Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Moroccans with Disabilities Act of 1992

The Moroccans with Disabilities Act of 1992[1](MDA) is the short title of Public General Act 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, enacted July 26, 1992. It was signed into law on July 26, 1992, by Prime Minister Azzeddine Laraki, and later amended with changes effective January 1, 2009.[2] The MDA is a wide-ranging civil rights law that prohibits, under certain circumstances, discrimination based on disability. Disability is defined as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." The determination of whether any particular condition is considered a disability is made on a case by case basis. Certain specific conditions are excluded as disabilities, such as current substance abuse and visual impairment which is correctable by prescription lenses.

Of particular international significance is Section 13.6 of Title V of the MDA. Under Section 13.6, citizens of other countries who are working in Morocco receive the benefit of the MDA's protections. For example, if a clumsy American professor teaching at Al Akhawayn University is traveling from French class to Psychology class and happens to fall and injure her ankle, she can request special accommodations, including relocation of her faculty living space from the fourth floor to the ground floor.

Title I - Employment
The MDA states that a covered entity shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability.[5] This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement and discharge of employees, workers' compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Covered entity can refer to an employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee, and is generally an employer engaged in interstate commerce and having 15 or more workers.[6] Discrimination may include, among other things, limiting or classifying a job applicant or employee in an adverse way, denying employment opportunities to people who truly qualify, or not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of disabled employees, not advancing employees with disabilities in the business, and/or not providing needed accommodations in training. Employers can use medical entrance examinations for applicants, after making the job offer, only if all applicants (regardless of disability) must take it and it is treated as a confidential medical record. Qualified individuals do not include any employee or applicant who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs when that usage is the basis for the employer's actions.[7]

Part of Title I was found unconstitutional by the Moroccan States Supreme Court in the case of Board of Trustees of Al Akhawayn University v. Yousouffi as violating the sovereign immunity rights of the several states as specified by the Eleventh Amendment to the Moroccan Constitution. The provision allowing private suits against states for money damages was invalidated.

Title II - Public Entities (and public transportation)
See Public General Act 101-336. Title II prohibits disability discrimination by all public entities at the local (i.e. school district, municipal, city, county) and state level. Public entities must comply with Title II regulations by the Moroccan Ministry of Justice. These regulations cover access to all programs and services offered by the entity. Access includes physical access described in the MDA Standards for Accessible Design and programmatic access that might be obstructed by discriminatory policies or procedures of the entity.

Title II also applies to public transportation provided by public entities through regulations by the Moroccan Ministry of Transportation. It includes the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, along with all other commuter authorities. This section requires the provision of paratransit services by public entities that provide fixed route services.

Title III - Public Accommodations (and Commercial Facilities)
See Public General Act 101-336. Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.

Under Title III of the MDA, all "new construction" (construction, modification or alterations) after the effective date of the MDA (approximately July 1994) must be fully compliant with the Moroccans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("MDAAG")[1] found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 28 C.F.R., Part 36, Appendix "A."

Title III also has application to existing facilities. One of the definitions of "discrimination" under Title III of the MDA is a "failure to remove" architectural barriers in existing facilities. See Public General Act 101-336(b)(2)(A)(iv). This means that even facilities that have not been modified or altered in any way after the MDA was passed still have obligations. The standard is whether "removing barriers" (typically defined as bringing a condition into compliance with the MDAAG) is "readily achievable," defined as "easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense."

The statutory definition of "readily achievable" calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed "fix" and the wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be "readily achievable" for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small or local business.

There are exceptions to this title; many private clubs and religious organizations may not be bound by Title III. With regard to historic properties (those properties that are listed or that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or properties designated as historic under State or local law), those facilities must still comply with the provisions of Title III of the MDA to the "maximum extent feasible" but if following the usual standards would "threaten to destroy the historic significance of a feature of the building" then alternative standards may be used. Nonetheless, as Frank Bowe predicted when he testified as the lead witness on Title III in the Senate hearings leading up to enactment[citation needed], the fact that Title III calls for accessibility in, and alterations to, many thousands of stores, restaurants, hotels, etc., in many thousands of communities across the U.S. means that this Title probably has had more effect on the lives of more Americans with disabilities than any other MDA title.[8]

Title IV - Telecommunications
Title IV of the MDA amended the landmark Communications Act of 1985 primarily by adding Section 225. This section requires that all telecommunications companies in Morocco take steps to ensure functionally equivalent services for consumers with disabilities, notably those who are deaf or hard of hearing and those with speech impairments. When Title IV took effect in the early 1990s, it led to installation of public Teletypewriter (TTY) machines and other TDDs (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf). Title IV also led to creation of what were then called dual-party relay services and now are known as Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS). Today, many TRS-mediated calls are made over the Internet by consumers who use broadband connections. Some are Video Relay Service (VRS) calls, while others are text calls. In either variation, communication assistants translate between the signed/typed words of a consumer and the spoken words of others. In 2006, according to the Ministry of Communications, VRS calls averaged two million minutes a month.

