1. These statistics come from the 1998 National Organization on Disability/Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities(New York: Lou Harris and Associates, 1998), 15, exhibit 1.

2. The 43 million figure appears in the preamble of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (U.S. Code, vol. 42, sec. 12101(a)1 [1990]). A more appropriate measure of disability, according to some researchers, is the number of people who are limited in their abilities to perform everyday activities. This approach generates an estimate of 36 million, including 2 million people in institutionalized

The ADA itself defines disability as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more… major life activities," though the law also applies to those who have "a record of such an impairment" or are "regarded as having such an impairment" (U.S. Code, vol. 42, sec. 12102[2]). Courts have narrowly interpreted these provisions, so that the number of people actually covered by the ADA may be much lower than the 43 million cited in the statute's preamble.

3. Deborah Stone traces the evolution of the concept of disability in The Disabled State(London: Macmillan, 1984).

4. U.S. Code, vol. 42, sec. 12112.

5. Ibid., secs. 12131, 12148, 12181, 12182, 12183.

6. Ibid., secs. 12131, 12181, 12182, 12183, 12188.

7. "The Lawyer's Employment Act" [editorial], Wall Street Journal, September 11, 1989, A18.

8. Paul K. Longmore and David Golberger document a fascinating spurt of 1930s disability activism, the formation and dissolution of the League of the Physically Handicapped. League members, like disability activists much later in the twentieth century, protested against government programs that treated them as helpless children; they demanded that the Works Projects Administration (WPA) provide jobs equally to the disabled and nondisabled (Longmore and Goldberger, "The League of the Physically Handicapped and the Great Depression: A Case Study in the New Disability History," The Journal of American History 87 (2000): 888–922). The National Association of the Deaf fought employment discrimination beginning in the early twentieth century and protested laws prohibiting deaf people from obtaining driver's licenses in the 1940s. Organizations for blind people pushed for laws, first enacted in the 1930s, protecting guide dogs and white canes. Congress banned discrimination against people with disabilities in the civil service in 1948. Five states adopted similar bans; a few even had nondiscrimination laws in certain job categories, particularly teaching. See Jacobus ten Broek, "The Right to Live in the World: The Disabled and the Law of Torts," California Law Review 54 (1966): 846.

Rita Varela notes that the issue of access for mobility-impaired people was raised in the 1950s by paralyzed veterans, who fought for accessible facilities at Veterans Administration hospitals. In 1959 several disability groups met with the American Standards Association to agree on a set of standards for architectural accessibility. These standards were adopted by many states in the mid-1960s as part of building accessibility laws and eventually by the federal government for its buildings. See Varela, "Changing Social Attitudes and Legislation Regarding Disability," in Independent Living for Physically Disabled People, ed. Nancy M. Crewe and Irvina Kenneth Zola (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1983), 28–48. These early laws were generally enforced by administrative mechanisms. An exception was Wisconsin's accessibility law, which created a private right of action (ten Broek, "The Right to Live in the World," 863).

9. Susan M. Olson, Clients and Lawyers: Securing the Rights of Disabled Persons(Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1984), 42.

10. Richard K. Scotch, From Good Will to Civil Rights(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984), 36.

11. Edward D. Berkowitz, "The American Disability System in Historical Perspective," in Disability Policies and Government Programs, ed. Edward Berkowitz (New York: Praeger, 1979), 44–45.

12. Gerben DeJong, The Movement for Independent Living: Origins, Ideology and Implications for Disability Research(Boston: Medical Rehabilitation Institute, Tufts-New England Medical Center, March 1979), 34–36.

13. Ibid., 60.

14. Edward D. Berkowitz, Disabled Policy: America's Programs for the Handicapped(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 203.

15. Institute for Educational Leadership, Challenges of Emerging Leadership: Community-Based Independent Living Programs and the Disability Rights Movement(Washington, D.C., 1982), 21–22.

16. Olson, Clients and Lawyers, 46.

17. Jacobus ten Broek, "The Disabled and the Law of Welfare," California Law Review 54 (1966): 809; and "The Right to Live in the World," 841.

