Disability Studies DQ 7

ContentServer.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Disability Studies DQ 7

Universally Designing the Public Sector Workplace: Technology as Disability Access

Carrie Griffin Basas

More than twenty years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, people with disabilities continue to face discrimination in society, particularly in employment. At the same time, workers with disabilities often seek shelter in public sector employment settings where job benefits and stability are perceived to be greater. Understanding that employees with disabilities are an increasing and desirable part of the American workforce, unions, particularly in the public sector, have increased outreach to this population. Their collective bargaining agreements will have to reflect this inclusion, however, to be successful in hiring and retaining worker-members with disabilities. Building on her earlier study of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)’s collective bargaining agreements and their disability provisions, the author provides a foundation for how unions might adopt proactive, partnership-based disability policies, particularly in the area of technology-based reasonable accommodations.

We are hearing about many people being let go [at the Veterans Affairs Admin- istration]. There was a surge of hires to do that work, and now we are getting reports of people being fired in their probation periods. Many of these are vets and disabled vets. (Marilyn Park, legislative representative for the American Federation of Government Employees [an AFL-CIO union, February 10, 2012])1

Introduction

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides for the elimination of disability discrimination in the workforce, particularly through its mandate that employers implement “reasonable accommodations”— modifications to or variations in workplace policies, schedules, and tasks—when they do not eliminate the essential functions of the job or pose undue hardships (administratively or financially).2 The ADA also provides guidelines for imple- menting respectful hiring practices when it comes to disability-related inquiries.3

It frames itself as a tool for eradicating a long history of bias and stigma against people with disabilities, as well as serious underemployment and unemployment of that population—with rates to two to three times that of the nondisabled.4

bs_bs_banner

While efforts to hire people with disabilities, particularly in public servant positions, are critical to the diversification of the American workplace and the elimination of disability discrimination, hiring is only one step in the process and needs to be bolstered by comprehensive plans and support for reasonable accommodation post-hire. Without such support, veterans and disabled veterans such as the ones described by Marilyn Park may see just another brief line item added to their work histories.

To understand the preparedness of the public sector for workers with dis- abilities, I have undertaken a systematic study of AFSCME’s current contracts database, with an interest in seeing how public sector unions address (or do not) disability issues in their collective bargaining agreements and in the workplace, generally.5 Are people with disabilities actively recruited and retained into the unionized workforce? What protections can they expect to see once they arrive?

The relevance of these questions is far from narrow in its reach. The U.S. workforce continues to grow older,6 work itself is a risky enterprise,7 and gov- ernment is increasing efforts to people with disabilities in hiring, arguably making the workforce more representative of disability in the coming years.8

Even with this increasing presence of disability in the workforce itself and in the conscience of employers, particularly in the public sector, the collective bargain- ing agreements in this study have not kept pace. They reflect a highly medical- ized approach to disability, in which they frame it not as civil rights and access, but more as an injury or impairment that happens to an individual worker.9 This kind of medical problem sometimes can be addressed effectively through insur- ances of various kinds, workers’ compensation, and sick leave, which are the most prominent provisions in the agreements.10 However, these medical provi- sions, however useful on the practical level, are not tied to plans for inclusion, such as those envisioned by the ADA’s drafters. It is not surprising that, under this approach, there is relative weak representation of workers with disabilities in the economy over time, as contract workers or able-bodied substitutes replace people with disabilities.11

If medical-oriented resources fail to be effective, the worker with a disability might perceive a failure in the system. He or she will find few enumerated resources in the collective bargaining agreements acknowledging a civil rights- based approach to equal access and opportunity, as embodied by the Americans with Disabilities Act.12 While those rights exist outside the collective bargaining agreements, even if they fail to acknowledge them, their representation is both symbolically and pragmatically important in demonstrating a commitment to disability civil rights and a procedure for exercising and enforcing them. Their inclusion can also serve as an important form of worker self-education. Very few (n = 17 out of 100) current contracts, for example, discuss reasonable accommo- dations, and even fewer provide any details about procedures for asking for or making accommodations.13

Failure to include accommodation in collective bargaining agreements could result from a number of factors, including avoidance of complexities, resistance to the mandate, limited energies in the bargaining process, and the prioritization

70 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY

of other needs above detailed descriptions in the agreement. Indeed, the rea- sonable accommodation mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act was perhaps its most controversial when the law was enacted.14 Fears, however, about undue costs and administrative burdens on employers have been gradually offset by the affordability and ease of society-wide technological improvements that are stand-ins for specialized assistive technology for people with disabilities.15

With technology’s increasing relevance as access for workers with disabilities, one might therefore expect to observe some discussion of it as accommodation in the collective bargaining agreements. These provisions are rare, however; the most prominent technology-based accommodations discussed in the agreements have to do with making training materials and policies accessible in alternative formats.16

At the same time, unions, particularly in the public sector, seem very inter- ested in obtaining new members with disabilities and retaining current members with disabilities. Their websites and organizing materials reflect greater aware- ness about disability as a workplace diversity issue.17 Pragmatically speaking, however, one of the chief concerns of workers with disabilities—new to the workplace or existing members—is how their disabilities will be accommodated at work.18 While not all workers with disabilities need or ask for accommoda- tions, approximately 10 percent do ask for accommodations that are technology or equipment based, such as screen-reading software, voice dictation software text-messaging cell phones, reaching devices, and screen magnification soft- ware.19 Therefore, as unions consider what their commitments to technology will be, and simultaneously consider the needs of workers with disabilities or anyone who could become disabled in the course of work, a consistent, thought- ful technology action plan will be of great importance. Through this article, I hope to provide strategies for unions to implement their disability-inclusive vision in ways that will continue to be timely as technology advances.