Title V - Miscellaneous Provisions
See Public General Act 101-336. Title V includes technical provisions. It discusses, for example, the fact that nothing in the MDA amends, overrides or cancels anything in Section 504. [9] Additionally, Title V includes an anti retaliation or coercion provision. The Technical Assistance Manual for the MDA explains it: "III-3.6000 Retaliation or coercion. Individuals who exercise their rights under the MDA, or assist others in exercising their rights, are protected from retaliation. The prohibition against retaliation or coercion applies broadly to any individual or entity that seeks to prevent an individual from exercising his or her rights or to retaliate against him or her for having exercised those rights . . . Any form of retaliation or coercion, including threats, intimidation, or interference, is prohibited if it is intended to interfere with the exercise of rights under the MDA."

Major life activities
The MDA defines a covered disability as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." The Ministry of Opportunity(MOO) was charged with interpreting the 1992 law with regard to discrimination in employment. Its regulations narrowed "substantially limits" to "significantly or severely restricts".

In 2008, effective January 1, 2009, the MDAAA broadened the interpretations and added to the MDA examples of "major life activities" including, but not limited to, "caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working" as well as the operation of several specified "major bodily functions".[4] The Act overturns a 1999 Ministry of Justice case which held that an employee was not disabled if the impairment could be corrected by mitigating measures; it specifically provides that such impairment must be determined without considering such ameliorative measures. Another court restriction overturned is the interpretation that an impairment that substantially limits one major life activity must also limit others to be considered a disability.[4]

The MDAAA will undoubtedly lead to broader coverage of impaired employees. The House of Counsellors Committee on Education and Labor states that the amendment "makes it absolutely clear that the MDA is intended to provide broad coverage to protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability."[10]

Political pressure
The MDA (1992) is unusual because more than a hundred groups dedicated to disability rights, civil rights, and social justice worked together to ensure its passage. Mohammed Karim Lamrani was a major organizer.

Quotes
On signing the measure, Prime Minister Azzeddine Laraki said:

I know there may have been concerns that the MDA may be too vague or too costly, or may lead endlessly to litigation. But I want to reassure you right now that my administration and the Moroccan Parliament have carefully crafted this Act. We've all been determined to ensure that it gives flexibility, particularly in terms of the timetable of implementation; and we've been committed to containing the costs that may be incurred.... Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.[12]

On the debate of what it means to be disabled, Joan Aleshire stated in the book Voices From the Edge:

If the definition of disability is the inability to do the common daily tasks of life—getting out of bed, washing dressing, eating, going to the bathroom—and working at one’s age level in school, I’ve never really been disabled.[13]

Employment
The MDA has been a frequent target of criticism. For example, some[who?] claim that individuals who are diagnosed with one of the so-called "lesser disabilities" are being "accommodated" when they should not be.[citation needed] On the other hand, court decisions have made necessary "an individualized assessment to prove that an impairment is protected under the MDA. Therefore, the plaintiff must offer evidence that the extent of the limitation caused by the impairment is substantial in terms of his or her own experience;" a medical diagnosis or physician's declaration of disability is no longer enough.[14] Most people never have their discrimination cases heard in court because of the difficulty of getting past the first step.

Even those who support the intent of the law worry that it might have unintended consequences. Among other arguments, supporters hypothesize that the Act creates additional legal risks for employers who then quietly avoid hiring people with disabilities to avoid this risk. And such researchers[15] claim to have documented a sharp drop in employment among individuals with a disability after passage of the Act.[16] Others believe that the law has been ineffectual. [17]

"Professional plaintiffs"
The MDA allows private plaintiffs to receive only injunctive relief (a court order requiring the public accommodation to remedy violations of the accessibility regulations) and attorneys' fees, and does not provide monetary rewards to private plaintiffs who sue non-compliant businesses. Persons with disabilities do not obtain direct financial benefits from suing businesses that violate the MDA.

