where their any oppostions to the american disability act of 1990?

Answer 1

Yes

The ADA is frequent target of criticism. For example, some claim that Individuals who are diagnosed with one of the, "lesser disabilities," including clinical depression or minor neck or back pain (see neuropathy) are being accommodated when they should not be. Second, the ADA allegedly creates a class of "professional plaintiffs" who make a living out of collecting monetary damages from noncompliant businesses. However, this criticism is unfounded because Title III does not allow private plaintiffs to recover monetary damages from inaccessible businesses. Remedies for private plaintiffs in Title III lawsuits are limited to injunctive relief; consequently it is nearly impossible for people with disabilities to profit from these legal actions.

Even those who support the intent of the law worry that it might have unintended consequences. Among other arguments, they hypothesize that the Act creates additional legal risks for employers who then quietly avoid hiring people with disabilities to avoid this risk. And such researchers (e.g., DeLeire, 2000; Acemoglu & Angrist, 2001) claim to have documented a sharp drop in employment among Individuals with a disability after passage of the Act (see Schwochau & Blanck for counter arguments).

Others (see Schall, 1998) believe that the law has been ineffectual; presumably, even stronger legislation (or legislation that crafts a different reward structure) is needed to achieve the Act's intended goals.

Many libertarians believe accommodation laws restrict the free market.

Moreover, the ADA did not come with a guide for the cognitive, or, "mental," disabilities section and left employers and employees to fend for themselves. Psychologist Dr. John Fielder (1994) corrected this oversight by writing a manual for employers that has been used by many parties concerned with issues of cognitive disabilities."

Many people think that one of the major flaws or weaknesses of the Americans with Disabilities Act is that it puts almost the entire burden of enforcement on individual persons with disabilities. Thousands of people have submitted requests to the Department of Justice for investigation of barriers in older buildings and design and construction errors in brand new facilities. Most of these are ignored, because even if the government wanted to investigate all of them, they lack the staff or budget to do so. If the individual wants action, he or she had to hire an attorney and bring a civil suit. Because most business owners realized after a while that there was little chance that the DOJ would come after them, and thus put off making changes to remove barriers, some persons with disabilities brought multiple suits. And some attorneys, anxious to make money, exploited these persons with disabilities.

Many advocates, of access for all, believe that persons with disabilities are justified in being discouraged and disgusted with the slow pace of barrier removal and accessible construction since 1992, and are struggling to come up with ways to bring complaints against those who are deliberately violating their civil rights.

There have been some notable cases regarding the ADA. For example, Target Corp. a major retailer, was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it (http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php). In addition, a major hotel room marketer with its business presence on the internet is being sued because its customers with disabilities cannot reserve hotel rooms through its website without substantial extra efforts that persons without disabilities are not required to perform (http://www.dralegal.org/search/). These represent a major potential expansion of the ADA in that this, and other similar suits (known as "bricks vs. Clicks"), seeks to expand the ADA's authority to cyberspace where entities may not have actual physical facilities that are required to comply.

Another example, Barden et al V. The City of Sacramento, filed in March 1999, claimed that the City of Sacramento failed to comply with the ADA when, while making public street improvements, it did not bring its sidewalks into compliance with the ADA. Certain issues were resolved in Federal Court. One issue, whether sidewalks were covered by the ADA, was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that sidewalks were a "program" under ADA and must be made accessible to persons with disabilities. The ruling was later appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which refused to hear the case, letting stand the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court (http://www.dralegal.org/cases/public_entities/barden_v_sacramento.php).

Spector V. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. was a complicated case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2005. The defendant argued that as a vessel flying the flag of a foreign nation was exempt from the requirements of the ADA. This argument was accepted by a federal court in Florida and, subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower courts on the basis that Norwegian Cruise Lines was a business headquartered in the United States whose clients were predominantly Americans and, more importantly, operated out of port facilities throughout the United States.

Answer 2

have you ever examine the warning label for Hydrocodone? someplace in it somewhat is says to no longer use heavy kit whilst on it. you're in a warehouse! What are the probabilities you're actually not lifting some thing too heavy or you're actually not employing heavy kit? you're bodily disabled? Then what the heII are you doing working in a warehouse? except you are the dude doing up the packing record at a table all day, your bosses ought to fireplace you. you're a threat to others and your self.

Answer 3

The Republicans and business. It has been weakened through legislation.

Tells the truth
http://www.youtube.com/user/billybobjoe57

Answer 4

Yes, lots of it.

Many businesses - especially small ones - were afraid that the costs of complying would put them out of business.

Richard