Simply enhancing technology in the workplace—“keeping up” with the neighbors in the private sector—might not be enough. With new technology come new difficulties for people with different access needs. For example, increased website design complexity has multiplied access barriers for visually impaired users, and telephones without video conferencing or text capabilities pose barriers to deaf people. In this article, I will discuss how efforts to respond to the needs of workers with disabilities and integrate and update technological approaches in the workplace can be complementary. The first section of the article addresses briefly some of the pipeline issues for public sector unions, such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), as they consider attracting and retaining members with disabilities. The next part of the article provides an overview of assistive technology and universal design and how those issues become part of the reasonable accommo- dation process and the responsibilities inherent to it. Then, I offer insights into the special concerns of unions, particularly in the public sector when it comes to these technology accommodations, and close the article by providing resources and suggestions to address these concerns. This final section, through its action

Basas: Technology as Disability Access 71

plan, goes beyond the narrow question of technology and accommodations in the unionized public sector workforce, charting a way for the labor and disability rights movement to have effective collaboration.

Pipeline Issues

To understand how to attract and retain workers with disabilities, unions will have to gain an understanding of the historical and current barriers keeping their employment suppressed. People with disabilities remain the largest unemployed minority population in the U.S.20 Even two decades after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its employment provisions, the situation of unemployment has not changed greatly for this population.21 Many labor and disability scholars attribute this problem to attitudinal barriers that prevent people with disabilities from being hired into the workforce commensurate with their skills, and issues of retention within the workplace, if employers fail to effectively accommodate employees with disabilities.22

Over time, public sector employment has become regarded as a safe place for workers with disabilities because of consistent benefits, clear leave policies, flexible schedules, and other health-friendly approaches.23 However, no one has done a comprehensive study of how workers with disabilities are actually treated within public employment, or how issues of accommodation are addressed. Much of the allure of the public sector could be a reality or myth. Regardless, people with disabilities do tend to gravitate toward these work settings, and their treatment within them should be a significant research question because it could shape not only that sector, but also strategies in the private sector for greater workforce participation by people with disabilities.24

Unions, in general, have been regarded by workers, disabled or not, as places of protection and assistance, as well.25 Thinking about these issues synergisti- cally, one might expect that people with disabilities might not only gravitate to federal, state, and municipal kinds of employment, but also to unionized pro- tection in those settings. (Unions, however, have not been consistent about tracking disability identity in the workplace.)26 If stable, consistent jobs are what are sought, then unionization’s promises of representation and fairness offer expanded benefits of working in the public sector for people with disabilities—if and only if, unions begin to understand the demands that disability poses in the workplace. This perception of demand should not be a deterrent but rather a realization that disability poses its own set of issues, and ones that if they are addressed effectively, will provide benefits to any worker that might have similar health care, flexibility, and equality concerns, disabled or not.27

Universal Design vs. Assistive Technology

One barrier to implementing the vision and requirements of disability non- discrimination law has been employers understanding what is required of them. Title I of The Americans with Disabilities Act provides that all employers,

72 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY

including those that are public sector and unionized or are labor organizations themselves, must provide “reasonable accommodations” to job candidates and qualified employees with disabilities.28 Reasonable accommodations are modifi- cations to a job, the workplace, or processes and policies that enable a qualified individual with a disability to experience equal employment opportunity and the benefits and privileges of employment—essentially, a “ramp” to similar job performance and benefits that a similarly situated employee without a disability might enjoy.29 Accommodations allow employees with disabilities to perform the essential functions of the job and become integrated into the workplace and the productivity stream. The accommodation process is described as “interactive,”30

where employers and employees discuss what the needs and possibilities are, and arrive through dialogue, at a solution that is not an undue burden (financially or administratively) on the employer and yet meets the needs of the employee.31

Some examples of reasonable accommodations include job restructuring, adjusted work schedules, changing job or training materials, providing qualified readers or interpreters, reassignment to vacant positions, and purchasing or modifying equipment.32 This last example is the focus of this article.

In acquiring or modifying new equipment, primarily these days— technology—an employer is wise to consider these acquisitions from the view- points of both universal design33 and assistive technology.34 Assistive technology is equipment that enables people with disabilities to perform various tasks; its design is focused on the physical or mental impairments that limit the individual. Universal design (“UD”), in contrast, takes a broader perspective, considering the ways in which all technology purchases, workspace decisions, and “improve- ments” to workplace processes, might affect all users.35 The goal of universal design is to create social communities and physical spaces where the need for individual accommodation is reduced because the greatest number of people has access from the beginning without the need for special interventions. Universal design encourages flexible spaces and thought processes in advancing everything from adjustable desks and chairs to time and stress-saving software for all employees to use.36

Assistive technology’s rightful place, in an environment focused on UD, should be as a gap filler as employers move toward workplaces that work for everyone.37 Universal design focuses not just on physical environments but also on company processes and the accessibility of them. 38 Assistive technology becomes, then, the focus of reasonable accommodations or personal vocational rehabilitation.

In looking at technology decisions, employers may sometimes be concerned that any acquisitions or modifications to equipment are for “personal,” not professional use by the employee.39 The Equal Employment Opportunity Com- mission (EEOC), in interpreting the ADA’s requirements, also makes this dis- tinction, requiring employers to make accommodations that serve a purpose in the workplace and asking employees with disabilities to provide their own technology that has a personal purpose, such as a cane, electric wheelchair, ventilator, hearing aid, or prosthetic limb.40 If any item is specifically designed to

Basas: Technology as Disability Access 73

meet job-related needs or used primarily on the job to accomplish the essential functions of the job, then it falls into the category of a potential workplace accommodation.41

In a recent study by the Job Accommodation Network, a program of the U.S. Department of Labor, researchers found that about 25 percent of employers were considering an accommodation solution that involved buying a product or equipment, such as software or a tool.42 About 10 percent were considering modifying a product or equipment, while a smaller number were considering doing both. JAN’s largest set of inquiries (32%) came from federal, state, and local government serving everything from executive to legislative functions.43 (Service, finance, health care, education, and manufacturing industries also presented a large number of JAN’s information and assistance requests). JAN notes that less than half of 1 percent of its yearly contacts come from people identifying themselves as union leaders (number in FY 2010–2011 was 40,554).44 While they did not track specific inquiries from unions or provide any breakdown between private and public sector unions, for that matter, they do note a few interesting findings. Most of their calls and e-mail inquiries were from public sector employ- ers about reasonable accommodations.45 Of those requests, most of them related to motor and mobility impairments (42 percent), closely followed by sensory accommodations (36 percent). The remainder of the accommodations related to disabilities that were cognitive, neurological, psychiatric, or classified as “other.”46

