Search Results

This chapter discusses the expansion of the concept of discrimination to include the denial of reasonable accommodation. It argues that—under the minority-group model that has had such a powerful influence on the interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—antidiscrimination and accommodation are very closely aligned normatively. But was the case with the definition of disability, the normative support the minority group model provides to the ADA comes at a price. Courts, seeking to assimilate the ADA's accommodation requirement closely to traditional antidiscrimination rules, have read the requirement so narrowly as to deprive the statute of much power to address the structural barriers that keep many people with disabilities out of the workforce. The minority-group model has also kept the ADA from addressing the ways in which disability inequalities affect those who are not labeled “disabled”.

This chapter problematizes the notions and language of tolerance and accommodation in relation to religious diversity, and traces their genealogy both as legal solutions and as discursive frameworks within which religious diversity is increasingly understood in the public sphere. The problem they pose is that they create a hierarchy of privilege that preserves hegemonic power relations by religious majorities over religious minorities. Tolerance in this context might be imagined as the broadly stated value that we must deal with diversity and those who are different from us by tolerating them. Accommodation might be seen as the implementation of this value—that in order to demonstrate our commitment to tolerance we must accommodate the ‘demands’ of minority groups and those individuals who position themselves or align themselves with minorities.

This chapter addresses the question of priority setting for competing needs when resources are scarce. It begins with the broader societal perspective, because fair decisions must balance spending on health with spending elsewhere. Next, it addresses competing claims within the health budget itself. The health capability paradigm involves reasoned consensus on allocating resources, based on scientific and deliberative processes. The paradigm emphasizes a collaborative and participatory approach to decision‐making that reinforces individual health agency, while at the same time evaluating outcomes in terms of their substantive merit. Medical appropriateness and clinical practice guidelines allow creation of evidence‐based, standardized health policy that provides optimal care and a universal benefits package of goods and services that support central health capabilities. The chapter also discusses efficiency concerns, resource allocation and age, setting limits, rationing, and how to address hard cases, such as medical futility and those invoked by the ‘bottomless pit’ objection or differing conceptions of ‘reasonable accommodation’. A framework for combining technical and ethical rationality for resource allocation is developed.

This chapter examines the general principles that underlie an employer's duty to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of its employees. Title VII originally did not provide for accommodation, but in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) first promulgated guidelines, employers were required to accommodate the “reasonable religious needs” of their employees “where such accommodation can be made without serious inconvenience to the conduct of [their] business.” The EEOC later revised its guidelines to provide that accommodation is required whenever it “can be made without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.” In 1972, Congress added a provision for accommodation to Title VII itself that reflected the EEOC guidelines. This chapter considers how “reasonable accommodation” and “undue hardship” were addressed by the Supreme Court in the 1977 case of Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) v. Hardison. It also discusses the the EEOC's revised guidelines concerning reasonable accommodation, undue hardship, and de minimis cost.

This chapter examines how the general principles underlying an employer's duty to reasonably accommodate the religious observances and practices of its employees are applied on a daily basis by the courts. It discusses a number of court cases to highlight some general rules applicable to the resolution of reasonable accommodation issues, beginning with the dispute between truck driver David Virts and Consolidated Freightways of Nashville. Virts sued Consolidated Freightways for religious discrimination and then offered four proposals for accommodation. The chapter proceeds by looking at other cases that tackle the issues of de minimis cost and undue hardship. It shows that a worker's discrimination suit will almost certainly fail if he refused to cooperate with his employer in its efforts to find a suitable accommodation of his religious beliefs and practices.

This analyses the defences for genuine and determining occupational requirements, the special occupational exception for religious bodies, the provisions protecting women, the exception based on nationality, measures necessary for public security, public order, the prevention of criminal offences, the protection of health, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, payments made by state schemes, the exception for the armed forces, reasonable accommodation for the disabled, justification on grounds of age, the exceptions for Northern Ireland, the additional exceptions contained in the Goods and Services Directive, and positive action.

This chapter covers legal protections for individuals with legally qualified disabilities. The authors begin by describing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 followed by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). Much of the chapter revolves around the legal definition of a disability and the various criteria that are used to assess whether a disability exists. This coverage illustrates how Congress, by amending the ADA, overturned several Supreme Court decisions to more accurately reflect the original intentions of the Act. The authors also present defenses that are available to organizations and the practices that are allowed under the law. Additional material includes supplemental readings, best practices, and a representative summary of disability settlements with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

This chapter addresses the question of whether we can have a coherent disability discrimination law that takes account of only the first aspect of impairment, as a stigmatized characteristic and a target of exclusionary practices; the aspect in which an impairment is like dark skin, female sex, or homosexual orientation. It examines two issues that appear to suggest a negative answer. Both illustrate the interplay of the two aspects of impairment ? as stigmata and as limitations ? in disability law and policy. Both can be, and have been, adduced to argue that disability discrimination is different from other forms of discrimination. The first issue concerns the fit of ?reasonable accommodation? with anti-discrimination law. The second issue involves the gap between a commitment to the social equality of people with disabilities and accepted practices of disability prevention, from folic acid enrichment to seat-belt laws. This gap raises difficult issues about what it means to discriminate, or to discriminate wrongfully, against persons with disabilities.