18. In Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (1972), a federal court concluded that the plaintiffs had a "colorable claim" under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause in approving a settlement reached between the parties, but the court did not reach the issue of suspect or semisuspect status. In Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (1972), the court found a violation of the Due Process Clause because the district was excluding mentally retarded children from schooling, but the decision also rested on local statutes. These cases paved the way for the 1975 passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which guaranteed all children with disabilities a "free, appropriate education." (On the enactment of the Education for all Handicapped Children Act, see R. Shep Melnick, Between the Lines: Interpreting Welfare Rights[Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1994], 135–159.) The clearest discussion of the place of the disabled in constitutional law came much later, in Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Centers, 473 U.S. 432 (1985). Here the Supreme Court ruled that the mentally retarded were not a suspect class deserving of special protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

19. Interviews with Evan Kemp and Bob Funk, Washington, D.C., December 16, 1993, and with Lex Frieden, Washington D.C., April 21, 1994. Funk contends that the civil rights model might not have come to prominence if not for 504, because the proponents of independent living were interested mainly in creating a more effective model of service delivery. Frieden notes that in Berkeley one could quite easily see the distinction between the two parts of the disability movement: "CIL [The Center for Independent Living] was on one side of Telegraph Avenue and DREDF [the Disability Rights and Education Defense Fund] was on the other side of the street. And a lot of times that street was pretty wide. There were differences of opinion even on Telegraph Avenue on where the movement should go, and there still are." In contrast, Arlene Mayerson, a top DREDF attorney, sees little distinction between the independent living movement and the civil rights movement (interview with Mayerson, Berkeley, Calif., June 2, 1994).

20. Robert A. Katzmann, Institutional Disability: The Saga of Transportation Policy for the Disabled(Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1986), 46.

21. Scotch, From Good Will to Civil Rights, 44–45.

22. Ibid., 51–52.

23. Katzmann, Institutional Disability, 47.

24. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, U.S. Code, vol. 28, sec. 794(a) (1998).

25. Katzmann, Institutional Disability, 53.

26. Scotch, From Good Will to Civil Rights, 63.

27. Ibid., 75.

28. Scotch, From Good Will to Civil Rights, 46.

29. Interview with Robert Funk, former executive director, DREDF, Washington D.C., December 16, 1993.

30. Edward V. Roberts, "Into the Mainstream: The Civil Rights of People with Disabilities," Civil Rights Digest(winter 1979), 23–24.

31. Susan Olson notes that the bylaws of the National Federation of the Blind went so far as to prohibit coalitions with other disability groups (Olson, Clients and Lawyers, 48).

32. Robert Funk, "Disability Rights: From Caste to Class in the Context of Civil Rights," in Images of the Disabled, Disabling Images, ed. Alan Gartner and Tom Joe (New York: Praeger, 1986), 7.

33. Frank Bowe, Handicapping America: Barriers to Disabled People(New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 224. See also Harlan Hahn, "Disability Policy and the Problem of Discrimination," American Behavioral Scientist 28:3 (1985): 293–318.

34. Evan Kemp, Jr., "Aiding the Disabled: No Pity, Please," New York Times, September 3, 1981, A19.

35. Bowe, Handicapping America, 171.

36. Kemp, "Aiding the Disabled."

37. Joseph P. Shapiro, No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement(New York: Times Books, 1993), 22.

38. See Harlan Hahn, "Civil Rights for Disabled Americans: The Foundation of a Political Agenda," in Images of the Disabled, Disabling Images, 188.

39. John Gliedman and William Roth, The Unexpected Minority: Handi capped Children in America(New York: Carnegie Corporation, 1980), 34. Renee Anspach sees in disability activism a kind of identity politics (Anspach, "From Stigma to Identity Politics: Political Activism among the Physically Disabled and Former Mental Patients," Social Science and Medicine 13 [1979]: 765–773).

