Celebration of the 30th Anniversary of the ADA!

Welcome to Disability Matters with your host Joyce Bender. All comments, views, and opinions expressed on the show are solely those of the host, guest, and callers. Now the host of Disability Matters, here's Joyce Bender.

And happy ADA 30 months! As you know, every July we celebrate all month the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and what a special year it is, being that it is the 30th anniversary. Just can't believe it.

It's—

wow, that went really fast. Uh, and it is such a great thing. It's such a great day, such a great celebration. But before we start, a special shout out to Yoshiko Dart. Yoshiko, love you. You know we think about you all the time, but especially now. When we are celebrating the 30th anniversary of the signing of the ADA, we think of what you and your late husband, Justin Dart, did for all of us to see that sign. So just want to have a special shout out to you and to all my listeners around the world. Wow, China, you are really in first place with the most listeners. And thank you, every country where I have listeners. You know what? You are just disability champions right where you are by spreading the word about quality of life for people living with disabilities. And everyone, no matter where you are in the world, just like here in the United States, we're thinking about you as we go through this pandemic. We hope you are safe and healthy and doing everything you should be doing, but we are, We are thinking about you. I have to thank Highmark. Highmark has been the lead sponsor now for 4 years of this radio show that's been on 16 years, I believe it is. And couldn't do it without them. And this year, People's Natural Gas was a year-long sponsor. And then we have our other 2 new sponsors, Wells Fargo, and Employment Options. All of you, thank you. You're helping me make a difference in the lives of people living with disabilities. Well, I wanna tell you, I had the great honor of meeting Kai Feldblum, Kai Feldblum, many years ago. And I still remember people telling me, you know what, she was involved in the original writing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And then of course she became the Commissioner, and I have always looked up to her and just feel she is a brilliant, wonderful advocate for people with disabilities and people in the LGBTQ community. And it is an honor To have you with us. Hai is now a partner and director of Workplace Culture Consulting at Morgan Lewis. Is it Buckius? Buckius?

Buckius. But we go by Morgan Lewis.

Okay, well, that makes it easier for me. Morgan Lewis. And welcome to the show, Hai. Welcome, welcome, welcome.

Lovely to be here. Thank you, Joyce.

Well, I, I wanted to start with what I was just talking about, uh, which is your role in the writing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because I know for many people that you had a significant role not only in writing but lobbying, negotiating, uh, to see it become law. So, um, how about if you give us that history? Because We're trying to preserve history of, you know, all these things. So how about if you share that history with us?

Absolutely. And it is really wonderful to be thinking about the work that went into Congress enacting the ADA 30 years ago. As you said at the top of the show, absolutely a moment for celebration. So, I worked on the ADA from 1988 to 1990, and of course, many people had been working on pushing disability rights for many, many years prior to my getting involved. But when I did get involved, as you noted, I played really one of the leading roles in drafting and negotiating the ADA. And the way that that came about was because of my work at the ACLU AIDS Project. Because the way to get protection for people with AIDS and HIV infection was within a law that would protect all people with disabilities. And ironically enough, or maybe not ironically, the way that we got the political pressure to pass the overall bill protecting people with disabilities was because of the pressure to pass a bill protecting people with AIDS and HIV. So the way that that came about was a decision that the Supreme Court handed down in 1988, and that's— well, 1987, when I was actually clerking for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court at the time and was involved in this case. That held that people with contagious diseases, in that case, a woman with tuberculosis, was covered under the existing disability rights law, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, that protected a person with a disability if they were working for an organization, an institution that got federal funding. In this case, it was a public school that got that funding. When that case came down in the middle of the AIDS epidemic, right, it's 1987, there was an effort to exclude people with AIDS and HIV from that existing law. And because of the discrimination going on, there was an effort by the AIDS advocates to enact a new law that would cover people even if they were working for a private employer seeking services from a private store or business. So, my initial charter, right, my job description was to work on a bill that would protect people with AIDS and HIV infection. But very early on, I felt that as a matter of both ethics and politics, we, that is the AIDS and the gay community, should not be pushing for a limited bill like that, but should be pushing for a broad-based ADA. So, that's how I came into it. And then what happened is, you know, it's sort of like there's a need, and I was at a place where I filled the need. So, there were any number of lobbyists. Pat Wright was the overall strategist, together with many others. Justin Dart, Ralph Denise. I mean, there's a long list of folks who did the strategy and the lobbying, but I became the leader of the legal group. So, I was in touch constantly with folks across the country who had been litigating some of these cases for years, like Arlene Mayerson at DREDF, like Jim Wiseman on transportation. So, I was in touch with all of them, and I was in touch with the political groups. So, I was almost a conduit between those two. So, I understood what the litigators wanted the law to say. I understood the political constraints sometimes in having it written that way. And so, I was, you know, in the room during the negotiating, during the drafting, and then going back to the coalition. To explain the compromises that we needed. So it was quite an experience, and I am— will be everlastingly grateful that I was sort of in the right place at the right time to, to do that work. Wow.

