11.

Section 101(b)(1) "Defenses" is almost the most complicated sentence in the bill. Can you please break that

sentence down and explain what it means?

12.

In Section 101(a)(1) (B) what does the term "equal" mean

when used in that context? Who determines what is

"equal?" Again, under Section 101(a)(1) (C), who
determines what is "less effective" than that provided
to others? Who makes that determination? Is there
some sort of notice requirement to employers or to
public accommodations that what the disabled is
receiving is "less effective" before an owner can be
sued for punitive damages?

13. What would you say to the private doctor who desires not to hire as a nurse an individual who tests positive for HIV AIDS virus? Must that doctor hire him or be in violation of ADA? If that is true, what assistance is provided for the loss of business which might then occur to the doctor?

14.

Similarly, what if a child care center does not want to take a child who tests positive for AIDS virus. Must that child be accepted? If so, what compensation could be given to the business which finds itself bankrupt because of raised insurance rates?

that person could be fired from his position if he did

not, at that point, pose a "direct threat" to property or the safety of others in the workplace?

7.

In your opinion, doesn't this legislation require employers to make difficult, if not impossible, determinations regarding the immediate dangers posed by an individual's drug use, in the face of overwhelming evidence that drug use in the workplace is inherently dangerous?

8.

Under Section 202 (b) (3), the ADA places restrictions on tests that "tend to identify" qualified individuals with disabilities.

Doesn't this language, taken

together with the language in Section 101 (b), restrict the practice of many employers to use drug screening of employees or prospective employees? An individual screened out by such testing could challenge the exclusion unless the employer could prove that the exclusion is necessary and substantially related the ability of an individual to perform the essential functions of a particular job.

5

9. I am concerned by the ability of government to end the demand for illegal drugs in the workplace, in schools, Doesn't existing law

in public housing, and elsewhere.

80

i.e., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, under Section 504, which outlaws discrimination by federal grantees against "handicapped individuals"

-

pose a problem because the law has been interpreted to include drug and alcohol abusers among the "handicapped," so that it impairs the ability of local school boards who try to expel drug-abusing students or public housing authorities who try to evict tenants who are drug offenders? Wouldn't the language of the ADA make the

problem even worse?

10.

In Title (a) (2) the bill states that "for purposes of
this act, aides, benefits, and services to be equally
effective, must afford an individual with a disability
an equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain
the same benefit, or to reach the same level of
achievement, in the most integrated setting appropriate
to the individuals needs." Who decides what is
"appropriate to the individuals needs?" Who has the
burden of proof in this regard? How are the needs

determined?

15.

What about a person with a history of mental disease, including violence and child abuse, yet the person's doctor certifies him as healed and he is otherwise extremely well-qualified for the job. Can a child care center, nevertheless, refuse to take him on that basis alone? For that matter, would it even be appropriate under ADA to ask on an application form whether the person had a past history of mental disease or would that run afoul of Section 202 (b) (3)?

TITLE II

1. Section 205 provides for a private right of action for "any individual who believes that he or she is being or is about to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability

...

(emphasis supplied)." This provision

for anticipatory suits is unprecedented with respect to employment matters. Won't this result in clogging the federal courts with vague claims of anticipated discrimination? What effect will this have on the case backlog? Why include this in the employment Title?

2.

Can you articulate definite guidelines for the concepts
of "reasonable accommodation" and "undue hardship"?
You state in your testimony that those terms have

been used before and that criteria is listed under

$84.12 regulations.

Please specify which leading

cases (with citations) have defined these terms,

including the "cost" or "nature" of accommodation

required. Has the 'safety of others' been considered

under the umbrella of "undue hardship"?

a) If an individual has a typing business in her
home, must that person include, at a minimum,

a ramp and large bathrooms to accommodate
wheelchairs, if any other repair work is

being contemplated on the house?

If not,

where is the exemption?

TITLE IV

1.

Example: I am an owner of a restaurant in Wisconsin

and I want to be in compliance with ADA now that it is law. Please tell me what I need to do to put myself in compliance with the law?

(b)

What if I had intended to put a new balcony
eating area on second floor next year? Under
Section 402 (b) (5) do I have to enlarge all my
bathrooms at the same time and put in an
elevator?

(c)

Do I have to have my menus in braille?

(d)

Do I have to have room for wheelchairs at all

locations in my restaurant?