The Special Concerns of Public Sector Unions

Employers, public sector or private, unionized or not, often feel daunted by the ADA and the perceived complexities of its provisions and the burdens that it might pose on their administrative and financial resources.47 Employers, at the very base line, want to hire workers that can do the job efficiently and effectively with minimal intervention and individual expenditures. The accommodations approach of the ADA assumes that employers will have to spend more money to hire and retain an employee with a disability, in contrast to one without.48 This assumption is not universally true, however. Only about 20 percent of employees with disabilities require accommodations, and 89 percent of those accommoda- tions are one-time expenditures of $500 or less.49 This kind of situation is comparable to all kinds of other lifespan and health considerations that enter the workplace, such as pregnancy, temporary injury, paternity leave, and retrain- ing.50 In some ways, disability can be less expensive, and seen as more of an investment in the long-term productivity of the employee and the enterprise. JAN’s research on universal design and assistive technology supports this posi- tion, as well, claiming that most employers reported direct and indirect benefits from purchasing or modifying technology, including the retention of a qualified employee, increases in individual and company productivity, the elimination of the costs of hiring a new employee, improved interactions with coworkers, and increased company morale.51

74 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY

The concerns of employers, particularly public sector unions, are real, how- ever, and require strategies for addressing them effectively. In this tough economy, employers are worried about financial constraints and the costs of accommoda- tions.52 As federal, state, and local budgets experience hardships, resources for accommodation in the public sector might become particularly limited. Employ- ers might worry that initial accommodation requests could become a slippery slope to less control over the workplace and their budgets. They lack expertise with the ADA and can find it to be threatening and confusing.53 In the public sector, these kinds of concerns might be exacerbated by the interest of people with disabilities in finding perceived safe refuge in that form of employment.54 Even without asking for accommodation, people with disabilities might provide a stress on government budgets with increased health-care costs and needs.55

At the heart of this tension is the struggle between individual interests, which the ADA seems to represent, and the collective good position of union representation where individual interests are subsumed to the needs of the whole. Workers with disabilities undeniably pose issues when it comes to senior- ity, job reassignment, job restructuring, and flexible scheduling.56 Perhaps, it is no surprise that unions seem interested in recruitment but have not sufficiently expressed preparedness for disability and accommodation processes in their collective bargaining agreements.57 It is all the superficial upside of disability as diversity without a great handle on the logistics, which have daunted employers in all sectors since the ADA’s passage. Unions might be concerned that they cannot sufficiently represent the issues of people with disabilities, or that in doing so, they might have to sacrifice other members’ interests or even those of the citizens of the locales they serve through their government employment.58

One seemingly forgotten perspective in this mix of concerns is the manner in which unions historically have gotten to know and understand disability as an experience. Because efforts to infuse disability into a larger diversity agenda are relatively new in all employment sectors, disability, for most of the industrialized period, has been an impediment that results from workplace injuries. Those individuals with preexisting disabilities simply did not work or did piecemeal work from home.59 While unions have stood ready to assist colleagues disabled by the workplace, they seem less prepared to embrace disability as socially disabling and a civil rights and diversity experience. The fact that AFSCME’s collective bar- gaining agreements (CBAs), for example, are replete with provisions for workers’ compensation, sick leave, and injury, and yet lack a broader vision of disability, supports this position.60 One step forward for unions is to gain understanding about the disability civil rights movement and locate its place among other civil rights movements that unions have supported as they have changed the face of their operations and values.61

Resources to Address Access and Expertise Gaps: A Way Forward

If employers and unions tend to overlook the needs of workers with disabili- ties, as I have surmised, because of fears62 and gaps in knowledge, education is

Basas: Technology as Disability Access 75

the way forward for greater inclusion in the unionized workforce. Rather than expecting each union—at the local or national level—to become stand-alone experts in disability law and reasonable accommodation principles, efforts should be directed at encouraging dialogue between the labor and civil rights movements. Through this exchange, both can better appreciate the needs of the other, while mapping resources that will assist in realizing disability integration at work.

No Need to Become Stand-Alone Experts

The first strategy to infusing more of an accommodations vision in public sector unionized workplaces is to dispel the concern that unions and unionized employers need to become stand-alone experts in the ADA and reasonable accommodation solutions, particularly emerging technologies.63 One missing aspect of the disability rights movement and the execution of the ADA was knowledge about an array of community-based services to assist both workers with disabilities, their employers, and unions.64 These resources range from the Department of Labor (DOL)-sponsored Job Accommodation Network to state assistive technology projects.65 The work of making workplaces more tech and disability friendly will need to happen in three complementary intersecting streams, however: policy, worker self-advocacy, and community assistance.

Process and Policy as Universal Design

The collective bargaining agreements sampled in my study largely lack a detailed process for raising disability issues, requesting accommodations, or securing ADA rights. The first step to having an accommodations process that works for everyone is to identify a contact person or office for accommodations and include that information in the CBA, as well as other relevant documents such as the employee handbook, union website, and human resources brochures. The principal importance of its inclusion in the CBA is that all employees can access it with ease, and the agreement has binding effects. If mechanisms for accommodation are too dense or unwieldy to be in the CBA, they should at least be encapsulated somewhere else and revisited with consistency, just as technol- ogy is also constantly evaluated for the access needs it addresses and the new barriers it might pose. Unions and employers, as part of their documentation process, should look at their websites and social networking tools, too, to ensure that they meet accessibility standards because they might be the first stop for workers with concerns.66

These ideas of process, therefore, are twofold: creating a thoughtful, under- standable process for dealing with disability issues in the workplace when it comes to accommodation or other discrimination concerns, and making univer- sal design considerations at the heart of any evaluation of the suitability of new technology procurements or modifications. When size and resources allow, both the employer and local union should have an accommodations coordinator of

76 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY

some kind that keeps up to date on disability law, perhaps as a larger set of duties relating to health insurance, leave, and EEOC compliance.67

