A couple of days ago was the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA is a wide-ranged law that is hailed as the one of the most comprehensive civil rights bills that "prohibits discrimination and guarantees that people with disabilities have the same opportunity as everyone else to participate in the mainstream of American life: to enjoy employment opportunities, to purchase goods and services, and to participate in State and local government programs and services." The good intentions of the law are certainly there. Individuals that are disabled are generally a vulnerable and economically disadvantaged demographic within society. Disabled individuals are people too, and as such, should be afforded a shot at the American dream. Any decent human being would feel sympathy towards these individuals and the obstacles they face. However, if one is going to pontificate about the importance about helping disabled individuals, then we need to get past the argumentum ad misercordiam that is all too commonly used to advocate for the ADA and ask ourselves a brutally honest question: Has the ADA actually helped disabled individuals participate in the mainstream of American life?
83 percent of Americans approve of the ADA, which is something the ADA has going for it. It most probably means that the ADA isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Popularity of a bill is nothing more than using a logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. What about those who directly benefit from the bill?
For the 20th anniversary of the ADA, the National Organization on Disability conducted a survey of disabled individuals. Amongst the findings was that even though there was improvement on educational attainment and political participation, disabled individuals lagged behind [relative to non-disabled individuals] in employment, household income, access to transportation, health care, going to restaurants, and satisfaction with life.
Employment rates are actually an important metric for measuring the ADA's success since one of its main goals is to enjoy employment opportunities. The current employment-population ratio for disabled individuals is 16.7 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS]). Compare this to the non-disabled population, whose employment-population ratio is 64.4 percent (BLS). Also, the median annual earnings for a disabled individual is 68 percent of non-disabled individuals. Disabled individuals also have an unemployment rate about twice as high as non-disabled individuals, as well as being twice as likely to work part-time (BLS). If you want a more temporal viewpoint, we can look at Census data for 1990, 2000, and 2010 (as well as BLS data from 2008-2013) to compare disabled individuals to non-disabled individuals.
The painful fact is that since the enactment of the ADA, the employment rate (as well as the median income household) for disabled individuals has actually decreased (DeLeire, 2000; Acemogulu and Angrist, 1998), even when you account for cyclical events (e.g., recessions). The ADA seems to have negative effects on the retail sector specifically (Prieger, 2004). Even if you want to argue that the ADA did not cause the decrease employment amongst the disabled (e.g., Jolls and Prescott, 2004), although I have already highlighted studies pointing to an underlying causal link, it is certainly true that the ADA did not increase employment amongst the disabled, which was one of the major goals of the ADA.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights points out that it might not even be the ADA but rather the increase of enrollees in Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). I have taken a look at SSDI. While I don't have any doubts that SSDI plays a role in decreasing employment opportunities for disabled individuals, the ADA still played a vital role in this unemployment decrease (Acemogulu and Angrist, ibid.). Whether it results in higher wages for disabled individuals is more ambiguous. Some argue that it improved wages (Thompkins, 2011), whereas others argue that it caused a decrease in wages (Beegle and Stock, 2003). While the Tompkins study points out that the ADA did more for educational attainment for those who had a high school degree or less, it also concludes that the ADA did not improve the wages of disabled individuals relative to non-disabled individuals (Thompkins, p. 28).
There are some factors that go into the inefficacy of the ADA. One is the broad definition of "disabled." Under the ADA [§12102(1)(A)], a disability is defined as a "physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual." Courts have already ruled that back and knee strains, headaches, and erectile dysfunction, along with other minor impairments, are covered under the ADA. By covering minor impairments under the ADA, the ADA insults those who deal with real disabilities, and undermines its prime directive.
While we're on the discussion of vague wording, what about the definition of "reasonable accommodation" [§12111.(9)]? Here is a list of some "reasonable accommodations" under the law: time off, a modified workspace or restroom, a sign language interpreter, materials in Braille, you get the idea. If the accommodation cannot be made and the individual absolutely cannot perform their duties, they have to be reassigned to a more amenable task. Even while some of the accommodations are 100 percent legitimate, can you see how, maybe, just maybe, this can become burdensome for an employer, especially if it is a smaller business? If you don't accommodate, then there is a matter of litigation. Let's take a look at government statistics from the EEOC on ADA litigation. $95.6 million in monetary benefits during 2014, and to think that doesn't even touch upon the legal fees! Over 25 thousand ADA charges in 2014. This is not an issue with just the ADA, but one of the issues I have with anti-discrimination laws in general. Advocates talk about creating a system that helps the individuals, but the mechanisms actually create disincentives to hire those the law was intended to help. The ADA imposes higher accommodation costs than a firm would voluntarily incur. It is simply easier for firms to avoid hiring disabled individuals. Why should we keep a bill that does nothing to employ disabled individuals?
I also have philosophical qualms with the ADA, aside from taking a swing at liberty by using the force and coercion of government to dictate how a employer should control their own workplace. It doesn't exactly cultivate goodwill, but I digress. Do we see ourselves as more incapable of helping ourselves now that the government has provided such a broad definition of who is disabled? The Onion actually did a good parody back in 1998 illustrating this very point. We all have problems, and the vast majority of us are going to deal with an impairment in the workplace at some point. Yes, some impairments are worse than others and should have more due consideration. However, the pendulum has swung the other way.
But let's say that you're completely indifferent to property rights, and that you believe that the ends justify the means. Which ends are we talking about, the fact that wages of disabled individuals have not improved relative to non-disabled individuals or that the employment rate for disabled individuals has not improved since the ADA's enactment? This is not to say that the ADA has not made a positive difference for certain individuals, but the ADA is another example of the law of unintended consequences. Labor laws have this uncanny tendency to disincentivize the opposite of what it was intended to do, which in this case is hire more disabled individuals. Irony of ironies, the ADA actually encourages discrimination!
In spite of what the Center for American Progress might think, more government is not the answer here. More of the same is only going to dig a deeper hole. As this NPR article points out, there are so many more obstacles for disabled individuals to overcome that the ADA has not been able to address. Issues for disabled individuals go beyond the workplace, and include better health care, transit, education for disabled individuals to acquire marketable skills, and educating those in society (especially employers) about disabilities so we can create both a more amicable social climate in which employers feel comfortable hiring disabled individuals instead of worrying about onerous regulations. Creating a more accepting social milieu without the onslaught of government regulations will create a better life not just for disabled individuals, but society as a whole.