September 14, 2007

Re: ADA Restoration Act of 2007

Dear Chamber of Commerce:

This is on behalf of the National Council for Support of Disability Issues (“NCSD”) to respond to the letter of the United States Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) concerning House Bill HR 3195, the Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act. Located at – http://www.ncsd.org, NCSD equals a cross-disability policy Section 501c(3) non-profit. Equaling a member-based and policy focused non-profit with some 500 members, the young organization is acquiring a recognized voice on policy issues and concerns of persons with disabilities. This is accomplished through advocacy, education and technical assistance.

We conveyed our correspondence in support of the ADA Restoration Act to the Honorable Majority Leader earlier this summer. Continuing to support enactment of this legislation, we believe that providing our follow-up commentary is critical, especially in light of the Chamber's deleterious correspondence.

While we appreciate those organizations, who allegedly reflect interests of the business community, undertaking the opportunity to express concerns about legislation affecting persons with disabilities. As discrimination equals a reality instead of a historical by-gone, there is a clear continued need for education about issues and challenges persons with disabilities daily encounter in the marketplace, on the town square, and, indeed, with members of the business and small business communities.

The original, bipartisan, bicameral intent of the ADA has since been

distorted by the Courts through narrow interpretations. The employment rate of people with disabilities has not drastically or quickly improved since the enactment of that landmark legislation some 17 years ago. Furthermore, people with disabilities who do not have a job indicate they would work if they could only find employment, that is, an employer who has the cart blanche to grant an individual with challenges, but certain abilities, a job. Conservative oriented courts are deciding against people with disabilities. They often have difficulty in challenging discriminatory treatment or proving that the employer reacted to them unfairly.

The bill removes the misinterpreted “substantial limits one or more major life activities” language but still has a strict and clear definition of what constitutes a “physical” or “mental” impairment. Contrary to the speculation of the correspondence, this will not inflate the number of qualified individuals with disabilities. Rather, the bill only ensures that the definition that was intended by Congress is viable despite misguided decisions and rulings of courts and policy-making by conservative wonks.

The comments of the Chamber reflect the typical kind of arguments heralded whenever there is new civil rights legislation being proposed or when the viability of existing civil rights statutes is being ensured through the legislative and/or regulatory process. The deleterious and disingenuous who are counterpoised to reasonable civil rights panoply rely on the shibboleth and/or theory that enacting or fortifying legislation that protects the civil rights of a particular grouping of citizens will cause financial burdens on the business community.

Over the course of time, providing additional civil rights panoply have

resulted in increased opportunities for subpopulations of citizens, such as African Americans, which have in turn, brought forth new revenue streams to businesses. As more and more persons with disabilities acquire gainful full-time employment; this will be equally true for this subpopulation of the American public. For that to be the case instead of an aspiration, myriad barriers must be eradicated, among which, are the all too often discrimination of persons with disabilities in the workplace. As such, it is critical that court decisions, particularly, including those rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court, be abrogated via the legislative process, in this circumstance the ADA Restoration Act. Moreover, if there are true circumstances in which a requested accommodation will be financially beyond the capabilities of a business, then the fundamental alteration defense may

be raised, even often successfully.

In light of their correspondence, it is clear that there is a need for

dialogue among the business community and disability advocacy policy

organizations. We look forward to forging a relationship with the Chamber in order to perform education to the business community about the civil rights of persons with disabilities. The Chamber's comments constituted the incorrect position on this matter. This is to express our desire and confidence we can serve as valuable providers of expert witness testimony on any hearings on the bill. Please do not hesitate to telephone Gary C. Norman, Esq., Legal Chair at – (410) 241-6745.

Sincerely,

Officers and Board of Directors of the National Council for Support of

Disability Issues

CC: U.S. Chamber of Commerce

1615 H Street, NW

Washington, DC 20062-2000