Dear Friends:

It has been over twenty years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but we all know that there is still much work to be done to improve the employment picture for people with disabilities. Over the next week, you have an opportunity to take action towards making that difference. The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has proposed new regulations strengthening Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires federal contractors to engage in affirmative action to hire people with disabilities. The proposed regulations would set a target utilization goal of people with disabilities working for the company which contractors would need to work towards meeting. The regulations also consider creating a more specific sub-goal, requiring contractors to focus affirmative action on those with the greatest history of exclusion from the workforce. Section 503 has been law for decades, but was never meaningfully enforced - but now the proposed regulation promises to change that, applying the same common sense rules of the road as already exist for affirmative action on the basis of race and gender. Unfortunately, many in the contractor community are writing in to oppose the regulations. We need you to speak up!

Here's what you can do:

Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDet...0001-0013. If for whatever reason that link doesn't work for you, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for RIN 1250-AA02 to find the regulation.

Once you're at the regulation and have taken the time to review it if you are so inclined, click on the Submit a Comment button on the right side of the screen.

Fill out your contact information and provide your comments. We've prepared three major points we hope that you'll emphasize:

I support the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program's proposed regulation strengthening Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and adding a utilization goal to hold contractors accountable for hiring people with disabilities.

I urge OFCCP to move forward with their proposal, mentioned as under consideration in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to establish a sub-goal for individuals with targeted disabilities with the greatest history of exclusion from the workforce. I urge OFCCP to implement such a sub-goal and to include the autism spectrum and other developmental disabilities as within the sub-goal's "targeted disability" category.

I urge OFCCP to clarify in the Final Rule that contractors should only be able to count individuals in integrated employment settings towards meeting their affirmative action obligations, not individuals employed through subcontracts to sheltered workshops.
Together, we can make a difference for the employment picture of people with disabilities. Remember, we have only until February 21st, 2012 to submit comments - just one more week! Make sure that our voices are heard.

Nothing About Us, Without Us!

Regards,
Melody Latimer
Director of Community Engagement
Autistic Self Advocacy Network

We used to have something like this in the UK, whereby companies and other organizations were 'supposed' to have a certain number of diabled people on the payroll. Needless to say it din't work, because it's ludicrous to employ an underqualified or unsuitable disabled person in place of a more appropriate non-diabled person just to fulfil an arbitrary quota. It's been replace with something much better, whereby it is illegal to discriminate against someone, prior to or during employment, on account of their disbility. Employers and service providers are also obliged to make 'reasonable adjustments' to premises and duties to enable disbled people to do their work and access services such as banking, government buildings, etc. This is much more effective. Maybe that's what the US should consider....

This post was last modified: 02-15-2012 06:49 PM by Luke Mauser.

YAY! Thank you SOOO much for this info.

I'm against affirmative action in any and all forms, whether on the basis of race, creed, sex, gender, sexuality, or disability. It leaves fewer spots for those with appropriate skill and knowledge.

That might be strange coming from an Aspie. You'd think I'd be fighting tooth and nail for this. Well, frankly, it isn't worth it. If I want a job, I'd rather do it the hard way and beat the other applicants fair and square. It just doesn't feel right taking a handout of that calibre, even if I am right for the job. I'd rather apply for it and obtain it that way.

Meh, maybe my right-leaningness is just raging hard tonight. I don't know. :/

To be fair, to be disqualified from a job because of a disability that doesn't affect job performance anyway is just plain dumb. I would need more reason than that to not hire someone.

Despite my previous post, and agreeing generally with Robexib, I say do your best to get it through anyway, as that's what's on the table and it will be better than the status quo. But lobby for something similar to what we have in the UK - if discussing this with politicians, refer them to the Disability Discrimination Act - I believe we adopted this in 2006.

I support anything that would give Aspie`s that want to work a leg up.

