Bus stops are key links in the journeys of transit patrons with disabilities. Inaccessible bus stops prevent people with disabilities from using fixed-route bus services, thus limiting their mobility. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prescribes the minimum requirements for bus stop accessibility by riders with disabilities. Due to limited budgets, transit agencies can only select a limited number of bus stop locations for ADA improvements annually. These locations should preferably be selected such that they maximize the overall benefits to patrons with disabilities. In addition, transit agencies may also choose to implement the universal design paradigm, which involves higher design standards than current ADA requirements and can provide amenities that are useful for all riders, like shelters and lighting. Many factors can affect the decision to improve a bus stop, including rider-based aspects like the number of riders with disabilities, total ridership, customer complaints, accidents, deployment costs, as well as locational aspects like the location of employment centers, schools, shopping areas, and so on. These interlacing factors make it difficult to identify optimum improvement locations without the aid of an optimization model. This dissertation proposes two integer programming models to help identify a priority list of bus stops for accessibility improvements. The first is a binary integer programming model designed to identify bus stops that need improvements to meet the minimum ADA requirements. The second involves a multi-objective nonlinear mixed integer programming model that attempts to achieve an optimal compromise among the two accessibility design standards. Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques were used extensively to both prepare the model input and examine the model output. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was applied to combine all of the factors affecting the benefits to patrons with disabilities. An extensive sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the reasonableness of the model outputs in response to changes in model constraints. Based on a case study using data from Broward County Transit (BCT) in Florida, the models were found to produce a list of bus stops that upon close examination were determined to be highly logical. Compared to traditional approaches using staff experience, requests from elected officials, customer complaints, etc., these optimization models offer a more objective and efficient platform on which to make bus stop improvement suggestions.

No description available.

No description available.

The purpose of this research was to examine the patterns and themes of litigation in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) disability discrimination cases charged under the theory of disparate impact. Specifically, this study used Computer Assisted Legal Research (CALR) to identify and review all U.S. Appellate Court ADA disparate impact cases as reported by Westlaw, a commercial electronic case law reporting system owned by Thomson Reuters. This study used a two-step, mixed methods approach to analyze the data relevant to the research questions and sub-questions. First, the researcher employed content analysis (Hall & Wright, 2008) to identify and characterize patterns and trends of litigation in all reported U.S. Appellate Court ADA cases charged under the theory of disparate impact from 1992 through 2012. Cases were analyzed chronologically, and variables included number of published and unpublished cases, distribution of jurisdiction, distribution of ADA titles, EEOC involvement, case fact patterns, and characteristics of charging and opposing parties. Frequency analyses were conducted on these data. Second, the researcher identified a subset of the ADA disparate impact cases analyzed in the first step: Title I, or employment discrimination cases. Qualitative analysis employing the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was used to identify and characterize patterns and themes of the judicial opinions in the Title I disparate impact cases. The researcher developed a framework for analysis based on a review of the literature of the sociopolitical perspective of disability to guide the analysis of the judicial opinions in the subset of disparate impact cases. The results of the frequency analyses conducted on these data revealed four trends: (a) Precedent, (b) Circuit and Judge Effects, (c) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Successes, and (d) Sutton Case Effect. The results of the qualitative analysis of the text of the judicial opinions produced four themes and three relationships among the themes. The four themes were accommodation(s); workplace culture, norms, and policies; judicial process; and policy space. The three relationships were gap-filling, weighing and balancing, and maintaining status quo versus effecting social change. The themes and relationships are depicted in a concept map that visually displays the conceptual framework revealed in the study. The findings in this study may inform disability and rehabilitation scholars about ADA disparate impact cases, a body of law about which little is known. The patterns and trends identified in ADA Title I disparate impact cases may provide information about the types of policies and practices that are most frequently litigated. Rehabilitation practitioners may be able to use the results of this research to develop education and outreach strategies for employers on best practices for hiring, accommodating, and promoting employees with disabilities. Because the workplace policies and procedures identified in the cases that comprise this study are neutral on their face rather than intentionally discriminatory, employers may benefit from information that assists them in evaluating their policies and procedures proactively, which may avoid costly and time-consuming litigation. Finally, workplace policies and procedures that fairly represent the essential functions of the job and are applied uniformly to workers with and without disabilities will contribute to a more diverse workforce.

No description available.

No description available.

Workplace discrimination for individuals with visual impairments in the U.S. is an ongoing issue dating before the founding of the EEOC and the enactment of the ADA. Despite laws enacted to protect against unequal treatment in the workplace, the EEOC continues to receive submissions of formal discrimination charges from individuals with visual impairments. The workplace is experiencing changes with increasing amounts of older adults, women, minorities, and the use of technology and the Internet. By examining characteristics of the discrimination charges and the resulting outcomes, the knowledge gained can describe the current situation and the historical progression of workplace discrimination for individuals with visual impairments. The purpose of this cross-sectional study is to understand through descriptive, non-parametric, and logistical regression analyses of secondary data, meaningful associations regarding workplace discrimination and Americans with visual impairments. Study results showed that charging party characteristics of age, gender, and race were found to be predictive of types of discrimination charges and resolutions outcomes. Respondent characteristics of employer region of location, size, and industry were also found to be predictive of types of discrimination charges and resolution outcomes. Differences were revealed between discrimination charges before and after the enactment of the ADAAA, yet not between resolution outcomes before and after the enactment of the ADAAA. Additionally, discrimination charges and resolution outcomes were determined to be associated with one another. Implications for employees, employers, and professionals who work with individuals with visual impairments are addressed and recommendations for further research are provided.