Worker Self-Advocacy

My suggestions so far seem to point in the direction of the onus being on employers and unions. Workers with disabilities, however, have critical roles in increasing knowledge about the ADA, disability as a lived experience, and the potential relevance of disability issues to all workers—currently disabled or not. Depending on the length of their impairment and their social environment, workers with disabilities might not have extensive knowledge about their legal rights, disability as a civil rights movement, or opportunities for brainstorming with other similarly situated workers.68 One way to increase worker knowledge is to ensure the transparent processes suggested earlier, combined with including disability as a valued issue in all diversity efforts (e.g., training, materials, vision statements), and providing outlets, such as affinity groups, for workers with disabilities.69 They should have access to a list of local and national disability resources, such as the Department of Justice’s ADA Information Line,70 the Job Accommodation Network’s reasonable accommodation assistance service and database,71 the state assistive technology project,72 the state’s protection and advocacy organization,73 state vocational rehabilitation services,74 and any local independent living centers for people with disabilities.75 The crafting of this kind of short, accessible document that is updated regularly is also a valuable resource for human resources, union leaders, and others with a stake in promoting workplace harmony.

Workers with disabilities will become better self-advocates, as they are encouraged to share their disability perspectives, to “be out,” and to lead in the union and the workplace.76 While one worker should not be considered to speak for everyone, changing the face of shop leadership on the ground can make a difference in general comfort and acceptance levels among coworkers when it comes to disability issues.77 Through the development of relationships with community groups that are experts on disability, employers and unions can encourage workers with disabilities to attend technology expos and assistive technology demonstrations so that they can be valuable, current resources on the best accommodation solutions to increase their comfort and productivity at work.78 Becoming self-experts ensures that workers will better understand what they need and can then communicate those needs clearly to unions and employ- ers. Finally, in partnering with community organizations that have technology readily accessible to disabled workers, all individuals concerned can form a team to reduce the costs and delays associated with accommodations. In adopting these accommodations, they might find themselves promoting the advancement and refinement of technology that could be useful to nondisabled workers, too.79

One excellent example of this phenomenon is the “mainstreaming” of speech recognition software, formerly used by people with vision, learning, or physical disabilities as a substitute for typing.

Basas: Technology as Disability Access 77

Community Collaboration

As technology becomes of increasing importance to guaranteeing the inclu- sion of people with disabilities in society, particularly at work, unions, and employers should not feel as if they are signaling, or admitting to, ineptitude by seeking the assistance of disability specialists. Many free resources exist in the community, and consultants can advise on a range of matters from financial assistance with accommodations to emerging technologies and their accessibil- ity. Rather than being strained, these community supports are often underuti- lized by employers, unions, and workers with disabilities.80

For issues of general workplace inclusion, unions and employers might find it helpful to consult with their regional Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTAC) (ADA Technical Assistance Centers),81 the U.S. Business Leadership Network,82 or the Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy,83 all leaders in infusing the business case for disability in workplace policies. DBTACs, for example, have developed extensive best prac- tices for state and local government, contractors, and employers.84 For greater perspectives on universal design, the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University is setting the national agenda.85 Specialists in assistive technology, the “gap fillers,” are such organizations as the Rehabilitation Engi- neering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA),86 the National Technical Institute for the Deaf Center on Employment,87 the Assistive Technology Industry Association,88 and AbleData89 (a project of the National Institute for Disability Research and Rehabilitation). Government employers, such as the Department of Defense, are also developing deep knowledge through experience with employees with disabilities.90 Offshoot programs, such as the Computer/Electronic Assistance Program, serve as consultants on technology- based reasonable accommodations in federal settings.91 Increased discussions among these model programs, as well as coalition building and networking with them for unions still fledgling in their understanding of effective ADA implemen- tation, would be cost-effective and efficient strategies for success.

Conclusion

The technology issues facing workers with disabilities in public sector unions are ones familiar to other workers with disabilities. Failures in technology and accommodation result in missed communication, lack of inclusion in decision-making processes, reduced productivity, and increased stress and absenteeism. Fundamentally, the failure to be inclusive is one of a breakdown in official processes and planning, but merely looks like neutral, unbiased procure- ment decisions. By educating themselves and their workers with disabilities about community-based resources and disability as civil rights, unions and employers can advance access and inclusion in the workplace with minimal costs. By familiarizing themselves with the tenets of universal design, all stakeholders will have greater appreciation and awareness when it comes to decision making,

78 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY

contract drafting, and grievance handling not only for workers with disabilities but also for those without disabilities. If technology promises a tangible return, it is to make workplaces more worker friendly by building in innovation, flex- ibility, and responsive, and in turn, creating respectful workplaces for all.

Public sector unions, such as AFSCME, might hold even greater respon- sibility and potential for meeting the needs of workers with disabilities than private sector unions, at least in this moment in time. As people with disabili- ties tend to gravitate toward public employment for its benefits, stability, and reputation for responsiveness to civil rights concerns, AFSCME, in particular, has an opportunity to expand upon existing models of accommodation and introduce new ideas that meet its particular members. Through its unions, it can forge new alliances among members without disabilities, members with disabilities, governmental employers, and other constituents to simultaneously advance both the technology in the workplace and the rights of workers with disabilities.

While some of this innovation may be emerging in the field, the importance of documenting it carefully, creating a long-term plan for its management and improvement, and incorporating it into the core collective documents cannot be understated. Through both collective bargaining agreements and the day-to-day decisions that workers with disabilities see around them, they understand their place in the organization and the workplace. As one of the newest civil rights movements, disability rights’ strength is its ability to touch the life of anyone, and therefore, break down barriers between other marginalized categories, such as class, race, gender, sexual orientation and identity, and national origin. In essence, disability can become anyone’s issue. In making it one of its issues, with support from existing disability organizations and resources, unions can advance models of workplace flexibility and responsiveness that bolster worker morale, occupational longevity, and union commitment.

Carrie Griffin Basas, J.D., has been appointed Associate Professor at the University of Akron School of Law. Her research and advocacy focus on mar- ginalized workers, particularly those with disabilities. Address correspondence to Carrie Basas, Associate Professor, University of Akron School of Law, 150 University Avenue Akron, OH 44325 (USA). Email: cbasas@gmail.com.