Well, thank you for everything that you did, because that was certainly a key role. And I'll bet you had to deal with consternation, or I should say opposition, from people in Congress, but not only that, from companies, companies that were not happy about this?

Well, I think that's critical that you raise that point in terms of people who would be opposed. Without a doubt, businesses were concerned, both as employers and as entities that served customers and clients. The main job that I did in terms of negotiating was negotiating with the business community. So for example, Randy Johnson, who afterwards for many years was at the Chamber of Commerce, was a Republican staffer at the House at the time, negotiating with him and the other Republicans to get business support. And even before going over to the House, Over on the Senate, we had, of course, Republican senators who were, including Senator Dole, who were obviously concerned with what business would be concerned about. And so, that was essential that we had a— that we had open communication, and even more than that, very affirmative efforts. By me and others in that group to reach out to the business community, to reach out to Republicans in the Senate and the House, and come up with provisions that would work. So, there are many compromises in the ADA, some of which, you know, were very hard compromises to accept, but it's what got it to be a bipartisan law. And ultimately, some of the provisions, I think the businesses brought some valid concerns that we were then able to address.

But you did have to deal with the whole problem with buses not wanting to have to spend all that money being accessible, just one example. And there were so many. So I cannot imagine you know, what that was like. And I think for everyone listening right now, this really is history. You know, this is history, and it's exciting, but it's good to know that it didn't just happen, that one day we just had the ADA. I mean, it was years, and it was hard, and it was sometimes contentious, and it was all these people like Hai that fought the fight to get this signed, and I think that's important, you know, for everyone to know. And then I knew you also as the EEOC Commissioner. In that role, um, did you deal with cases that impacted people with disabilities in that role that you were in?

Yes, absolutely. Um, and I was a Commissioner of the EEOC from, uh, 2010 to 2019. And that is the Commission that was set up by Congress when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the main civil rights act that, among other things, prohibited discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex, national origin, religion. That was the Commission that was set up in that law to be a bipartisan commission that would implement Title VII. And when the ADA was enacted, the ADA applied the same framework, um, as Title VII. So when I went to the commission as a commissioner to the EEOC, my job was to continue to help implementing the ADA as well as other employment civil rights laws. And I will say one thing in terms of the period of time between 1990 and 2010, right, in those 20 years, I was a law professor at Georgetown Law School running, setting up a federal legislation clinic. And with law students for 20 years, I represented a whole range of disability rights organizations. So, I continued my work on disability rights post the ADA on behalf of different organizations. And one of the most important things that we worked on during that time period was the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, because the courts had really, really cut back on the definition of disability. At one point, I was giving a speech and someone named the panel "Honey, They Shrunk My Law," which was exactly right. The courts had just shrunk the ADA. It really needed a new law to build it up again, and that was the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. And when that passed, I knew that the power of that new law would depend on the regulations that the EEOC would issue. It was going to depend on those regulations. Um, just like the regulations EEOC had issued in 1991 to implement the original ADA had actually been problematic on this definition of disability, so we clearly needed good new regulations for this new law. So, and that was, that was really the main impetus for me to accept the request from the Obama administration to be nominated for a position as a commissioner at the EEOC.

Yes, and I, I had the great pleasure of being at some committee meeting that you had, and we all We're very proud to have you in that role at EEOC. But right, that ADA Amendments Act, I mean, that could have been terrible, you know, for the ADA. So thank goodness that that was taken care of. I wanted to ask you one question because I know you've been very involved in this, and that's Section 501 of the Rehab Act. What's going on with that? What's happening?

Yes, so in terms of what's happening with that, it all depends on how good the federal agencies are being right now in implementing that. But for your listeners that may not know sort of exactly what that does, Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, it is probably one of the most important disability rights laws. Together with Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act. And the reason for that is the follow— is as follows, right? This is in a law that was passed in 1973, and it was the Rehabilitation Act, which was mostly money to the states to run their vocational rehabilitation programs, right? So that was most of the law. In Title V of the law, right, where you usually have all the miscellaneous sections, In Section 501 of that law, it says that the federal government has to take affirmative efforts in hiring and advancing people with disabilities. So unlike the ADA that simply says you may not discriminate— very important provision, but all it says is you may not discriminate— Section 501 puts an additional burden on federal agencies, affirmative efforts to hire people with disabilities. And Section 503 puts that same obligation to take affirmative efforts on any private company, organization that has a contract with the federal government. Let's call them government contractors. So those are very important provisions, broader, stronger, right, than the ADA's simple nondiscrimination provision. But just having something written in the law without strong teeth, without strong enforcement, doesn't get you as far as one would like to go.

So under the Obama administration—

I agree with you. Right. And under the Obama administration, the, under the leadership of Pat Shiu, who was at the Department of Labor, the Department of Labor issued good regulations to implement Section 503. And it was an absolute commitment of mine that while I was at the EEOC, the EEOC would issue regulations putting teeth into Section 501, really explaining to federal agencies that we wanted them to have targets of how many people with disabilities they would hire and separate targets for people with manifest disabilities that are often the ones that are stopped at the interview door, as well as targets for all people with disabilities. So I'm very proud that we got that regulation out pretty much right before the administration changed. I think many federal agencies are doing a very good job, but I'm sure there is more that federal agencies can be doing to implement those regulations.

Right, and I think it is that enforcement. I mean, I know it is. I know it is. And you know what? If you go to people, Section 503, okay, a lot of, at least companies know about that, But people aren't as familiar with 501, so that's why I wanted to go over that because it is equally important. And we have a caller on the line right now. Chris, are you on the line?

Yeah.

Hello, Chris.

Hello.

How are you?

Hello, Joyce Bender.

Hi, hi. Hi, Chris. Yes.

How are you?

Okay.

Hey, I have a question for you. So since the, the passage of the ADA Amendments Act, what are some of the issues that you're seeing now emerge? Things that maybe you sit there and say, oh, I wish we had fixed that, or things where you say, oh, this is working out just great?

Well, number one, what a delight to hear Chris Chris Griffin's voice here. No one, no one ever mistakes your voice, Chris, or mine. I think the combination of the accent and whatever else, right? And for those who don't know, Chris Griffin, I basically followed her to the Commission, to the EEOC. She was the Commissioner before me who was the expert and focused on disability. I would say, in terms of this, the main piece I would be disappointed in is something that is just inherent in the ADA, and it's sort of based on what I said before. It is only a nondiscrimination law. Now, let's be clear about only. That's— it's a huge piece, right? It means, for example, that people will no longer, in an interview, say to someone who comes in using a wheelchair or is blind or has cerebral palsy, something, no longer can they nor do they usually say, "Oh my goodness, you could not possibly do this job." So it does provide opportunities for people to get hired. But because there's no affirmative obligation, they can just say nothing. But just not hire the person. And then that can just happen over and over and over again. And I think we see that because of the very still higher unemployment and underemployment rate for people with disabilities, right? Either they don't get hired at all, or they get hired into a job that's way below their capacity and potential, you know, based on their qualifications. So that's to me the biggest disappointment, but it's hard to actually say a disappointment when you know that the law only gave us a certain number of tools. Otherwise, I mean, the other piece, which again is not in the ADA, but Chris and Joyce, I'm sure you've seen this as I have. The newer generation, you know, they call themselves the ADA generation. They were born after the ADA was They grew up with it. I do believe that they have strong expectations for themselves. I think they have helped, and I think the ADA has helped shape other societal expectations, because basically we have to change the expectations on the ground, sort of person by person, about what people with disabilities can do. And again, the law can help. But it's not enough.

Hmm.

Yeah. What do you think about that, Chris?

Well, I couldn't agree more on both counts. And I, you know, I, like you, have always, always said that there needs to be affirmative action of some sort in order to start, you know, not even so much as equally leveling the playing field, but, you know, just to even gain some momentum. Because I've always believed that once a lot of people with disabilities get into the workplace, that, you know, a critical mass of us will show that, you know, we're capable of doing the job just as well as anybody else, and that, you know, that employers will want to hire more people with disabilities. But right now, because we don't have that critical mass there, everyone's still, like you said, you know, you might get the interview, but whether you get the job or not is still based on, you know, some sort of bias that the individual may have about what they think about people with disabilities and their ability to do a job. So, I— that's why I always loved the federal government piece. Because you had a little bit more teeth there with the Rehab Act to actually try and force at least the federal agencies to do something affirmative.

Right. And let me say two other things, Chris, that are— Joyce, these are directly relevant to things Chris has either said or done. So number one, I always quoted you, Chris, when I was talking to folks in the agencies and they were saying, well, but so how are we going to meet this goal, you know, your 2% goal of people with manifest disabilities, and that's this many people, and how are we going to do it? And I would say, you know what, as Chris Griffin always says, just hire one, okay? Just start with one. Don't worry how you're going to get to 8. Okay? Just hire one. Because as you say, you hire one person with a significant disability, see how good they are, then you can get to your next, you know. And the other thing I would say in terms of the regulation is you worked so hard with the Office of Personnel Management, really trying to push hiring of people with disabilities. And as we all know, Joyce, you were such a critical part of that in terms of creating the base, the pool of candidates. But ultimately, the regulation under 501 is just stronger, even though it still needs enforcement. But I think this is really— I mean, I think it's so interesting in terms of having the three of us on the phone together in this one moment on this show, because I think we really all played a very important role in enhancing employment at the federal government and We all know how much further we have yet to go. Yeah.

Yeah, that's true. That's true. Well, it's great hearing your voice too. I know that you keep the work going even though you're doing some other things as well. But, you know, who knows? Maybe in the next administration we'll see that success that we always hoped for.

That's right.

That would be lovely.

That's right.

That would be lovely. Well, hey, Chris, thank you so much for calling in.

Thank you, great job. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Bye, Chris. She is so awesome. Uh, before I bring on our news segment, I just want to tell you, Chris is one of the people that told me about you years and years ago. She said to me, have you ever met Hy Feldblum yet? And I said no, and she said, oh, you have to meet her. She is so smart. She is so good. And then a few years later, it is she that told me you were the critical person with the ADA. That is who told me. So ironic that she would be the one calling right now. You know what I mean? I thought, here she is, she's the one, and she's calling in. But anyway, it's time for our Weekly Newsbreak on Disability with Advocacy Matters and our newscaster, Perri Judd Radisic. Welcome to the show.

Hey, thanks, Joyce Bender. Hello, hi, it's good to hear from you, and thanks for all of your ongoing work as well as everything you did for the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Thank you.

Yeah. So we want to bring everyone up to speed on all of the things that's happening in Congress. The U.S. House of Representatives is back from its July 4th recess. Members returned last week to host hearings, mark up a variety of bills, and begin to move the fiscal year 2021 appropriations bills through their committees. So we have provided a link as well as a list of the key committees scheduled for this week. That's over in the House of Representatives. So go to disabilityrightsPA.org right now. You can find a list of the key hearings that have been happening since Monday as well as the hearings that have— that still are to happen for the rest of this week, you can go to the Advocacy Matters segment right now, find that on our homepage, and then you can find links right to those committee hearings. And just an example of some of the hearings still yet to come: Thursday, the Committee on Natural Resources, the Subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples, Health Committee of the United States on Thursday at 1:00 is scheduled to have a hearing on Native youth perspectives on mental health and healing. And then on Friday— —the Committee on Ways and Means, the Subcommittee on Social Security, is going to explore the impact of COVID-19 on Social Security and its beneficiaries. Go on over, check that out at disabilityrightsPA.org, find those links to those committees, and learn more about these important hearings. Now, the Senate is still on their July 4th recess until Tuesday, July 21st. When the Senate returns, the big topic that everybody's waiting for is what will this fourth COVID-19 relief package should look like for the country. Now, a few weeks ago, Joyce, you know, we talked about the HEROES Act. We discussed that package on the show, what the House, uh, had in that package, and we're waiting for what the Senate will do. Now, the congressional watchers are talking about what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated he wants in this Senate package. Right now looking like it's going to be much smaller than the House package. He's open to an additional stimulus package for all Americans who file a tax return. Now, the Center for Public Representation has an action page on this. We have a link to their action page. Please go to our website again at Advocacy Matters segment for today, disabilityrightspa.org, check out their action page. Remember, advocacy matters. Both the House and Senate are back next week through the end of July. We need your help to push a fourth stimulus package through Congress before their traditional August recess. So again, visit disabilityrightspa.org for all of these links on today's for today's show and for that very important link to the Center for Public Representation's action page. Thanks, Joyce.

Oh, thank you so much, Perry. And, uh, you know, it's just wonderful to have this weekly update so that all of us people with disabilities know what is going on. Uh, and thank you, thank you so much.

Hey Joyce, can I ask hiya question?

Oh, that would be great. And I was going to say, Perry Jude, it's so wonderful to hear your voice, you know, given how we worked together so many years ago. So yes, I would be happy to hear a question.

So working in the protection and advocacy, I still get to work with Curt Decker and our sister agencies like Chris across the country. The topic that comes up again and again, Hai, is transportation and Amtrak. And so, I didn't know if you had any thoughts about where we might have been in transportation now, given where the ADA was 30 years ago.

Oh, that's a great question. And I did notice, Joyce Bender, when you specifically mentioned, you know, the controversy and the around buses. And it was buses, and it was trains, it was commuter rail, it was Amtrak. I mean, that basically was 2 years of my— 2 years, that looked like 2 months of my life, you know, just taken up with negotiating that. And unlike all the other committees, you know, there were 4 House committees that dealt with the ADA, 1 in the Senate. Usually it broke out into Democrats Democrats, you know, being more aligned with the disability community, Republicans being more aligned with the business community. So it was— that's how the negotiations happened. That wasn't the case for Amtrak, Greyhound, other buses, trains. There, it was both the Democrats and the Republicans, I think, were very concerned about the companies, the Amtrak, Greyhound, etc. Because they had jurisdiction over them. So it was sort of the two of both parties negotiating with us on transportation. So that actually shaped the political leverage that the disability community had, right? So I would say, for example, in terms of Amtrak, whenever anyone goes to Amtrak and sees a large bathroom, Right? That is because of the ADA. And that is because of the negotiations to make sure that there were bathrooms that could accommodate people who are using wheelchairs. But in terms of stations retrofitting, I mean, we really had to give a long timeline for Amtrak to come into compliance. We had to do the same thing with buses in terms of retrofitting for lifts. I mean, that was just the political reality. So, I think where we are in transportation right now is definitely, obviously better than where we would have been without the ADA. But every person who has mobility impairments, who uses a wheelchair, has tons of stories about problems, whether it's about elevators or anything else that creates a hurdle. There are tons of problems still. And I think this has to be the combination of both enforcement, constant enforcement, and obviously protection and advocacy systems, and other disability rights groups are key in that. And also back to changing social norms, social views about what is acceptable and not acceptable in our society. You know, and it's not acceptable that someone cannot get to where they need to get to for a job because the subway or the Amtrak or the Greyhound isn't accessible that day. So, I'm glad you raised that and, you know, all the various things we have to continue working on.

Hey, thanks so much.

Oh, wait, hold on, Piri Jude. Hold on. I just want to tell you, hi, that every week for how long now, Perry Jude? 2 years? 2 years. Yeah, uh, Perry Jude calls in on the half hour to give an update on what's going on nationally in legislation or in our government for people with disabilities so that they know what's going on, and she does a fabulous job.

Excellent. I'm so— it's wonderful to hear that.

Okay, well, Perry, you have a great day. You too. Bye-bye. Okay, so here we are, 30th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but we know there, even just from hearing this conversation, that there are some dreams that have not been realized, and what do you think those are?

Well, you know, as we said, I think the biggest dream for me that has not been realized is a greater change across societal perception and societal expectations of people with disabilities. I mean, if I could change one thing, if I could hit fast forward to get to one place, it would absolutely be that change. That there is simply a difference in the perception and expectation of capacity on the part of people with disabilities. Because we all know the capacity is unbounded. I mean, we all know people with disabilities are as smart and as mediocre as people without disabilities. Right, absolutely. Everyone's on the spectrum. It's just disability isn't what makes the difference. And I think sort of connected to that, I do wish we would see a greater effort by employers, by businesses, to recognize the background norms in society that people just take for granted that are in fact stopping people with disabilities from fully being able to work, travel, go out and eat, etc. Because there are these policies and physical barriers all around us that most people never even think about. It's like it's just in the air, right? But they are barriers that absolutely stop people with disabilities, right? So, if you build a building with steps, or you have a restaurant with one step, you don't even— most people don't even see the step. But that step is stopping a person who uses a wheelchair from getting in, right? Or we have a policy that says no one can eat at their desks, right? Okay, no one. But they're not stopping to think that someone with diabetes might need to eat at their desk. If their blood sugar goes down, right? It's this non-awareness of these background norms that I think are really problematic. And what the ADA did was to, what I called in an article, rectify the tilt, right? Having that step there or having that rule, no eating at your desk, that puts people with certain disabilities on a tilt.. And what the ADA says by saying you have to do a reasonable accommodation, right, modify the policy for that person or put a ramp over that step, all that does is rectify the tilt under that one person. Better than nothing, right? But it's just that one person. You're still, like, singling out now that that person, you know, has diabetes, has a reason to, You need a modification of the rule. Or a rule that says everyone has to come in at 9:00 AM, right? And that can be a problem for someone who has medication that makes it difficult for them to come in at 9:00 AM. So the other thing I would love to see is employers, businesses, builders, right, scrutinizing those background norms and change the norms so everyone is standing on flat ground. No one is on a tilt. Just don't build the building with the step in the first place, which is, of course, what the ADA does require going forward. Or think about whether you really need the policy that everyone comes in at 9:00 a.m. Maybe everyone can have flexibility, and then the person with the disability doesn't have to ask for a special accommodation. You know, people think reasonable accommodations are like special rights, you know, equality plus, and I call it equality minus, because the only reason you need to rectify the tilt under that one person is because you haven't gotten rid of the background problems. So, I'd like to see that as well.

Right, and you know, something that I don't understand, I really, even though this is what my life has been dedicated to, I still don't understand why people do not want to hire people with disabilities. Why is that? And I guess it goes back to what you originally said about the perception and the awareness and understanding about people with disabilities. But, you know, when you think about it, it's so hard to understand Why people today, I mean, most places today are accessible or the accommodations are not as significant. I mean, bathrooms are accessible, buildings are accessible, the majority. So why do we have this problem?

I think Chris Griffin, You sort of hit the nail on the head with that. I think that, I mean, it's what you just said sort of plus, right? So people just assume, let's say someone uses a wheelchair, comes in to interview. You're right. I mean, the building is now accessible, perhaps because of the ADA, if it's new or got retrofitted, bathrooms are accessible. But that person comes in for an interview and the person think, and there's a lot of travel connected with the position, and the person thinks, Oh, this person is going to have trouble traveling because they can't imagine traveling if they were using a wheelchair, right? Oh, I can't imagine this person can travel. Or they come in and it's a sales job. Oh, this person is not going to be able to project strongly with the client, right? They have those stereotypes. And if they've never hired a person who uses a wheelchair, they have never had the opportunity to have those stereotypes blown out of the water. Right? Chris Griffin travels everywhere. You know, I mean, you know, Emily Ladue, some of the stuff she puts on her Facebook, which is, you know, so compelling, you know, in terms of experiences she has had while traveling. People are so amazed she can travel so well, you know. I'm sure I'm pronouncing her name wrong, Joyce Bender. I'm sure you probably can pronounce it correctly. But, you know, what has to happen is that the employer, like I said, just has to hire one person with a disability, whether it's using a wheelchair, whether the person is deaf, whether the person is blind, whether the person has any other manifest disability that people have stereotypes about. Right? They don't have a problem hiring the person with, let's say, a heart condition or arthritis because, you know, they potentially have lots of people like that, you know. I mean, those people still need protection for accommodations and for nondiscrimination. But for hiring, for initial hiring, you know, the ADA does prohibit employers from asking about your medical conditions, which was not the case going before. That's made a huge difference in having people with medical conditions get hired. But if your disability is manifest, the interviewer knows it, which is why actually some now online applications, et cetera, can really be better, at least in terms of getting into the door. So, to your question, why do they film that one to hire? People with disabilities, I think it's because they do not understand the capacity of someone with such a disability, and they often don't understand that because they have no one in their workplace that looks like that person. Mm-hmm, yeah.

That is why when I speak at a company and they say to me, "Oh Joyce, we wanted to bring you in because, you know, we want to start hiring people disabilities and we haven't. And I say, oh yes, you have. Yeah, you have. They're right here at your company. Yeah, they have a mental health disability, epilepsy like me, epilepsy, MS, cancer, you know, diabetes. I could go hard of hearing. I could go on and on. It's just they aren't telling you. And that's what you have to be worried about. Why aren't they telling you? Why aren't they raising their hand? And something that I know you have been a big advocate of, and I really wish, you know, it could have been enforced more with Section 503 of the Rehab Act, is that significant disabilities, which in the federal government is known as targeted disabilities, The more significant the disability, the harder it is for the person to get hired. There is no doubt about it. Quadriplegia, blind, deaf, whatever it is, the more significant, the harder it is to get hired.

And I know you know that very well. Yeah. Yes, that's why it was so important to us in the 501. Regulation, which is different from the 503, not to just clump together the goal, you know, let's say 12% goal of hiring people with disabilities, not to just clump all people with disabilities together. Very important to your first point that employers realize that people with epilepsy, like you said, that you have, or anxiety disorder that I have, or or heart conditions, cancer, et cetera, for people to understand that those are also disabilities and to create a safe space in the workplace for people to self-identify. So very important to do that. And that will allow an employer to get to, let's say, a target of 12%. But separate from that, there has to be a sub-target. Has to be a sub-target for people with, as you correctly say, are called people with targeted disabilities, because they just have a much harder time. So we have to keep our eyes on both balls.

Yeah, right. It's just, it's something that if you're an employer and you're listening, when you don't hire someone with a significant disability, or if you're in the federal government, a targeted disability, you're missing out on an untapped labor pool that if you hire, forget about pity, forget about charity, it's going to be a return on investment for you. So, you know, that's a mistake you are making. I am very proud to tell you, Hai, that For example, with Allegheny Health Network that's owned by Highmark, that just a month ago they hired someone from us with quadriplegia and then someone that is blind. And that's when you know how progressive the company is. As Mary Brocker says, that works for me, she'll say, that's an awake company. They're awake. They get it. They know what's going on. So I feel very strongly about that. So what about today, Hai? Do you think today, if we went out there and said, oh, we have to get the ADA signed, what do you think would happen today?

Well, I have to say, I am generally an optimist by nature. Okay? And an optimist is not someone who ignores the facts on the ground. The ground, right? An optimist is someone who sees the facts on the ground, understands that, but then is thinking, how can I push this forward, right? Believing that one can push it forward. So I have to say, based on that, I could imagine the ADA passing again now. Maybe it would be tough. Maybe it wouldn't be by the huge bipartisan margins that we had. Practically no one voting against the ADA in 1990. And we again pulled it off in 2008. And let me tell you, there was a lot of partisanship in 2008, but we did it by reaching out to the business community again, negotiating again. So I would hope that we could get it passed even today, but I will tell you, I am I'm very, very grateful that we got it passed 30 years ago, so we don't actually have to know the answer to that question now.

Yeah, right. Thank goodness. Yeah, the one other thing I want to say about the Americans with Disabilities Act is I really wish there was more education in schools about the ADA and about the civil rights leaders, like you, like Justin, like Ed Roberts, you know what I mean? So that if I would go out and say to someone, "Oh, who's Justin Dart?" that I would not have the people that aren't in the disability community say to me, "I have no idea." I mean, I really wish we could have more education in that area.

And maybe something— I think that's so important. I think that's so important, especially for people who are not disabled to understand the work that has been done before. That is the importance and the power of history. So, I think you were right about that.

Well, I know we only have a couple of minutes here until the show ends, but could you quickly tell everyone what you do now, just so they know, at Morgan Lewis? Sure.

So, I joined Morgan Lewis just about a year and a half ago. From the Commission. I joined the firm because I wanted to have a platform where I could be of service, of counsel to employers, including very large employers that wanted to create workplaces that would be safe and respectful and diverse and inclusive, right? It's like I had been, spent a lot of my professional life helping Congress pass laws. I've been at an agency helping to issue regulations. And I wanted to sort of complete the circle by helping employers do even more than what the law required. Okay? So, going beyond enforcement and compliance with the law and moving towards a much broader perspective on making the workplace different. And although a lot of the knowledge that I brought with me was based on work we had done on the Commission on how to stop harassment on the basis of sex, right, we issued a major report in 2016, a year before the #MeToo movement really blew up in a very helpful way. So, even though a lot of my background was on Harassment Based on Sex. When I came to Morgan Lewis, and I came with Sharon Masling, who was my chief of staff at the EEOC, we were very clear that we wanted to help employers create these types of workplaces— safe, respect, diverse, and inclusive— where there would be no harassment on any basis. So because both Sharon and I have a long history with disability, all the work we have done in the past year and a half we always end up bringing disability as well as race, you know, national origin, religion into our conversation. So I will have to say that I have been very happily very, very busy in the last 4 weeks doing a lot of diversity and inclusion counseling for companies and organizations that are really trying to step up to the plate. Now in the wake of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter and really trying to make a difference in their company or organization. And I'm happy that I can help them on that front with regard to race, as well as, as I say, bringing in other groups such as people with disabilities. Well, you know what?

I am not surprised you're doing that because you are so awesome. Well, we end every show with a quote, with a quote, and today it is, "The ADA is the living testimony to our nation's commitment that we always stand up for our neighbor's right to live fulfilling lives," said Senator Tammy Duckworth. This is Joyce Bender, America's Voice. Where Disability Matters at voiceamerica.com. Happy 30th ADA. Talk to you next week.

Voice America would like to thank you for tuning in. Please join us next Tuesday at 11 AM Pacific time and 2 PM Eastern time for another installment of Disability Matters right here on the Voice America Variety Channel. We are the leader in live internet talk radio. VoiceAmerica.com.