Master of Regional and Community Planning / Department of Landscape Architecture/Regional and Community Planning / John Keller / The purpose of this thesis is to discover whether disability access regulations are being met and whether the regulations fulfill their intended purpose. Is Kansas State University Campus in Manhattan, Kansas ADA compliant (follows the current law) and convenient (user-friendly)? This inquiry can be split into two research questions: (1) Do the main entrances (entry experience being the sidewalk, ramp, and door) to buildings on the Kansas State University campus comply with current ADA guidelines? (2) Do students on campus find the access to these buildings user-friendly? This study has two main questions, and therefore multiple research methodologies: a focus group, audit, and guided activity. The focus group was made up of physically disabled students at KSU who are therefore familiar with access on the campus. The second method involved a yes-no checklist to test whether the buildings meet code. The third involved disabled and non-disabled students using a wheelchair for a day, with post-event survey to test public opinion of access on campus. My hypothesis anticipated that Kansas State University is code compliant, but not user-friendly. The conclusion is that no structure is fully sidewalk/ramp/door compliant, but two structures’ doors are fully compliant. According to the audit: ramps are mostly not needed (only 35 percent of structures need a ramp), sidewalks are 66 percent compliant, and doors are 63 percent compliant. According to the survey: doors are in the best condition, with ramps next, and sidewalks last. When comparing the checklist (compliance) and survey (convenience) results, sidewalk results were different, the ramp results were non-conclusive, and the door results were similar. This means that sidewalks meet code, but people do not find them accessible. Because ramps are not always needed, it made the checklist and survey difficult to compare. The analysis did not result in a clear “Similar” or “Different” result, therefore the comparison was non-conclusive. Doors were in the best condition on the checklist, and most people felt they were in good conditions. The application of this project allows other universities and communities to test whether their structures adequately provide access to students with a disability in a way that is user-friendly.

<div>Airlines are legally required to provide adequate service to passengers with disabilities; this research examines the quality of service provided based on the analysis of airline complaint data and the results of a survey of passengers with disabilities. The provision of adequate service to airline passengers is challenging since passenger counts continue to rise and passengers are increasingly diverse. Airline passengers with disabilities are protected by federal legislation under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 49 U.S. Code § 41705, which prohibits discriminatory treatment of people with disabilities in air transportation. Regulations outlined in 14 CFR Part 382, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, require that airlines and airports are accessible, and require that airline, airport and contract personnel provide appropriate accommodations and services to people with disabilities.</div><div><br></div><div>To track operational efficiency and compliance with the ACAA, the Department of Transportation collects data on airline performance. Data are published in monthly and annual reports. One component of these reports is complaint data. Complaints are an important metric because they identify deficiencies in service.</div><div><br></div><div>Individual complaints are forwarded to airport and airline service providers for investigation; however, complaint data do not appear to be used to systematically assess the adequacy of service, as evidenced by a disproportionately high and rising number of disability complaints.</div><div><br></div><div>The objective of this research is to investigate the provision of air service for passengers with disabilities. This investigation includes identification of the regulations that affect commercial air travel for passengers with disabilities, an examination of disability-related complaints, specifically the number and rate of these complaints compared to complaints for all travelers, and an assessment of service based on a survey of passengers with disabilities.</div><div><br></div>

<p>This dissertation examines the political response of gay and lesbian organizations to the HIV/AIDS crisis through the lens of disability. When the National Gay Task Force (NGTF) formed in the 1970s, their early political efforts confronted the stigma and exclusion associated with the American Psychiatric Association’s disabling label. In the 1980s, gay and lesbian organizations faced a deadly epidemic—AIDS. The high cost of medical care left people with AIDS destitute. NGTF pressed the Social Security Administration to modify their disability criteria to recognize AIDS and ARC as qualifying disabilities. Fear and homophobia left people with AIDS vulnerable to employment, housing and medical discrimination as well as social ostracism. Gay Men’s Health Crisis and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund countered AIDS discrimination in New York through collaborative efforts with city and state agencies. Disability rights codes and laws offered people with AIDS some protection against discrimination. The Task Force, the Gay Rights National Lobby and the Disability Rights Defense & Education Fund joined the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in 1982. While the Conference did not engage in the campaign for gay and lesbian rights in the 1980s, their extended legislative crusade for the Civil Rights Restoration Act would bring AIDS onto the battlefield. This study finds these various antecedents came into play during the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to the extent that gay and lesbian organizations could describe the ADA as an “AIDS bill” in terms of both their political participation and the text protecting people with contagious diseases who were not a threat.<br></p>