In reference to Garland (1997) he defines disability as the ability of either being not physically or mentally fit. He makes conscious descriptions to such class of people as being declined employment opportunities and other income generating services. Specifically he points out that, the mentally retarded victims face discrimination when those who are mentally fit are given the priorities in work places. He puts it clear that, discrimination might be based on the employers failing to make proper consideration to people who are qualified but disabled.
On the other hand, discrimination can also be entitled to but not limited to the disparate impact of qualified personnel being denied chances to practice simply because of disability .This calls for legal defenses which are raised in respect to charge under discrimination. For one to be successful in court, plaintiffs prove is required to meet legal obligations. In situations where employers decline in offering employment accommodations, the employee is faced by the role of proving that he / she is disabled under the act of ADA, he can perform crucial jobs by been qualified when or not given the chance and even prove that he has requested the workplace accommodations that he can perform. He has also the burden of proving that he has received any employment decision from the employer on the basis of the employee's disability.
According to John (1994) he declares that, when the employee plaintiff meets the elements of proof as required by the case, this burden is loaded to the employer defendant to deny the claim of employment discrimination. At this point, the employer may try to prove that the person with the plaintiff is not qualified even when he is disabled or didn't request a reasonable workplace accommodation or else the accommodation would provide hardship to the employer or even threat to the employee. One of the factors that may lead the disabled not to be considered is undue hardship. This limits the employer to accommodate such people due to expenses which he would face if he provided the chance. This reflects the economic impact of an accommodation of firms or business with more than 15 personnel.
According to Ruth (2004) other cases the employer may be required to provide accommodation if expenses are on his back. The individual's income may be obtained from other source like mentally retarded income provided from the state department of vocational rehabilitation or job coaching services in supported employment program. If the state pays the portion of costs under the undue hardship on the firm, the employer is required to provide the accommodation. This act of state is to achieve goals and objectives where by provision of equal opportunity for qualified persons with mental retardation.
Garland (1997) argues that, affirmative defense when put into consideration by employers is direct threat to employment discrimination as far as people with disability are concerned. These is observed to the unqualified for job in areas which are found to pose direct safety or health threat to the employers or other staff members. The court considers duration of the risk, likelihood of the harm and nature of potential harm which would occur. The employers implicate underlying biases on impairments like genetic, mental and other contagious conditions derived from medical testing. The Americans with Disabilities Act encourages employers' to make individualized and objective determination of a particular direct threat based on employee's ability to safely perform essential job functions. Examinations of altitudes in connection to job qualifications and the reality of the perceived risk associated with direct threats involving people with different disabilities. Therefore according to Americans with Disabilities Act, court has to equalize protecting individuals and the community from exposure to healthy and risks with protecting qualified people with disabilities.
John (1994) puts the matter under dissuasion to light by adding that, in compliance and enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act title, says that any discrimination or violation faced by an individual, must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission within 180 days. These action leads to an employer to be in charge of investigation as a result of his conducts. When Equal Employment Opportunities Commission confirms that there is a reasonable cause of truth, it initiates civil action itself on behalf of the person claiming. This is forwarded to the district court of federal after conducting administrative remedies. A private civic action must be filed within 90 days of Equal Employment Opportunities Commission issuance of a right to sue a letter. The Americans with Disabilities Act provides that a prevailing plaintiff in an Americans with Disabilities Act Title may recover atoner's fees and experts' costs. The civil rights Act supports the ban against discrimination to people with disabilities. This is also intended to provide effective deterrence and compensation for discrimination victims.
In conclusion, this agency also encourages investigations to be conducted in employment sectors in order to control or report discrimination there by opening a good platform for those who are disabled to be properly considered equally as the other staff members. This study helps in improvement in the lives of qualified persons with disabilities, changes in public attitudes and behavior thus by resulting to economic growth due to enforcement and implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act.