scholarly journals Leveling the Playing Field: Perspectives of People with Disabilities on Reasonable Accommodations Received to Engage in Public Recreation

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Ann Devine

<p><span>According to the ADA, people with disabilities have the right to participate in public park and recreation services. Important gains in their access to activities of their choosing since the ADA was written into law, in part due to individuals being able to request reasonable accommodations. The purpose of this study was to understand the perspectives of people with disabilities who participate in public park and recreation services on whether their accommodation needs are met and if they are effective in facilitating meaningful recreation experiences. Participants reported requesting reasonable accommodations was a way to exercise civil rights and gain access to meaningful recreation activities. They also reported a duality in requesting accommodations in that they were met with confusion, lack of understanding, and reluctance. It is recommended that the park and recreation profession undergo a paradigm shift and embrace making reasonable accommodations as an important professional skill.</span></p>

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 65
Author(s):  
Arlene S Kanter

In 2006, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [CRPD], the first international treaty addressing specifically the rights of people with disabilities, including in the workplace.  The purpose of the CRPD is “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity....” The CRPD has been ratified by 160 countries, including Canada, but not yet by the United States. Article 27 of the CRPD, entitled Work and Employment, prohibits not only discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, but also the right of people with disabilities to reasonable accommodations, equal remuneration for work of equal value, safe and healthy working conditions,  assistance in finding, obtaining, maintaining and returning to employment,  rehabilitation, job retention and return-to-work programmes,  as well as affirmative action programmes, incentives and other measures to promote equal employment opportunities. As compared to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Canadian Charter, the CRPD, therefore, goes beyond prohibiting discrimination and instead seeks to ensure greater substantive equality for people with disabilities in the workplace.  As such, the author proposes that both US and Canadian legislatures and courts should look to the CRPD to help their respective countries move beyond traditional notions of formal equality towards a new right to substantive equality in the workplace for people with disabilities.En 2006, les Nations Unies ont adopté la Convention relative aux droits des personnes handicapées [CDPH], le premier traité international portant explicitement sur les droits des personnes handicapées, y compris les droits dans le milieu de travail. La CDPH a pour objet de « promouvoir, protéger et assurer la pleine et égale jouissance de tous les droits de l’homme et de toutes les libertés fondamentales par les personnes handicapées et de promouvoir le respect de leur dignité intrinsèque […] ». La CDPH a été ratifiée par 160 pays, dont le Canada, mais les États-Unis ne l’ont pas encore ratifiée. En plus d’interdire la discrimination fondée sur le handicap dans tout ce qui a trait à l’emploi, l’article 27 de la CDPH, intitulé « Travail et emploi », protège le droit des personnes handicapées de bénéficier d’aménagements raisonnables, de l’égalité de rémunération à travail égal ainsi que de la sécurité et de l’hygiène sur les lieux de travail, le droit d’obtenir de l’aide liée à la recherche et à l’obtention d’un emploi, au maintien dans l’emploi et au retour à l’emploi, l’accès à des programmes de réadaptation, de maintien dans l’emploi, de retour à l’emploi et d’action positive, de même que l’accès à des incitations et à d’autres mesures visant à promouvoir l’égalité des chances dans l’emploi. En conséquence, comparativement à l’Americans with Disabilities Act et à la Charte canadienne, la CDPH va plus loin qu’interdire la discrimination et vise à assurer une plus grande égalité réelle pour les personnes handicapées dans le milieu de travail. C’est pourquoi l’auteur propose que les assemblées législatives et les tribunaux des États-Unis et du Canada examinent la CDPH afin d’aider les instances décisionnelles de leurs pays respectifs à dépasser les notions traditionnelles de l’égalité formelle et à promouvoir un nouveau droit à l’égalité réelle dans le milieu de travail pour les personnes handicapées.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Pitas ◽  
Andrew J. Mowen ◽  
Derrick Taff ◽  
Benjamin Hickerson ◽  
Rama Radhakrishna ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
pp. 67-86
Author(s):  
Arkadiusz Krajewski

The Constitutional Tribunal is defined as the Polish constitutional court and at the same time the judicial authority. It was created at the turn of 1982. Not long after that it began its jurisprudence; more precisely it was in 1986. Describing its basic tasks, it is pointed out that judicial review of so-called constitutional law deserves a closer look. This is particularly true about controlling the compliance of lower legal norms with higher legal norms. Here attention is drawn towards the connection of the Constitution with some international agreements, ie. the court of law. The purpose of the paper below was to analyze the constitutional principles of criminal proceedings in the context of the case law of the Polish Constitutional Court. At the beginning the concept, the division and the role of the constitutional rules of criminal procedure were presented. In this section, it was emphasized that all the rules of the criminal process are considered superior norms of a very significant social importance. Then the principle of objectivity, which is reflected in the Constitution of the Republic, was described. A following aspect was the discussion of the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle of in dubio pro reo. It has been emphasized that the essence of the principle is that the person who was brought before the court is treated as innocent until a lawful judgment is pronounced against the defendant. The author also pointed out the principle of the right to defense. According to this rule, the defendant has the right to defend themselves in the process and to use the help of a defender. Another described principle is so-called rule of publicity. It concerns the fact that information about criminal proceedings should be accessible to the public. Then it was pointed to the principle of the right to the trial and the independence of the judiciary. The first one is reflected in national law and acts of international rank. The second shows that the independence of the judiciary is determined by the proper exercise of the profession of judge and becomes a guarantee of freedom and civil rights. The humanitarian principle and the principle of participation of the social factor in the penal process are shown in the final section. At the end of the paper a summary and conclusions were presented.


2021 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-340
Author(s):  
Laura Phillips Sawyer

A long-standing, and deeply controversial, question in constitutional law is whether or not the Constitution's protections for “persons” and “people” extend to corporations. Law professor Adam Winkler's We the Corporations chronicles the most important legal battles launched by corporations to “win their constitutional rights,” by which he means both civil rights against discriminatory state action and civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution (p. xvii). Today, we think of the former as the right to be free from unequal treatment, often protected by statutory laws, and the latter as liberties that affect the ability to live one's life fully, such as the freedom of religion, speech, or association. The vim in Winkler's argument is that the court blurred this distinction when it applied liberty rights to nonprofit corporations and then, through a series of twentieth-century rulings, corporations were able to advance greater claims to liberty rights. Ultimately, those liberty rights have been employed to strike down significant bipartisan regulations, such as campaign finance laws, which were intended to advance democratic participation in the political process. At its core, this book asks, to what extent do “we the people” rule corporations and to what extent do they rule us?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document