Notes

1. Alice Lipowicz, VA Responds to Accusations about Excessive Outsourcing, Federal Computer Week (February 10, 2012), http://fcw.com/articles/2012/02/10/va-responds-to-accusations-about-excessive- outsourcing.aspx (last accessed March 1, 2012).

2. 42 U.S.C. §12111(9).

3. 42 U.S.C. §12111 et seq.

4. 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, Current Disability Employment Statistics, http://www.dol.gov/odep/#.UJQUBc2mRxE (last accessed November 1, 2012).

5. Carrie Griffin Basas, A Collective Good (2012) (draft on file with author).

Basas: Technology as Disability Access 79

6. Ninety-three percent of the growth in the U.S. labor force from 2006 to 2016 will be among older workers (fifty-five or older). Pew Research Center, Recession Turning a Graying Office Grayer (2009), http://www. pewsocialtrends.org/2009/09/03/recession-turns-a-graying-office-grayer/ (last accessed March 1, 2012).

7. More than 4,500 workers were killed on the job in 2010, and over 3.3 million people each year suffer a workplace injury from which they do not recover. OSHA Commonly Used Statistics, http:// www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html (last accessed March 1, 2012).

8. See, for example, Proposed Regulations Implementing Section 503 of Rehabilitation Act (Notice issued on December 9, 2011), imposing a goal of 7 percent of federal contractors’ workforce being people with disabilities, requiring more record keeping and analysis, and establishing collaborative recruitment pro- grams for people with disabilities.

9. Basas, supra n. 5.

10. Id.

11. See Lipowicz, supra n. 1.

12. Id.

13. Id.

14. Jeffrey O. Cooper, Overcoming Barriers to Employment: The Meaning of Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship in the Americans with Disabilities Act, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1423, 1148–49 (1991).

15. National Council on Disability, The Power of Digital Inclusion: Technology’s Impact on Employment and Opportunities for People with Disabilities (2011), http://www.ncd.gov/policy/technology (last accessed September 5, 2012).

16. Basas, supra n. 5.

17. See, for example, AFL-CIO (AFSCME’s parent union), Resolution 18: Unions Should Give People with Disabilities a Voice and a Face (AFL–CIO Convention 2009), http://dpeaflcio.org/pdf/DPE- res_18amend.pdf (arguing that people with disabilities need to be included within the union and given a constituency group); James Parks, Actors with Disabilities All but Invisible on TV, AFL-CIO Now Blog (October 11, 2010), http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/10/11/disabled-actors-all-but-invisible-on-tv/ (dis- cussing the roles of people with disabilities within union membership and union’s efforts for diversity); AFL-CIO, Civil, Human, & Women’s Rights, Constituency Groups, http://www.aflcio.org/About/ Allied-Organizations/Constituency-Groups (providing information about AFSCME’s civil rights foci and its constituency group program). AFSCME also gives a “Disability Award” to affiliates that have made differences in the lives of people with disabilities. See Disability Award Winners, AFSCME Works Magazine (January/February 2000), http://www.afscme.org/news/publications/newsletters/works/ januaryfebruary-2000/disability-award-winners (all last accessed September 5, 2012).

18. See Peggy Klaus, “A Chance to See Disabilities as Workplace Assets,” NY Times (Feb. 4, 2012) (discussing workers with disabilities’ worries about accommodation in the workplace).

19. Beth Loy and Linda C. Batiste, Universal Design and Assistive Technology as Workplace Accommoda- tions: An Exploratory White Paper on Implementation and Outcomes 15 (May 2007).

20. Disability Funders Network, http://www.disabilityfunders.org/disability-stats-and-facts; UN-Enable, Dis- ability and Employment, http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=255 (last accessed November 6, 2012).

21. Arlene S. Kanter, “The Law: What’s Disability Studies Got to Do with It or an Introduction to Disability Legal Studies,” Columbia Human Rights Law Review (2011) 42: 403, 425.

22. See Samuel Bagenstos, “Subordination, Stigma, and Disability,” Virginia Law Review (2000) 86: 397, 429–30, (emphasizing that biases and negative attitudes toward disability can be more disabling of people with disabilities at work than impairments themselves). See also Participant-Identified Leading Practices that Could Increase the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities in the Federal Workforce, GAO Office Reports & Testimony, Vol. 2010 no. 1 (November 1, 2010) (Participants said that the most significant barrier keeping people with disabilities from the workplace is attitudinal, which can include bias and low expectations for people with disabilities.)

23. While no statistics exist on the percentage of disabled workers in public sector unions, other evidence suggests that they would be more likely to be in public sector work (and perhaps, public sector unions) over private sector work. See, for example, U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release (April 2011), http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm (last accessed January 5,

80 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY

2012) (The union membership rate for public sector workers [36.2 percent] was substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers [6.9 percent] ), considered along with Ezra Zubrow and Marcia Rioux, Disability, Marginalization, Empowerment, and GIS, http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/ zubrow.pdf (last accessed December 10, 2012) (discussing how governmental policy can create employ- ment “ghettos” of the majority of disabled workers).

24. Id.

25. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 2003, “Summary Table: Perceptions of Unions’ Impact According to Union Status” (2003) 304, (showing that union employees were most likely to perceive unions as helping employers, the economy, union workers, and nonunion workers).

26. I am aware of no statistics, for example, that chart the number of workers with disabilities in particular unions. AFSCME did not have these statistics available.

27. See Susan Sturm, “Designing the Architecture for Integrating Accommodation: An Institutionalist Com- mentary,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review (2008) PENNumbra 157: 11, (discussing how accommo- dations improve the workplace for workers without disabilities, too).

28. 42 U.S.C. §12111 (9) (2012).

29. Id., see also EEOC, “Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act,” (October 17, 2002), http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/ accommodation.html (last accessed December 6, 2012).

30. Id.

31. Id.

32. Id.

33. Molly Story, et al., “The Universal Design File: Designing for People of All Ages and Abilities,” (1998), http://design-dev.ncsu.edu/openjournal/index.php/redlab/article/viewFile/102/56 (last accessed March 1, 2012).

34. AccessIT, “What Is Assistive Technology?” http://www.washington.edu/accessit/articles?109 (last accessed March 1, 2012).

