Disability rights

  • April 1, 2013

    by E. Sebastian Arduengo

    NPR recently aired a sobering account of the state of Social Security Disability Insurance (Disability) a government program that provides 14 million Americans with a sustenance income,while providing them no real means of addressing their physical or mental affliction or economic poverty. In fact, less than one percent of people ever transition from Disability into the world of work with all of its attendant benefits, like raises, meaningfulness, social contact, etc., meager as those may be with some jobs. Most people simply die while on Disability or lurch onto regular Social Security, the government social insurance program that provides benefits to the elderly.

    In the severely depressed labor market of the Great Recession, which itself greatly favors information-centric skills, many older workers with little education who have been laid off from manufacturing jobs feel that going on to disability is a better choice for making it to retirement than spending their last few years in a menial job where they have to stand all day. But, it’s not just former blue collar workers in the Mississippi valley and Pacific Northwest that are going on disability. In cities across the country, entire families subsist off of the disability check they receive because they have a child with a learning disability.

    It’s a system that is riddled with perverse incentives. If a child on disability starts to succeed in school that actually threatens the family’s livelihood. So, it’s actually in the best interests of the family financially if a child continues to struggle in school. Unlike Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (welfare), if a beneficiary starts to work, they aren’t eased off of the program – they face a real risk of immediately losing all of their benefits.

  • February 8, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Gary C. Norman, Esq. L.L.M. Mr. Norman, an attorney partnered with a guide dog, is an Associate Civil Rights Commissioner. He is the Co-founder and Vice President of the Mid-Atlantic Lyceum, a new non-profit whose purpose is, while fostering, developing, and including, disabled leaders, bringing diverse perspectives (the left and the right) together to inform a better society. These views are solely of the author.


    The founding documents of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution do arguably espouse, whether in explicit or implicit terms, the notion that, farmers and pharmacologists, instead of useless kings and nobles, ought to be empowered to self-rule.  President Obama sagaciously reminded citizens in his inaugural words: that the principles of the founding documents are timeless and universal; however, they are not self-executing.  To encapsulate the sentiments of President Madison, governments are necessary because humanity is far from being angelic in its pursuits.  As an example, the United States Senate did not ratify last December an international disability rights instrument. As such, collective action, including by leaders with disabilities such as this author, is required to advance broad civil rights, such as are contained in or should be contained in the foundational documents.

  • February 28, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The nation lost one of its leading advocates for the less fortunate and for equality with the death of Michael A. Rothenberg, longtime head of the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI).

    Rothenberg, who served as the executive director of NYLPI, was found dead at the age of 47 on Feb. 23. The cause of death was a fall from the roof of a building in Brooklyn. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle reports that the New York Police Department found his body on “a terrace at 100 Jay St., after he had apparently fallen from the roof.”

    The Daily Eagle noted that after graduating from the New York University Law School, he “became a litigator in the housing unit of Brooklyn Legal Services. He then won a fellowship at the Rockefeller Family Foundation, and subsequently worked on jury reform at the Vera Institute of Justice. He joined New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI) as associate director in 1997.”

    He told the NYU Law Review, the Eagle reports, that his goal was “to create a center where lawyers and community organizers can come together to create lasting social change for people in communities in need.”

  • February 9, 2012
    BookTalk
    Intersexuality and the Law
    Why Sex Matters
    By: 
    Julie A. Greenberg

    By Julie A. Greenberg, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law


    The term "intersex" evokes diverse images, typically of people who are both male and female or neither male nor female. Neither vision is accurate. The millions of people with an intersex condition, or a DSD (difference of sex development), are men and women whose sex chromosomes, gonads, or sex anatomy do not fit clearly into the male/female binary norm. Until recently, intersex conditions were shrouded in shame and secrecy; many adults were unaware that they had been born with an intersex condition and those who did know were advised to hide the truth. Current medical protocols and societal treatment of people with a DSD are based on false stereotypes about sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability, which create unique challenges to framing effective legal claims and building a strong cohesive movement. (For some of my earlier work on this topic, see http://ssrn.com/author=252410.)

    Intersexuality and the Law: Why Sex Matters examines the role that legal institutions can play in protecting the rights of people with a DSD. The first part of the book explains the sex, gender, and disability assumptions underlying the current medical protocol for the treatment of infants born with an intersex condition. Although most intersex conditions are not disabling, pose no physical risk, and require no medical intervention, infants with these conditions often are subjected to invasive cosmetic surgeries to alter their genitalia so that their bodies conform to a binary sex norm. These surgeries provide no medical benefit and have not been proven to enhance the child’s psychological well-being, but they can lead to a number of problems. They can render women incapable of experiencing an orgasm. They may also result in infection, scarring, incontinence, and other severe physical complications and emotional trauma.

    The major goal of the intersex movement is to challenge these medical practices. In addition, the intersex movement is also concerned that people with an intersex condition whose gender identity does not match the sex assigned to them at birth will face the same legal obstacles confronting transgender people. Sometimes, government authorities refuse to recognize their self-identified gender as their legal sex for purposes of marriage, identity documents, and appropriate housing and restroom use.

  • January 11, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Sarah Crawford, Director of Workplace Fairness, National Partnership for Women & Families


    The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral argument today in Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals – a case that could erode the right of millions of state workers to take job-protected, unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when faced with a serious illness.

    The FMLA set an important family and medical leave standard that guarantees eligible workers – both women and men – up to 12 weeks of job-protected, unpaid leave to recover from a serious illness or medical condition, including pregnancy or childbirth, or to care for a newborn, a newly adopted child or a seriously ill family member. The FMLA offered leave on a gender-neutral basis rather than creating a special right to self-care leave for medical illness surrounding pregnancy, in part to avoid creating perverse incentives for further discrimination against women.

    Since its enactment 18 years ago, workers have used the FMLA more than 100 million times. The law has helped workers disabled by pregnancy or recovering from childbirth, workers with new babies and dying parents, workers who have had heart attacks and hysterectomies – in short, workers for whom job-protected leave is of critical importance. An adverse decision from the Supreme Court could put access to FMLA self-care leave at risk for millions of state workers. At stake is their fundamental right to take time off to address their own serious medical needs, including pregnancy and childbirth.

    Petitioner Daniel Coleman was working for a Maryland court when his doctor ordered bed rest due to serious illness. Within hours of requesting medical leave, Coleman was fired. He then filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of the FMLA. Contrary to the plain language of the statute, the lower courts ruled that the state of Maryland could not be sued for monetary damages under the FMLA’s self-care provision.