40. APTA v. Lewis, 655 F. 2d 1272 (D.C. Cir., 1981).

41. For examples of backlash reportage, see Henry Fairlie, "We're Overdoing Help for the Handicapped," Washington Post, June 1, 1980, D1; and "Must Every Bus Kneel to the Disabled?" New York Times, November 18, 1979, 18E.

42. Charles R. Babcock, "Handicapped Policy Undergoing a Rewrite," Washington Post, March 2, 1982, A27; Felicity Barringer, "How Handicapped Won Access Rule Fight," Washington Post, April 12, 1983, A10.

43. Funk, interview; Barringer, "How Handicapped Won Access Rule Fight."

44. Interview with C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel in the George H.

45. Interview with Evan Kemp, Jr., Washington, D.C., December 16, 1993.

46. Interviews with Gray, Kemp, and Funk.

47. Katzmann, Institutional Disability, 125. David Pfeiffer, a disability activist and historian of the disability movement, argues that the Reagan administration's turn on Section 504 arose from its interest in the two "Baby Doe" cases, which involved controversy over whether to provide lifesaving medical treatments to disabled babies. The administration found Section 504 useful in arguing that treatment should be provided (telephone conversation with author, May 6, 1996).

48. Interview with Pat Wright, executive director, DREDF, Washington, D.C., February 3, 1994.

49. Gray, interview.

50. National Council on the Handicapped, Toward Independence: An Assessment of Federal Laws and Programs Affecting Persons with Disabilities— with Legislative Recommendations(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1986), iv.

51. Interview with Justin Dart, Jr., Washington, D.C., June 18, 1994.

52. Justin W. Dart, Jr., "The ADA: A Promise to Be Kept," in The Americans with Disabilities Act: From Policy to Practice, ed. Jane West (New York: Milbank Memorial Fund, 1991), xxi.

53. Dart, interview.

54. Ibid.

55. Dart, "The ADA: A Promise to Be Kept," xxii.

56. National Council on the Handicapped, U.S. Department of Education, National Policy for Persons with Disabilities(Washington, D.C., 1983), 7.

57. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities(Washington, D.C., September 1983).

58. Robert Burgdorf and Christopher Bell, "Eliminating Discrimination against Physically and Mentally Handicapped Persons: A Statutory Blueprint," Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter 8 (1984): 64.

59. Interview with Robert Burgdorf, Jr., Washington, D.C., February 23, 1994.

60. Interviews with Dart, Frieden, and Burgdorf.

61. National Council on the Handicapped, Toward Independence, 1.

62. Ibid., 12.

63. Ibid., 1.

64. Ibid., 2. In her transmittal letter to President Reagan, Chairperson Parrino argued that if the recommendations of the council were implemented, "current Federal expenditures for disability can be significantly redirected from dependency-related approaches to programs that enhance independence and productivity of people with disabilities, thereby engendering future efficiencies in Federal spending" (ii).

65. Ibid., 8.

66. Ibid.

67. Ibid.

68. Ibid., 20.

69. See generally Katzmann, Institutional Disability.

70. Justin Dart, Jr., interview.

71. Reagan responded in a written statement: "I agree with the goals implicit in Toward Independence—equal opportunity and full social participation for all Americans, and I am pleased to see that your report sets forth a comprehensive agenda for progress toward these goals. … [However] the road toward full independence will not be easy" (Ronald Reagan, January 1986, quoted in National Council on the Handicapped, On the Threshold of Independence: A Report to the President and to the Congress of the United States[Washington, D.C., January 1988], xvii).

72. Louis Harris and Associates, The ICD Survey of Disabled Americans: Bringing Disabled Americans into the Mainstream(New York, March 1986).

73. National Council on the Handicapped, On the Threshold of Independence, 25–39.

74. S.R. 2345, 100th Cong., 2d sess., Congressional Record(hereafter cited as Cong. Rec.), daily ed. (April 28, 1988): S5089; H.R. 4498, 100th Cong., 2d sess., Cong. Rec., daily ed. (April 19, 1988), H2757.

