Contents

Talk:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles 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 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles 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 articles 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 articles 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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

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)[reply]

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

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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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.shtmltohttp://edlabor.house.gov/issues/adaaa.shtml#1

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission page on disability discrimination in employment
• Department of Labor ADA page
• Department of Education Office of Civil Rights
• Department of Justice Titles II & III
• Compliance tool kits from the ADA
• Navigable text of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 – 42 U.S. Code Chapter 126
• Searchable collection of over 7,000 Federal ADA documents
• Federally funded technical assistance network
• Overview of ADA, IDEA, and Section 504: Update 2001
• Overview of ADA, IDEA, and Section 504
• Employment of People with Disabilities
• Accessible Web Design
• ADA Wheelchair Ramp Guidelines
• Testing Students with Disabilities
• Paratransit Watch – Accessible Public Transportation News, Issues, and Resources.
• SHRM's Disability Employment Resource Page
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – law and higher education
• ADA Anniversary Toolkit
• The Americans with Disabilities Act Exhibit (Presidential Timeline)
• Educator Resources (George Bush Presidential Library)
• Research Records about Americans with Disabilities (National Archives and Records Administration)
• Disability.gov (Department of Justice)
• Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.phptohttp://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 trueorfailed 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia as a first publisher of original research. WP:NOR is non-negotiable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220065328/http://isc.temple.edu/neighbor/ds/disabilityrightstimeline.htmtohttp://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.phptohttp://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.phptohttp://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.

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) 22:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205192712/http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=78926tohttp://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=78926
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151206204300/http://www.presidentialtimeline.org/tohttp://presidentialtimeline.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060419075839/http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/bushspeech.htmltohttp://www.eeoc.gov/ada/bushspeech.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060419075839/http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/bushspeech.htmltohttp://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.

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) 14:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]