Some members of the military may leave the service with physical and/or psychological injuries or wounds. This chapter offers business leaders and human resource professionals a blueprint for hiring and retaining wounded warriors and veterans with disabilities in civilian organizations by providing an overview of the intersection between disability, veteran status, and employment. It contextualizes the employment picture of this population, addresses misconceptions surrounding their capabilities, and provides employers a road map for how to help them successfully reintegrate into the civilian workforce. The chapter provides guidance on tackling obstacles faced by both employers and veterans throughout the hiring process and addresses and dispels the myths related to job performance. Key issues of disability disclosure and reasonable accommodation are indicated, followed by promising practices for hiring and retaining veterans with disabilities. The chapter concludes by outlining federal laws pertaining to the employment of veterans with disabilities along with additional resources for employers.

Its protectorate, its duty-bearers, and the duties it imposes determine the basic structure of discrimination law. A protected ground must: (i) be a personal characteristic that classifies persons into groups with a significant advantage gap between them; and (ii) it must either be immutable or it must constitute a fundamental choice. Relatively disadvantaged groups are typically offered greater protection than their cognates—in other words, the protection of the law is largely asymmetric. Discrimination law does not impose its burdens on everyone, nor does it impose them on advantaged groups. Instead, its burdens are imposed unidirectionally on the state, on employers, on landlords, and on providers of goods and services (but not, generally, on citizens, employees, tenants or consumers—when acting in these capacities). Its duties include a prohibition on direct and indirect discrimination and harassment, and provision for reasonable accommodation and affirmative action.

In chapter 5 the author turns her attention to the relationship between religious symbols, cultural patrimony, and secularism in an analysis of the debates over “reasonable accommodation” and the Charter of Values/Charter of Secularism proposed in 2013, finding trances of the ghostly presence of Catholicism in Québec society.

The place of sharia law in European political societies varies. It is incorrect to believe that we can simply turn a blind eye to religious laws or to treat them as irrelevant. They are very relevant for a growing number of people, and secular states want to be able to monitor the way in which religious norms affect the lives of people. The fundamental point raised in this chapter is that the practice of religious norms has to be compatible with the general framework of law set by ordinary norms.

This chapter provides resources for vocational rehabilitation, or simply, the job training and support services a recovering schizophrenic will want to take advantage of in order to start a new life. Vocational rehabilitation programs typically provide vocational counseling and guidance, assessments to help identify skills and abilities for obtaining a job, training in job skills, support services that include transportation, equipment, and the like, as well as job placement assistance, which can include training for interviews or job coaching. Occasionally, some people might need some minor adjustments to their work environment—herein referred to as “reasonable accommodations”—in order to perform effectively at work or school.

While the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which was the first major international human rights treaty to be signed by the EU, has a notably experimentalist character, the participation of the EU does not seem to have been a strong determinant of these elements of the Convention. Instead, the experimentalist character of the CRPD seems to be explained largely by the prominent role played by disabled persons, disability NGOs, and national human rights institutions within the negotiation process. The EU appears to have treated the international negotiations and treaty-making process as a potential channel for ‘uploading’ its own preferred position, and its own disability-discrimination regime. Nevertheless, the EU has, since the coming into force of the CRPD, been quite active in ‘downloading’ this instrument, implementing the Convention and its provisions within EU law and policy.

This chapter analyses arguments regarding conflicts of rights in the field of antidiscrimination law, which is a troublesome and less studied area of the growing literature on conflicts of rights. Through discussion of Ladele and McFarlane v. The United Kingdom, a case before the European Court of Human Rights, the chapter examines how the construction of this kind of controversy in terms of ‘competing rights’ or ‘conflicts of rights’ seems to produce paradoxical results. Assessment of these apparent difficulties leads the discussion in two different directions. On the one hand, some troubles come to light regarding the use of the conflict of rights frame itself in the field of antidiscrimination law, particularly in relation to the main technique (‘balancing of rights’) to solve them. On the other hand, some serious consequences of the conflict of rights frame on the development of the antidiscrimination theory of the ECtHR are unearthed.

This chapter analyses the right to work. It examines how the CRPD has come to provide for the participation of disabled people in the ‘open labour market’ and examines the various barriers that limit such participation. It also considers alternative forms of employment, including sheltered and supported employment, as well as how they relate to the new emphasis brought on the right to work by the CRPD. It subsequently focuses on the extent to which the Convention calls into question those working arrangements that ignore the complexity of human diversity. It further appraises the provision of equal employment opportunities for disabled people warning against certain limits in the consideration of employment as nothing but gainful employment in international human rights law.

This chapter revisits Ladele v. The United Kingdom, contending that the way in which the case was argued at the European Court of Human Rights resulted from a restrictive interpretation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights by UK courts. It is argued that Ladele and other cases remain best adjudicated and understood as freedom of religion claims, provided that the way in which such claims are argued and adjudicated is improved. This chapter innovates by applying Ayelet Shachar’s call for ‘joint governance’ to the question of religious freedom as a human right for the first time, before suggesting that a relational approach to the relevant cases is required, emphasizing relationships and the power roles within them.