75. Julie Kosterlitz, "Joining Forces," National Journal(January 28, 1989), 194; United States Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic (1988), 123, reproduced in U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Legislative History of the Americans with Disabilities Act(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1990), 981.

76. Shapiro, No Pity, 96.

77. Phil McCombs, "The Distant Drum of C. Boyden Gray," Washington Post, March 31, 1989, D1–D8; Gray, interview.

78. Interview with Bill Roper, former deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy, Atlanta, Ga., June 6, 1994. Roger Clegg, a deputy assistant attorney general in the civil rights division, remembers that he expressed "fundamental misgivings" but recalls only limited public discussion in the White House over the merits of the ADA (interview with Roger Clegg, Washington D.C., May 17, 1994).

79. Interview with Robert Silverstein, chief counsel, Senate Subcommittee on Disability, Washington, D.C., December 16, 1993.

80. Paula Yost, "Tedious Meetings, Testy Exchanges Produced Disability-Rights Bill," Washington Post, August 7, 1989, A4.

81. Interview with Chai Feldblum, former legislative counsel, AIDS Project, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, D.C., March 21, 1994; interview with Pat Wright, executive director, DREDF, Washington, D.C., February 3, 1994.

82. Interview with Arlene Mayerson, DREDF, Berkeley, Calif., June 2, 1994.

83. Interview with Ralph Neas, Washington, D.C., July 19, 1994.

84. Ibid.

85. Ibid.

86. 465 U.S. 555 (1984).

87. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. LeStrange Darrone, 465 U.S. 102 (1984).

88. Jane West, "Moving toward the Mainstream: Disability Rights Policy and Politics in the 100th Congress" (Jane West and Associates, Chevy Chase, Md., 1992, photocopy), 56–57.

89. Wright, interview.

90. NFIB representative Sally Douglas argued in congressional testimony that the ADA was in fundamental respects different from other civil rights laws because it (1) covered a broader scope of private businesses, (2) required affirmative and possibly costly actions by a business, (3) had stiffer remedies, and (4) was more adversarial and legalistic in tone. Thus far more compromise was necessary, Douglas argued, to make the bill workable and fair. See "Statement of Sally Douglas, National Federation of Independent Business," in House Committee on Labor and Human Resources and Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989: Hearings on S. 933, 101st Cong., 1st sess., May 10, 1989, 499–511.

91. Interview with John Motley, director of federal governmental relations, National Federation of Independent Businesses, Washington, D.C., June 9, 1994.

92. Sara Watson makes this point in her article "A Study in Legislative Strategy: The Passage of the ADA," in From Policy to Practice, 25–34.

93. Interviews with John Tysse, lobbyist, Labor Policy Association, Washington, D.C., May 27, 1994; Wendy Lechner, legislative representative, National Federation of Independent Businesses, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1994; Lawrence Lorber, lobbyist, National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, D.C., May 19 and 26, 1994; and Bill Roper.

94. Quoted by Senator Tom Harkin, House Committee on Labor and Human Resources and Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989, May 9, 1989, 23.

95. Testimony of Richard L. Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and Subcommittee on the Handicapped, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989, June 22, 1989.

96. Americans with Disabilities Act, sec. 12188.

97. Letter from Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, March 12, 1990, quoted in Cong. Rec., daily ed. (May 29, 1990), 101st Cong., 2d sess., H2613.

98. Cong. Rec., daily ed. (September 7, 1989), 101st Cong., 1st sess., S10714.

99. At a hearing in which one NFIB member attacked several provisions in the bill, Bartlett criticized the member for not providing concrete advice: "I am not suggesting you didn't give us good testimony, you did, but your testimony doesn't lead us anywhere" (House Committee on Education and Labor, Legislative History of Public Law 101–336: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989, 101st Cong., 2d sess., 1990, Committee Print, 2:1651).

