Extending civil rights

Monday, Sept. 22, 2008 | 2:08 a.m.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, enacted in 1990, is widely regarded as one of the most important civil rights laws in our nation’s history. It gives disabled people protection against discrimination in the workplace, makes it possible for them to participate in state and local government programs and transit services, and provides them with access to public accommodations from hotels to parks to retail stores.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court at times has too narrowly interpreted the law with respect to protections afforded those with disabilities.

Thankfully, Congress came to the rescue Wednesday. In a rare show of bipartisanship, the House approved legislation that expands protections under the law to include people whose disabilities can be treated with medication or devices.

“We make it clear that those who manage to mitigate their disabilities can still be subject to discrimination and are still entitled to redress,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told his colleagues before the vote. “We recognize that those regarded as having a disability are equally at risk and deserve to be equally protected.”

Someone who uses a prosthesis, for instance, would be covered under the law, something the high court had disallowed.

“The impact of these decisions is such that disabled Americans can be discriminated against by their employers because of their conditions, but they are not considered disabled enough by our federal courts to invoke the protections of the ADA,” Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said on the House floor. “This is unacceptable.”

President Bush is expected to sign the legislation, which unanimously passed the Senate this month.

Expanding the protections under the law is important in part because growing numbers of Americans are living longer and experiencing disabilities as part of the aging process. Although advances in medical research and therapy result in treatment for physical impairments, hearing loss and other disabilities, those remedies don’t necessarily mean the people being treated will no longer be disabled. The high court should have recognized that.