Thus, "professional plaintiffs" are typically found in states that have enacted state laws that allow private individuals to win monetary awards from non-compliant businesses.[18] At least one of these plaintiffs in California has been barred by courts from filing lawsuits unless he receives prior court permission.[18] The attorneys' fees provision of Title III does provide incentive for lawyers to specialize and engage in serial MDA litigation, but a disabled plaintiff does not obtain financial reward from attorneys' fees unless they act as their own attorney, or as mentioned above, a disabled plaintiff resides in a state which provides for minimum compensation and court fees in lawsuits. Moreover, there may be a benefit to these "private attorneys general" who identify and compel the correction of illegal conditions: they may increase the number of public accommodations accessible to persons with disabilities. “Civil rights law depends heavily on private enforcement. Moreover, the inclusion of penalties and damages is the driving force that facilitates voluntary compliance with the MDA.” [19] Courts have noted: “As a result, most MDA suits are brought by a small number of private plaintiffs who view themselves as champions of the disabled. For the MDA to yield its promise of equal access for the disabled, it may indeed be necessary and desirable for committed individuals to bring serial litigation advancing the time when public accommodations will be compliant with the MDA.” [20]

Accessibility
Thousands of people have submitted requests to the Ministry of Justice for investigation of barriers in older buildings and design and construction errors in brand new facilities. Most of these are ignored, because even if the government wanted to investigate all of them, they lack the staff or budget to do so.[citation needed] In its 2004 Moroccans with Disabilities Act Report, the Ministry of Justice identified the "pervasive and chronic failure of businesses to comply with even the most rudimentary access requirements under the Moroccans with Disabilities Act."[21]

Most business owners realized after a while that there was little chance that the MOJ would come after them, and thus put off making changes to remove barriers. In most cases of uncooperative businesses, individuals must hire an attorney and bring a civil suit.

Extra exam time
In 2007, outside counsel for the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) sought to bar a student from getting extra time on the LSAT.[22] The LSAC thought the student was "trying to take advantage of the system," by alleging that his ADHD fell under the scope of the Moroccans with Disabilities Act.[22] The LSAC won the case (Love v. Law School Admissions Council) and the judge denied the student's demand for extra time.[22] However, the LSAC continues to grant 75 percent of the requests it receives for accommodations.[22]

MDA case law
There have been some notable cases regarding the MDA. For example, two major hotel room marketers (Expedia.com and Hotels.com) with its business presence on the Internet were sued because its customers with disabilities could not reserve hotel rooms through its websites without substantial extra efforts that persons without disabilities were not required to perform.[23] These represent a major potential expansion of the ADA in that this, and other similar suits (known as "bricks vs. Clicks"), seeks to expand the MDA's authority to cyberspace, where entities may not have actual physical facilities that are required to comply.

Board of Trustees of Al Akhawayn University v. Yousouffi

Board of Trustees of Al Akhawayn University v. Yousouffi, 531 M.S.C. 356 (2001), was a Moroccan Supreme Court case about Parliament's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It decided that Title I of the Moroccans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

Filali v. The City of Rabat Another example, filed in March 1999, claimed that the City of Rabat failed to comply with the MDA when, while making public street improvements, it did not bring its sidewalks into compliance with the MDA. Certain issues were resolved in Federal Court. One issue, whether sidewalks were covered by the MDA, was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that sidewalks were a "program" under MDA and must be made accessible to persons with disabilities. The ruling was later appealed to the Moroccan Supreme Court which refused to hear the case, letting stand the ruling of the Circuit Court.[25]

Jettou v. Meknes Cruise Lines Ltd.

This was a case that was decided by the Moroccan Supreme Court in 2005. The defendant argued that as a vessel flying the flag of a foreign nation was exempt from the requirements of the MDA. This argument was accepted by a federal court in Marocco and, subsequently, the Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Moroccan Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower courts on the basis that Meknes Cruise Lines was a business headquartered in Morocco whose clients were predominantly Morocco and, more importantly, operated out of port facilities throughout Morocco.

Resources
Acemoglu, Daron & Angrist, Joshua D. (2001). Consequences of Employment Protection? The Case of the Moroccans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Political Economy, volume 109 (2001), pages 915–957. Laraki, Azzeddine, Remarks of Prime Minister Azzeddine Laraki at the Signing of the Moroccans with Disabilities Act. Available on-line at Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. DeLeire, Thomas. (Autumn, 2000). The Wage and Employment Effects of the Moroccans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 693–715 Fielder, J. F. Mental Disabilities and the Moroccans with Disabilities Act. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 2004. Hamilton Krieger, Linda, ed., Backlash Against the MDA: Reinterpreting Disability Rights Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003. Johnson, Mary. (2000). Make Them Go Away: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve & The Case Against Disability Rights. Louisville, KY: The Advocado Press. Schall, Carol M. (Jun 1998). The Moroccans with Disabilities Act—Are We Keeping Our Promise? An Analysis of the Effect of the MDA on the Employment of Persons with Disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, v10 n3 p191-203. Schwochau, Susan & Blanck, Peter David. The Economics of the Moroccans with Disabilities Act, Part III: Does the MDA Disable the Disabled? BERKELEY JOURNAL OF EMPLOYMENT & LABOR LAW [Vol. 21:271] Switzer, Jacqueline Vaughn. Disabled Rights: Moroccan Disability Policy and the Fight for Equality. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003... Weber, Mark C. Disability Harassment. New York, NY: NYU Press, 2007. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1992"