100. See Cong. Rec., daily ed. (May 17, 1990), 101st Cong., 2d sess., H2472. A ceiling on reasonable accommodations amounting to 10 percent of an employee's annual wages was defeated on the House floor, 187 to 213 (see ibid., H2475).

101. "Bush Vetoes Job Bias Bill; Override Fails," 1990 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 462–73.

102. Letter from Attorney General Richard Thornburgh.

103. Interviews with Silverstein, Wright, and Feldblum.

104. Cong. Rec., daily ed. (May 22, 1990), 101st Cong., 1st sess., H2612.

105. Ibid., H2615.

106. Ibid.

107. Ibid., H2616.

108. Testimony of Sandra Parrino, chairperson, National Council on the Handicapped, in House Committee on Education and Labor, Legislative History of Public Law 101–336, 2:955.

109. Testimony of Lisa Carl, May 10, 1989, in House Committee on Labor and Human Resources and Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989, 64–65.

110. Testimony of Betty Correy and Emory Correy, May 10, 1989, in ibid.,102.

111. Testimony of Tony Coelho, September 27, 1988, House Committee on Education and Labor, Legislative History of Public Law 101–336, 2:939–40.

112. Some of these divergences are discussed in U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities, 142–158; and Jane West, "The Evolution of Disability Rights," in From Policy to Practice, 4–9.

113. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities, 144.

114. In the Harris survey commissioned by the National Council on the Handicapped, disabled people were asked which was more of an obstacle to a better job, employer reactions to their disability or the disability itself. Seventyone percent said that the disability was more of a barrier; only 18 percent thought employer reactions were more important. Thus the respondents disagreed with a central tenet of the rights model, that socially imposed barriers limit disabled people more than their physical impairments (Louis Harris and Associates, The ICD Survey of Disabled Americans, 79).

115. In addition, only 45 percent of the survey respondents agreed that disabled people "are a minority group in the same sense as are blacks and Hispanics." Among those who considered themselves disabled, 46 percent said they had a "very strong" or "somewhat strong" sense of common identity with other disabled people, while 35 percent said they had "some sense" and 8 percent said they had no sense of common identity at all (Ibid., 15, 114, 111).

116. According to the Harris survey, 13 percent of all disabled people acquired their condition at birth or in adolescence (Ibid., 27, table 9).

117. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) was the most critical of the business groups and thus at times pointed to some of the divergences between disability rights law and traditional civil rights law (see note 90).

In floor debate and hearings on the ADA I could locate only one instance in which a member of Congress directly challenged the civil rights model. Bud Shuster, a representative from Pennsylvania, argued that the ADA was not a civil rights bill, because it was riddled with exceptions and compromises: "Mr. Chairman, by calling this a civil rights bill, that does not make it a civil rights bill except that I suppose we can do anything we want to do in this Congress in terms of passing laws, using whatever words we choose to use. However, if my colleagues look at the logic of this bill, there are numerous exceptions to it" (Congr. Rec., daily ed. [May 17, 1990], 101st Cong., 2d sess., H2437). Shuster favored reducing mandates on local transit systems and argued that mandates in the ADA should be evaluated strictly on a cost-benefit basis, not as a matter of civil rights. One subtle way in which members of Congress undermined the rights model was

In floor debate and in the hearings I could locate only one suggestion of a nonlitigious alternative to the ADA. During final consideration of the ADA on the Senate floor, Senator Armstrong suggested that Congress should have created a tax credit. He called the ADA "a legislative Rorschach test, an inkblot whose meaning and significance will be determined through years of costly litigation." Armstrong did, however, vote for passage (Cong. Rec., daily ed. [July 13, 1990], 101st Cong., 2d sess., S9694).

118. Gary Orfield tells this story in his book The Reconstruction of Southern Education: The Schools and the 1964 Civil Rights Act(New York: John Wiley, 1969).

119. Gerald Rosenberg argues that the role of litigation in the achievement of civil rights has been greatly exaggerated. See Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?

120. See Mark C. Miller, The High Priests of American Politics: The Role of Lawyers in American Political Institutions(Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee Press, 1995), 57–75.