35. Story, supra n. 33.

36. See also Wolfgang Preiser and Korydon H. Smith, Universal Design Handbook, 2nd ed. (2010).

37. See, for example, The National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, Universal Design for Learning and Assistive Technology, http://www.nectac.org/topics/atech/udl.asp (last accessed December 10, 2012) (noting the importance of designing education, for example, with access in mind from the start, and using assistive technology to bridge the gaps); David H. Rose, et al., “Assistive Technology and Universal Design for Learning: Two Sides of the Same Coin,” Handbook of Special Education Technology Research and Practice (2005) 507, (arguing that improvements in each field—AT and UD—inform and enhance one another).

38. DBTAC Northwest, Universal Design in the Workplace, http://www.dbtacnorthwest.org/_public/site/ files/ada/documents/UD_Workplace_Final_02.pdf (last accessed December 6, 2012).

39. The ADA does not require employers to purchase personal items for employees with disabilities. EEOC Title I Enforcement Guidance, supra n. 29.

40. EEOC Title I Enforcement Guidance, supra n. 29.

41. Id.

42. Loy and Batiste, supra n. 19: 7.

43. Id.

44. Email correspondence with Beth Loy, Job Accommodation Network (January 6, 2012).

45. Loy and Batiste, supra n. 19: 8.

46. Id.

47. See Mark C. Weber, “Unreasonable Accommodation and Due Hardship,” 62 Florida Law Review (2010) 1119.

48. See Thomas DeLeire, “The Unintended Consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Regulation (2000) 23: 21.

Basas: Technology as Disability Access 81

49. Loy and Batiste, supra n. 19: 9.

50. See Christine Jolls, “Antidiscrimination and Accommodation,” 115 Harvard Law Review (2001–2002) 640: 644–45, (noting the interrelationship of accommodation and antidiscrimination).

51. Loy and Batiste, supra n. 19: 10.

52. U.S. Department of Labor, Employers and the ADA: Myths and Facts, http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/ fact/ada.htm (last accessed December 6, 2012).

53. Louis S. Rulli, “Employment Discrimination Litigation Under the ADA from the Perspective of the Poor: Can the Promise of Title I Be Fulfilled for Low-Income Workers in the Next Decade?” Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review (2000) 9: 345, 361.

54. See Basas, supra n. 5.

55. See Peter D. Blanck, “The Economics of the Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Part I-Workplace Accommodations,” DePaul Law Review (1997) 46: 877, 907; Bonnie P. Tucker, “Insurance and the ADA,” DePaul Law Review (1997) 46: 915, 937–40.

56. See Stephen F. Befort, “Reasonable Accommodation and Reassignment under the Americans with Dis- abilities Act: Answers, Questions and Suggested Solutions After U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett,” Arizona Law Review (2003) 45: 931, 944–46.

57. Basas, supra n. 5.

58. See generally Ravi Malhotra, “Empowering People with Disabilities,” New Politics XI, http:// nova.wpunj.edu/newpolitics/issue41/Malhotra41.htm (last accessed December 10, 2012) (suggesting that unions and disability rights might put aside tensions to collaborate toward independent living for people with disabilities).

59. See, for example, Colin Barnes, et al., “Disability Studies Today,” (2002): 102–04 (discussing the effects of the industrial revolution on people with disabilities).

60. Basas, supra n. 5.

61. See, for example, Jesse Jackson, Assault on Unions Is Attack on Civil Rights, Reader Supported News (February 23, 2011), http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/5056-assault-on-unions-is-attack- on-civil-rights (last accessed December 6, 2012) (calling the fight over public sector unionization in Madison a modern Selma); Zaragosa Vargas, “Labor Rights Are Civil Rights” (2005): 273 (linking labor rights with the improved health of Mexican-American workers).

62. Bob Peck and Lynn T. Kirkbride, “Why Businesses Don’t Employ People with Disabilities,” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation (2001) 16: 71.

63. See, for example, Mark Warschauer, “Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide 4,” (2004) (providing a case study of how labor unions and other community groups in Ireland leveraged scarce resources and new technologies to address unemployment).

64. See, for example, Susan Sturm, “Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach,” Columbia Law Review (2001) 101: 458, 553, (discussing outreach to employers on antidiscrimi- nation compliance issues).

65. JAN, Technology, http://askjan.org/topics/tech.htm (last accessed March 15, 2012).

66. See Jim Thatcher, “Website Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance 25,” (2006) (noting the importance of including people with disabilities in the process of making websites more accessible).

67. See GAO, “Participant-Identified Leading Practices that Could Increase the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities in the Federal Workforce,” 7 (October 2010) 2–8 (emphasizing the importance of better coordination for accommodations, as well as centralized funding and human resources training) (GAO Report).

68. Lauren Lindstrom, et al., “Waging a Living: Career Development and Long-Term Employment Out- comes for Young Adults with Disabilities,” Exceptional Children (2011) 77: 423.

69. GAO Report, supra n. 67, 11 (identifying the need for employee focus and feedback groups related to disability issues in the workplace).

70. U.S. Department of Justice, ADA Information Line, http://www.ada.gov/infoline.htm (last accessed December 6, 2012) (fielding questions about the Americans with Disabilities Act).

82 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY

71. JAN, http://askjan.org/ (last accessed December 6, 2012) (offering free services to employers and employ- ees with questions about reasonable accommodation).

72. National Assistive Technology Technical Assistance Partnership, http://www.resnaprojects.org/nattap/at/ stateprograms.html (last accessed December 6, 2012) (providing counseling and technology to employers and workers with disabilities).

73. National Disability Rights Network, http://www.ndrn.org/ (last accessed December 6, 2012) (providing free legal assistance to people with disabilities).

74. Colleen Condon, et al., Getting the Most from the Public Vocational Rehabilitation System (2004), http://www.communityinclusion.org/article.php?article_id=129 (last accessed March 15, 2012) (discussing state agencies charged with assisting people with disabilities with meeting their employment goals).

75. ILRU Directory of Centers and SILCS (2012), http://www.ilru.org/html/publications/directory/ index.html (last accessed December 10, 2012) (The term “center for independent living” means a consumer-controlled, community-based, cross-disability, nonresidential private nonprofit agency that is designed and operated within a local community by individuals with disabilities and provides an array of independent living services.)

