Disability rights

  • March 30, 2010

    In Texas, where 29 percent of immigration detainees are held while the government tries to deport them, a new study found high levels of mental illness and mistreatment at every stage. In "Justice for Immigration's Hidden Population," public interest law center Texas Appleseed and law firm Akin Gump report on stories of several detainees without the medical or legal tools to prevent their slides into mental incompetency.

    One example detailed in the report is that of a 50-year-old legal resident of New York City, who suffers from schizophrenia. A state judge determined him mentally incompetent to stand trial on trespassing charges. Instead of serving 90 days in a mental institution, as ordered by the judge, the defendant was sent to an immigration detention facility in Texas, where he underwent deportation hearings without counsel. With his family uninformed of his whereabouts, the gentleman was denied medical attention for weeks before being deported to the Dominican Republic.

    The New York Times summarizes the report:

    For lawyers offering free legal information at large immigration detention centers in remote parts of Texas, the task is difficult enough: coaching hundreds of detainees on how to represent themselves at assembly-line deportation hearings. But the lawyers soon discover a more daunting problem: many detainees are too mentally ill or mentally disabled to understand anything.

  • January 11, 2010

    The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division is once again "open for business," according to the division's new chief, Thomas Perez, in remarks to ACS members and covered live by C-SPAN.

    "In the first 60 days that I've been on the job, we have already done as much hate crimes activity as was done in the entire fiscal year of 2006. And by the way, that was a leap year. And we've done as much as was done in fiscal year 2007," Perez told an ACS audience at the National Press Club, in a YouTube clip now available here. "Don't listen to my words, look at our actions."

  • December 9, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Jamil Dakwar, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Human Rights Program & Steering Committee Member of the Campaign for a New Domestic Human Rights Agenda  

    Seven months ago, the United States issued a list of human rights commitments and pledges in support of U.S. candidacy for membership in the U.N. Human Rights Council. The decision to join the Human Rights Council was the right thing to do. It was as an important step in breaking with the Bush administration's unilateral and disastrous policies on human rights. While we welcomed this move, we noted that the Obama administration had "missed an opportunity to detail exactly how it will reaffirm its commitment to ending human rights violations at home beyond vague rhetoric." We warned the Obama administration to "move beyond ambiguous commitments which are similar to the ones heard from the Bush administration over the past eight years."

    There is no question that this administration is currently facing multiple and daunting challenges, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the safe closing of Guantánamo, the economic crisis and rising unemployment, health care, energy reform and much more. However, nearly a year after Obama's inauguration, the administration has yet to announce any major domestic human rights initiative, outline a detailed plan to honor and expand our existing human rights commitments and translate them into domestic policy, or incorporate them into the daily working of the U.S. government.

  • November 23, 2009

    The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act takes effect today. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, "The long-awaited measure, ... debated in Congress for 13 years, will pave the way for people to take full advantage of the promise of personalized medicine without fear of discrimination."

    The Los Angeles Times reports

    The most sweeping federal anti-discrimination law in nearly 20 years takes effect today, prohibiting employers from hiring, firing or determining promotions based on genetic makeup.

    Additionally, health insurers will not be allowed to consider a person's genetics -- such as predisposition for Parkinson's disease -- to set insurance rates or deny coverage.

    [Image via Lawrence OP.]

  • October 2, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Emily A. Benfer, the supervising attorney and teaching fellow at Georgetown University Law Center's Federal Legislation and Administrative Clinic. Benfer is also the author of a recent ACS Issue Brief, "The ADA Amendments Act: An Overview of Recent Changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act."

    Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking revising its regulations to comport with the recent changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") under the ADA Amendments Act ("ADAAA"). The proposed regulations are consistent with the interpretation of the ADAAA outlined in "The ADA Amendments Act: An Overview of Recent Changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act" and mark a positive evolution in the law - one that reinvigorates the ADA by providing protection for individuals who were not previously covered.

    The Americans with Disabilities Act was intended to be a strong and broad civil rights law. Once lauded as a tremendous step forward for the disability community, the Supreme Court not only turned the ADA on its heels but shoved it two steps back. In Toyota v. Williams, the Supreme Court transformed the broad scope of the ADA into a nearly insurmountable demanding standard. In Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., the Supreme Court required consideration of mitigating measures in determining whether a person is disabled and created a subjective standard for proving a covered entity regarded a person as disabled. These two cases shattered the inclusive standard applied by courts construing the definition of "handicapped individual" under the Rehabilitation Act - a standard Congress expected to be followed under the ADA - and invited courts to deny people seeking protection from discrimination. This contortion of the ADA resulted in lower court determinations that denied people with epilepsy, HIV, muscular dystrophy and cancer, among other disabilities, protection from discrimination.

    Despite the past holdings and reasoning, the future of disability law is bright and the end of discrimination against persons with disabilities is near. The ADA Amendments Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2009, is a critical step towards meeting ADA's objective of providing "a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination" and "clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination' against people with disabilities."