Congress restores the Americans with disabilities act to its original intent

Psychiatric Services

Volumn 60, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 878-879

  Petrila, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT; BILLING AND CLAIMS; COURT; DISABILITY; DISABLED PERSON; EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; SHORT SURVEY; UNITED STATES; WORKPLACE;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME; CEREBRAL PALSY; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, MAJOR; DISABILITY EVALUATION; DISABLED PERSONS; EMPLOYMENT; EYEGLASSES; HUMANS; PREJUDICE; REHABILITATION, VOCATIONAL; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES; VISION DISORDERS;

EID: 67650222419     PISSN: 10752730     EISSN: 15579700     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.60.7.878     Document Type: Short Survey

References (7)

1. Moss K, Burris S, Ullman M, et al: Unfunded mandate: an empirical study of the implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act by the Equal Opportunity Commission. University of Kansas Law Review 50:1-110, 2001
2. Petrila J: The US Supreme Court narrows the definition of disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Psychiatric Services 53:797-801, 2002
3. Sutton v United Airlines, 527 US471 (1999)
4. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc v Williams, 534 US 184 (2002)
5. Schriner v Sysco Food Service of Central Pennsylvania, 2005 WL 1498497 (MD Pa 2005)
6. Matya v Dexter Corp, 250 Fed Appx 408, US App LEXIS 23968 (2nd Cir 2007)
7. Holt v Grand Lake Mental Health Center, Inc, 443 F 3d 762 (10th Cir 2006)