Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, July 19, 1990 TAG: 9007190531
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-14 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, fought back tears as he described the inspiration he drew from a brother-in-law, stricken by polio, who slept in an iron lung and worked every day until his death in 1970. Hatch, one of 92 senators who voted for the bill, dedicated the measure to his departed relative.
Hatch, a conservative, did not forget the fine print. Of the act he supported, Hatch also said: "If . . . our regulators . . . write the regulations too stringently and too tough, there are aspects of this bill that could make it very difficult for the free-enterprise system."
That sums it up pretty well.
The ideal behind the act gladdens the heart. It is a commendable effort to knock down barriers that 37 million Americans face in the work place and in public accommodations such as buses, theaters and restaurants. Like the 1964 Civil Rights Act on which it is modeled, the Americans with Disabilities Act means to halt discrimination against these people and make them first-class citizens.
But the bill - passed overwhelmingly in both houses of Congress and due to get President Bush's signature - is open-ended. Its many backers have offered no estimate of what full implementation will cost.
The problem is, they don't really know; so much depends on the regulations. And the expense could be considerable, given that lower-level governments and businesses must henceforth anticipate the needs of the disabled and be prepared to meet many of those needs at a moment's notice.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that local governments will spend up to $30 million a year to buy lift-equipped buses for people in wheelchairs, and $15 million to maintain the vehicles. Another $1 billion is the estimated outlay for altering "key" railroad, subway and trolley stations to make them accessible to people with disabilities. These estimates seem, if anything, low.
On top of that, within two years, businesses with more than 15 employees will be forbidden to refuse hiring a disabled applicant who can perform the "essential functions" of an available position. To help the individual do the job, the company must make "reasonable accommodations," unless to do so would cause "undue burden."
The problem is plain. The regulations must define such terms as those in quotation marks. If the parties to a particular case are not satisfied with the definitions or how they have been carried out, to court they go.
Thus, the act may lead to a lot of costly litigation, even when the offending party has acted in good faith. Nor is it yet known what the legal penalties might be for discrimination; the measure links such damages to those in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that law could be amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1990 now under consideration.
Congress is slow to act on many matters, but remains responsive to special-interest groups seeking to have their rights written into law. There's no question that the disabled are often subject to cruel or mindless discrimination. But backers of the bill say they're not acting out of pity, or only for social justice. It costs government $57 billion a year to care for disabled people. How much better to enable them to support themselves - and to add their skills to the nation's labor pool, which is shrinking?
Supporters also say that costs of implementing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - which bans discrimination by federal agencies and employers receiving federal funds - have not been excessive.
The backers of the bill may be correct in all that they say. One hopes so. In this world, reality often falls short of fine ideals such as those embodied in this act. It has been said that God is in the details. Mere mortals have a devil of a time with the fine print.
by CNB