76. See Stephen B. Fawcett, et al., “A Contextual-Behavioral Model of Empowerment: Case Studies Involving People with Physical Disabilities,” American Journal of Community Psychology (1994) 22: 471.

77. See David M. Engel and Frank W. Munger, “Rights of Inclusion: Law and Identity in the Life Stories of Americans with Disabilities,” (2003): 131–32.

78. Compare with Jonathan Stead, “Toward True Equality of Educational Opportunity: Unlocking the Poten- tial of Assistive Technology through Professional Development,” Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal (2009) 35: 224, (examining this proposition in the area of education).

79. See Heidi M. Berven and Peter David Blanck, “The Economics of the Americans with Disabilities Act Part II-Patents and Innovations in Assistive Technology,” 12 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy (1998) 9: 24–5, (demonstrating the connection between demands for new assistive technology and general advancements in technology).

80. See, for example, RSA, Frequently Asked Questions about RSA, http://rsa.ed.gov/faqs.cfm; Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies: An Under-Utilized Resource of Homeless and Disabled Veterans (May 2008), http://www.worksupport.com/documents/State VRAgenciesFactSheet.pdf (last accessed March 15, 2012).

81. DBTAC, http://adata.org/Static/Home.html (last accessed December 6, 2012).

82. U.S. Business Leadership Network, http://www.usbln.org/ (last accessed December 6, 2012).

83. U.S. Department of Labor: ODEP, http://www.dol.gov/odep/ (last accessed December 6, 2012).

84. See for example, Northwest ADA Center, ADA Coordinator Toolkit, http://www.dbtacnorthwest.org/ tools/tool-kits/ada-coordinators (last accessed December 6, 2012).

85. NC State University, Center for Universal Design, http://www.ncsu.edu/project/design-projects/udi/ (last accessed December 6, 2012).

86. RESNA, http://resna.org/ (last accessed December 6, 2012).

87. National Technical Institute for the Deaf Center on Employment, http://www.ntid.rit.edu/nce (last accessed December 6, 2012).

88. Assistive Technology Industry Association, http://www.atia.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1 (last accessed December 6, 2012).

89. Able DATA, http://www.abledata.com/ (last accessed December 6, 2012).

90. U.S. Department of Defense Assistive Technology Program, http://cap.mil/ (last accessed December 6, 2012).

91. Id.

References

Able DATA. http://www.abledata.com/ (accessed December 6, 2012). AccessIT. What is assistive technology? http://www.washington.edu/accessit/articles?109 (accessed March 1,

2012).

Basas: Technology as Disability Access 83

AFL-CIO. 2009. Resolution 18: unions should give people with disabilities a voice and a face (AFL–CIO convention 2009). http://dpeaflcio.org/pdf/DPE-res_18amend.pdf (accessed September 5, 2012).

AFL-CIO Disability Award Winners. January/February 2000. AFSCME Works Magazine. http:// www.afscme.org/news/publications/newsletters/works/januaryfebruary-2000/disability-award-winners (accessed September 5, 2012).

AFL-CIO, Civil, Human, & Women’s Rights, Constituency Groups. http://www.aflcio.org/About/Allied- Organizations/Constituency-Groups (accessed September 5, 2012).

Americans with Disabilities Act. 2009. 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. Assistive Technology Industry Association. http://www.atia.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1 (accessed

December 6, 2012). Bagenstos, S. 2000. Subordination, stigma, and disability. Virginia Law Review 86:397, 429–30. Barnes, C., L. Barton, and M. Oliver. 2002. Disability Studies Today. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Basas, C. G. 2012. A Collective Good (draft on file with author). Befort, S. F. 2003. Reasonable accommodation and reassignment under the Americans with disabilities act:

Answers, questions and suggested solutions after U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett. Arizona Law Review 45:931, 944–46.

Berven, H. M., and P. D. Blanck. 1998. The economics of the Americans with Disabilities Act part II— Patents and innovations in assistive technology. Notre Dame Journal of Legal Ethics and Public Policy 12:9, 24–25.

Blanck, P. D. 1997. The economics of the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Part I-workplace accommodations. DePaul Law Review 46:877, 907.

Condon, C., C. Gandolfo, L. Brugnaro, C. Thomas, and P. Donnelly. 2004. Getting the most from the public vocational rehabilitation system. http://www.communityinclusion.org/article.php?article_id=129 (accessed March 15, 2012).

Cooper, J. O. 1991. Overcoming barriers to employment: the meaning of reasonable accommodation and undue hardship in the Americans with Disabilities Act. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 139:1423, 1148–49.

DBTAC. http://adata.org/Static/Home.html (accessed December 6, 2012). DBTAC Northwest. 1997. Universal design in the workplace. http://www.dbtacnorthwest.org/_public/site/

files/ada/documents/UD_Workplace_Final_02.pdf (accessed December 6, 2012). DeLeire, T. 2000. The unintended consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Regulation 23:21. Disability Funders Network. http://www.disabilityfunders.org/disability-stats-and-facts (accessed November

6, 2012). EEOC. October 17, 2002. Enforcement guidance: reasonable accommodation and undue hardship under the

Americans with Disabilities Act. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html (accessed December 6, 2012).

Engel, D. M., and F. W. Munger. 2003. Rights of inclusion: Law of identity in the life stories of Americans with disabilities, 131–32.

Fawcett, S. B., G. W. White, F. E. Balcazar, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, R. M. Mathews, A. Paine-Andrews, T. Seekins, and J. F. Smith. 1994. A contextual-behavioral model of empowerment: Case studies involving people with physical disabilities. American Journal of Community Psychiatry 22:471.

Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 2003. 2003. Summary table: Perceptions of unions’ impact according to Union Status 304.

GAO. November 1, 2010. Participant-identified leading practices that could increase the employment of individuals with disabilities in the federal workforce, GAO Reports & Testimony, Vol. 2010 No. 1.

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies. May 2008. An under- utilized resource of homeless and disabled veterans. http://www.worksupport.com/documents/ StateVRAgenciesFactSheet.pdf (accessed March 15, 2012).

ILRU Directory of Centers and SILCS. 2012. http://www.ilru.org/html/publications/directory/index.html (accessed December 10, 2012).

Jackson, J. February 23, 2011. Assault on unions is attack on civil rights. Reader Supported News. http:// readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/5056-assault-on-unions-is-attack-on-civil-rights (accessed December 6, 2012).

JAN. Technology. http://askjan.org/topics/tech.htm (accessed December 6, 2012). Jolls, C. 2001–2002. Antidiscrimination and accommodation. Harvard Law Review 115:640, 644–45. Kanter, A. S. 2011. The law: What’s disability studies got to do with it or an introduction to disability legal

studies. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 42:403, 425. Klaus, P. Feb. 4, 2012. A chance to see disabilities as workplace assets, NY Times.

84 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY

Lindstrom, L., B. Doren, and J. Miesch. 2011. Waging a living: Career development and long-term employ- ment outcomes for young adults with disabilities, Exceptional Children 77:423.

Lipowicz, A. February 10, 2012. VA responds to accusations about excessive outsourcing, federal computer week. http://fcw.com/articles/2012/02/10/va-responds-to-accusations-about-excessive-outsourcing.aspx (accessed March 1, 2012).

Loy, B., and L. C. Batiste. 2007. Universal design and assistive technology as workplace accommodations: An exploratory white paper on implementation and outcomes, 15 (May 2007).

Malhotra, R. 2001. Empowering people with disabilities, XI New Politics. http://nova.wpunj.edu/newpolitics/ issue41/Malhotra41.htm (accessed December 10, 2012).

National Assistive Technology Technical Assistance Partnership. http://www.resnaprojects.org/nattap/at/ stateprograms.html (accessed December 6, 2012).

National Council on Disability. 2011. The power of digital inclusion: technology’s impact on employment and opportunities for people with disabilities. http://www.ncd.gov/policy/technology (accessed September 5, 2012).

National Disability Rights Network. http://www.ndrn.org/ (accessed December 6, 2012). National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. 2012. Universal design for learning and assistive

technology, http://www.ectacenter.org/topics/atech/udl/asp (accessed December 10, 2012). National Technical Institute for the Deaf Center on Employment. http://www.ntid.rit.edu/nce (accessed

December 6, 2012). NC State University, Center for Universal Design. http://www.ncsu.edu/project/design-projects/udi/

(accessed December 6, 2012). Northwest ADA Center. ADA Coordinator Toolkit. http://www.dbtacnorthwest.org/tools/tool-kits/ada-

coordinators (accessed December 6, 2012). Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor. 2012. Current disability employment

statistics, http://www.dol.gov/odep/#.UJQUBc2mRxE (accessed November 1, 2012). OSHA Commonly Used Statistics. 2011. http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html (accessed March 1,

2012). Parks, J. October 11, 2010. Actors with disabilities all but invisible on TV, AFL-CIO now blog. http://

blog.aflcio.org/2010/10/11/disabled-actors-all-but-invisible-on-tv/ (accessed September 5, 2012). Peck, B., and L. T. Kirkbride 2001. Why businesses don’t employ people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational

Rehabilitation 16:71. Pew Research Center. 2009. Recession Turning a Graying Office Grayer. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/

2009/09/03/recession-turns-a-graying-office-grayer/ (accessed March 1, 2012). Preiser, W., and K. H. Smith 2010. Universal design handbook, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Proposed Regulations Implementing Section 503 of Rehabilitation Act. 2011. Notice issued on December 9,

2011. RESNA. http://resna.org/ (accessed December 6, 2012). Rose, D. H., T. S. Hasselbring, S. Stahl, and J. Zabala. 2005. Assistive technology and universal design for

learning: Two sides of the same coin, Handbook of Special Education Technology Research and Practice 507.

RSA. Frequently asked questions about RSA. http://rsa.ed.gov/faqs.cfm (accessed March 15, 2012). Rulli, L. S. 2000. Employment discrimination litigation under the ADA from the perspective of the poor: Can

the promise of title I be fulfilled for low-income workers in the next decade? Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review 345:361.

Stead, J. 2009. Toward true equality of educational opportunity: Unlocking the potential of assistive technol- ogy through professional development. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 35:224.

Story, M., J. Mueller, and R. Mace. 1998. The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. http://design-dev.ncsu.edu/openjournal/index.php/redlab/article/viewFile/102/56 (accessed March 1, 2012).

———. 2001. Second generation employment discrimination: A structural approach. Columbia Law Review 101:458, 553.

Sturm, S. 2008. Designing the architecture for integrating accommodation: an institutionalist commentary. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 157, 157, Number 11.

Thatcher, J. 2006. Website accessibility: Web standards and regulatory compliance 25. Tucker, B. P. 1997. Insurance and the ADA. DePaul Law Review 46:915, 937–40. UN-Enable. 2007. Disability and employment. http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=255 (accessed

November 6, 2012). U.S. Business Leadership Network. http://www.usbln.org/ (accessed December 6, 2012).

Basas: Technology as Disability Access 85

U.S. Department of Defense Assistive Technology Program. http://cap.mil/ (accessed December 6, 2012). U.S. Department of Justice, ADA Information Line. http://www.ada.gov/infoline.htm (accessed December 6,

2012). U.S. Department of Labor. Employers and the ADA: myths and facts. http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/fact/

ada.htm (accessed December 6, 2012). U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. April 2011. Economic news release. http://www.bls.gov/

news.release/empsit.t06.htm (accessed January 5, 2012). U.S. Department of Labor: ODEP. http://www.dol.gov/odep/ (accessed December 6, 2012). Vargas, Z. 2007. Labor rights are civil rights: Mexican-American workers in 20th Century America. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press. Warschauer, M. 2004. Technology and social inclusion. Rethinking he Digital Divide 4. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press. Weber, M. C. 2010. Unreasonable accommodation and due hardship. Florida Law Review 62:1119. Zubrow, E., and M. Rioux Disability, marginalization, empowerment, and GIS. 1999. http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/

varenius/ppgis/papers/zubrow.pdf (accessed December 10, 2012).

86 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY

multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users

may print, download, or email articles for individual use.