PubMed · 2111482
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J Perry. Students: why Project 2000?. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.4.25.47.s52
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) was widely hailed at the time of its enactment in 1990 as providing broad protection against disability discrimination, including discrimination against individuals infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In the years since its enactment, however, courts frequently interpreted the ADA as providing far less protection than was initially anticipated. The Supreme Court's first case involving HIV and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, Bragdon v Abbott, addressed this trend by ruling that a woman with asymptomatic HIV infection is protected from discrimination in accessing dental services. In doing so, the Court endorsed an interpretation of the ADA that is broadly protective for individuals with disabilities. The Court also ruled that health care professionals may legally refuse to treat a patient because of concern that the patient poses a direct threat to safety only if there is an objective, scientific basis for concluding that the threat to safety is significant. In addition to the ADA, state laws frequently prohibit disability discrimination and apply to some employers and others not regulated by federal law. A state-by-state survey of those laws demonstrates that, consistent with Bragdon v Abbott, individuals with asymptomatic HIV have widespread protection on the state level.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Under Title I of the ADA, individuals who believe they have been subjected to disability-based employment discrimination may file an administrative charge. This article looks at who files charges; over what issues, and with what outcomes in both Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) field offices, and state and local fair employment practice agencies (FEPAs). The data for the article are computerized records of all ADA charges filed through March 31, 1998. The data indicate that individuals who rely on a FEPA to investigate their charge have a greater likelihood of obtaining a beneficial outcome than individuals who rely on the EEOC, but proportionately more individuals receiving a beneficial outcome are likely to receive monetary benefits from the EEOC than from a FEPA. Further, those who receive beneficial outcomes will probably receive greater monetary benefits from charges investigated by the EEOC than from those investigated by a FEPA.