comment about the ADA lit in US page and I'm going to add at least one limiting case myself (is there any order to the cases in the section?) which probably renders this whole new section pointless but one isn't supposed to delete talk comments so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter M Gerdes (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122142738/http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/Smith_v_Hotels_com.php to http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/Smith_v_Hotels_com.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't effectively prohibit discrimination.

Anti-disabled discrimination and anti-disabled policies are everywhere in America. And the government's own interpretation mandates discrimination, intead of prohibiting it: http://www.ada.gov/1991standards/1991standards-archive.html 108.48.94.155 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

But it does prohibit discrimination against the physically disabled for newer structures. Doesn't mean that the government enforces it. epic genius (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have sensory processing disorder. It mandates strobe lights. The particular frequencies might not be an issue for people with photosensitive epilepsy, but they definitely can be painfully disorientng and painfully incapacitating for some of us with sensory processing disorder. 108.48.94.155 (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Discrimination isn't the same as accommodation, though, and that's why I noted that this law is not particularly enforced. epic genius (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted an attempt to add an unsourced assertion about the ADA guidelines on strobe lights to the article. It's not enough to cite to the guidelines themselves and then trash them in the very next clause with no support cited for that criticism. Under WP:NOR, you must find a reliable source published elsewhere which specifically asserts that the Access Board made the wrong public policy choice in favor of other types of persons with disabilities and threw epileptics under the bus, then add a citation to that. You cannot use Misplaced Pages as a first publisher of original research. WP:NOR is non-negotiable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This section had been removed on March 7th of lat year, on the grounds of "Removing sections that do not appear to be about the article content"

This is directly relevant to the content - the article claims that the act prohibits discrimination against disabled people, so the article should discuss ways that it has been interpreted to mandate violence and other discrimination against some disabled people. 173.66.5.216 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

addition to court cases 16 9 2018

Boose v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1499096.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.13.74 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC V. ROBLES, GUILLERMO

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100719zor_m648.pdf

https://www.levelaccess.com/ninth-circuit-reverses-robles-v-dominos-pizza-llc-holds-ada-title-iii-suits-dont-violate-due-process-rights/

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dominos-pizza-llc-v-robles/

http://www.adasoutheast.org/ada/publications/legal/Robles_v_Dominos-Pizza.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.111.174 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The "See also" list needs a trim

The list of "See also" links is excessive. Several items in the list should be (or possibly already are) linked within the article body text. Several others are only peripherally relevant, and some are simply trivial. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Supreme Court cases in the infobox

Many of the cases listed in the infobox are redlinks, should they be removed? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A few cases have recently been added, so I think the links can be kept for now in case more will come. 23impartial (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Categories: