Skip to main content
PRINT EDITION

Disparately Disabled: Advocating for All Federal Courts of Appeals to Make Disparate Impact Claims Cognizable Under Federal Disability Rights Law

Abstract: People with disabilities have the same rights and deserve to enjoy the same privileges as everyone else. However, people with disabilities face societal inequities that hinder their full participation in society. As a result of persistent advocacy and civil protest, federal laws have been enacted to prohibit discrimination based on a person’s disability. Yet, policies that discriminate against people with disabilities have continued. One cause of this troubling situation is that federal circuit courts still disagree on whether federal disability rights laws, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), allow plaintiffs to challenge facially neutral policies that disproportionately discriminate against people with disabilities. The Third and Ninth Circuits say that disparate impact claims should be cognizable under federal disability rights laws, while the Sixth Circuit says that disparate impact claims should not be cognizable, specifically under Section 504.

This Comment argues that the Sixth Circuit overlooked the possibility for seemingly neutral policies that could still disproportionately impact people with disabilities in practice. Policies that make face coverings optional in public schools during the coronavirus (COVID- 19) pandemic are good examples. Societal exclusion faced by people with disabilities was a systemic issue when Congress passed Section 504 and the ADA. Yet, societal exclusion based on disability still exists, in part because entities still implement policies and practices that unfairly impact people with disabilities. This Comment advocates for all federal circuit courts to follow the Third and Ninth Circuits in declaring that disparate impact claims are cognizable under both Section 504 and the ADA.

Download the Full Article

Other Articles from WLR Print Edition

December 1, 2024 in PRINT EDITION

How Detrimental is Transunion v. Ramirez, Really? Understanding the Impact on Environmental Law

Abstract: In 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a controversial opinion with the potential to constrict the standing doctrine. TransUnion v. Ramirez appeared to alter standing’s “concrete harm” requirement, which would…
Read More
December 1, 2024 in PRINT EDITION

Abdication of Power: Arizona v. Navajo Nation and Judicial Refusal to Enforce the Federal Trust Relationship

Abstract: Over 150 years ago, the federal government signed a treaty promising the Navajo people a permanent home within the bounds of their ancestral homeland. To this day, that promise…
Read More
December 1, 2024 in PRINT EDITION

Adverse Elements: How Requiring an Adverse Employment Action Element in ADA Failure-to-Accommodate Claims Hinders Disability Rights

Abstract: Individuals with disabilities are continuously marginalized by a world tailored to the able-bodied. One of the most visible areas where this marginalization manifests is employment. The Americans with Disabilities…
Read More