So I must support it for all

deserves a bump

Debra A. CarrDirector,Division of Policy, Planning, and Program Development  
Office of Federal Contract Compliance ProgramsRoom C-3325200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20210February 20, 2012

Dear Director Carr:The Autistic Self Advocacy Network appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposedrulemaking implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; these regulations will strengthenemployment protections and require affirmative action for individuals with disabilities seekingemployment with federal contractors. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network is the nation’s leadingadvocacy organization run by and for autistic adults. We would like to note that we also support thecomments provided by the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and the NationalDisability Leadership Alliance.First, it is our pleasure to support strongly the Office of Federal Contract

CompliancePrograms’ Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking with regards to Section 503. In particular, we commend OFCCP’s identificationof a utilization goal for the hiring of people with disabilities by federal contractors and its requirement fordata collection to ensure effective monitoring of progress. These provisions would bring federalcontractors' disability-based affirmative action obligations in line with historically successfulrequirements to conduct affirmative action programs for race and gender.Second, we a pplaud OFCCP’s consideration of a sub-goal for individuals within targeted disabilitycategories. OFCCP’s broader utilization goal adopts the definition of disability set forward by the ADAAmendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008. It is worth noting that the ADAAA’s definition of disability isdesigned to be very broad. Such a broad definition is necessary and appropriate in the context of an anti-discrimination law. However, given Section 503’s more narrow purpose of rectifying past discriminationagainst people with disabilities with the greatest history of exclusion from the workforce, we believe thata sub-goal of five to six percent for individuals from targeted disability categories is appropriate. Aprogram of affirmative action must be more narrowly tailored to meet the needs of those whosedisabilities are most likely to lead to exclusion from the workforce.


We note that the ADAAA definition of disability covers well over seven percent of the population. It isquite likely that most employers already possess people with disabilities as seven percent of theirworkforce (OFCCP’s proposed utilization goal) under the ADAAA definition. Furthermore, manyemployers who do undertake efforts to ensure they meet the broader utilization goal may attempt to do so

by “creaming the crop” and only employing individuals with the least stigmatized and easiest toaccommodate disabilities — rather than those with the greatest history of workforce exclusion. Thus, asub-goal is critical to ensure that affirmative action efforts incorporate people with the greatest history of exclusion from the workforce.Furthermore, in light of current employment data, the definition of targeted disabilities should incorporateAutism Spectrum Disorder (including Asperger’s Syndrome and PDD-NOS).


According to the NationalLongitudinal Transition Study (NLTS-2), the proportion of autistic young adults who had a job wasnearly half that of all young adults with disabilities (33 percent vs. 59 percent). The proportion of autisticyoung adults who had a job was comparable to that for young adults with deaf-blindness and multipledisabilities and far below the proportion of those with blindness, learning disabilities, or traumatic braininjuries (Standifer, 2011). NLTS-2 data also shows that the proportion of autistic young adults workingfull time (as defined as 35 hours or more per week) was one-third that of all young adults with disabilitieswho were employed (26 percent vs. 71 percent). Given the fact that autistic adults face greater exclusionfrom the workforce than most groups of people with disabilities, including several already incorporatedwithin the targeted disability definition, we believe that the inclusion of Autism Spectrum Disorder withinthe targeted disability category is appropriate.OFCCP’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking notes the possibility of a 2 percent sub-goal for individualswith targeted disabilities. We believe that such a sub-goal is set too low.


According to the SubstanceAbuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)’s National Survey on Drug Use andHealth, 4.5 percent of the population has a serious mental illness (NIMH, 2012). According to researchfunded by the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), 2.7 percent of thepopulation has a severe cognitive impairment (Kraus, Stoddard, & Gilmartin, 1996). These twocategories — severe intellectual disability and serious mental illness — are already covered within thedefinition of targeted disability category and already exceed the utilization goal considered by OFCCP.We urge the consideration of a utilization sub-goal for individuals with targeted disabilities in the 5-6percent range, and for OFCCP to consider revising upwards its utilization goal for the broader populationof people with disabilities accordingly.Finally, we urge OFCCP to modify the Section 503 regulation to explicitly prohibit contractors frommeeting their affirmative action obligations through sub-contracts to sheltered workshops.

Currently, theregulation states that,“Contracts with sheltered workshops may be included within an affirmative actionprogram if the sheltered workshop trains employees for the contractor and the contractor is obligated tohire trainees at full compensation when such trainees become ‘qualified individuals with disabilities.’”Research suggests that this represents a significant loophole that will be exploited — if not closed.Although this provision is not novel to the NPRM and exists within the underlying Section 503regulation, the addition of a utilization goal and other provisions aimed at meaningfully enforcing Section

http://www.scribd.com/doc/82687106/ASAN-...ct-2-20-12

This post was last modified: 02-24-2012 04:19 PM by skyblue1 .

great info, I'm not too late isn't it??

midtown mental health Indianapolis