121. Bonnie Tucker, "Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act after Ten Years of Enforcement: The Past and the Future," University of Illinois Law Review(1989): 877.

122. Although this case is about judicial enforcement as an alternative to agency enforcement rather than judicial review of agency decisions, it does seem to provide some support to Charles Shipan's approach to modeling interest group and legislator choices about judicial review provisions. Shipan argues that experiences with agencies and courts, institutional theories about the capabilities of the two, an understanding of the dominant legal philosophies of the day, and recognition of the capacities of other interest groups all shape preferences over judicial review (Shipan, Designing Judicial Review, 15–36). The case of the ADA demonstrates how experiences and institutional theories can shape preferences. But notice that all actors in this case assumed courts would be involved. This makes it hard to know exactly what was behind their preferences and whether their preferences were as goal directed as both Shipan's account and mine suggests.

123. See Katzmann, Institutional Disability, for a full account.

124. See Stephen L. Percy, "ADA, Disability Rights, and Evolving Regulatory Federalism," Publius 23:4 (1993): 87–105. By the late 1980s forty-six states had laws regarding discrimination against disabled people in employment. The ADA leaves these laws in place but adds ADA regulations on top of them.

125. Civil rights activists attempted to empower the EEOC to enforce its own rulings, through "cease and desist" orders, but this was resisted on several grounds. Opponents argued, for example, that it "would be inconsistent with our system of division of government powers to subject state and local authorities to the cease-and-desist power of a federal commission" (House Committee on Education and Labor, Equal Employment Opportunities Enforcement Act of 1971, 64, quoted in Landsberg, Enforcing Civil Rights, 68).

126. Stanley Herr, "Reforming Disability Nondiscrimination Laws: A Comparative Perspective," University of Michigan Law Review, forthcoming. In

127. Kathryn Moss et al., "Unfunded Mandate: An Empirical Study of the Implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission," Kansas Law Review 50 (2001): 1.

128. Sutton v. United Air Lines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999).

129. Chai R. Feldblum, "Definition of Disability under Federal Anti-Discrimination Law: What Happened? Why? and What Can We Do about It?" Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law 21 (2000): 91; Bonnie Poitras Tucker, "The Supreme Court's Definition of Disability under the ADA: A Return to the Dark Ages," Alabama Law Review 52 (2000): 321; and Matthew Diller, "Judicial Backlash, the ADA, and the Civil Rights Model," Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law 21 (2000): 19. A study by Ruth Colker found that defendants prevailed in around 93 percent of ADA employment discrimination trials from 1992 to 1998 (Colker, "The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Windfall for Defendants," Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review 34 [1999]: 99). As an indicator of the effectiveness of the ADA, this figure should be interpreted with some caution, since defendants may be settling strong claims before trial and fighting only weak claims in court. See Scott Burris et al., "Disputing under the Americans with Disabilities Act: Empirical Answers, and Some Questions," Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review 9 (2000): 237.

130. Herr, "Reforming Disability Nondiscrimination Laws."

131. Interviews with Torbjorn Andersson, legal adviser, Labor Law, and with Lars Loow, head of the Office of the Disability Ombudsman, both Stockholm, Sweden, March 8, 2002.

132. European Union, European Council Directive 2000/78/EC, Official Journal of the European Communities, November 27, 2000.

133. Brian Doyle, Disability, Discrimination and Equal Opportunities: A Comparative Study of the Employment Rights of Disabled Persons(London: Mansell, 1995), 260.

134. Lisa Waddington, Disability, Employment and the European Community(Antwerp, Belgium: Metro Press, 1995), 230–32.

135. Heyer, "From Special Needs to Equal Rights: Japanese Disability Law," University of Hawaii Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 1 (2000): 6.

136. For an overview of disability policy among the affluent democracies, see Neil Lunt and Patricia Thornton, Employment Policies for Disabled People in Eighteen Countries: A Review(York, England: Social Policy Research Unit, 1997).