Susan Gluck Mezey, Ph.D., J.D., is a professor of political science at Loyola University, Chicago. She is former director of Loyola’s Women’s Studies Program and chair of the 1999 Forum on the Child. She is the author of Pitiful Plaintiffs: Child Welfare Litigation and the Federal Courts; No Longer Disabled: The Federal Courts and the Politics of Social Security Disability; In Pursuit of Equality: Women, Public Policy, and the Federal Courts; and Children in Court: Public Policymaking and Federal Court Decisions. Her articles have appeared in Law & Policy, Journal of Politics, American Politics Quarterly, Rutgers Law Review, Women and Politics, Judicature, Policy Studies Review, Family Law Quarterly, and Policy Studies Journal.
"Mezey’s book offers all those in disability studies, law, and public law a thorough, thought-provoking, and comprehensive understanding of the entire Americans with Disabilities Act, which is arguably one of the most important laws passed since the Great Society."—Ruth O’Brien, author of Crippled Justice: The History of Modern Disability Policy and editor of Voices from the Edge: Narratives about the Americans with Disabilities Act.
“Presents a thorough picture of the breadth, scope, and tenor of the federal judiciary’s approach to this landmark legislation. Mezey successfully makes the case that the ADA has been read narrowly by federal judges at all levels, resulting in rights for the disabled that fall short of the mark intended by [Congress] when they passed the statute.”Staci L. Beavers, California State University, Law and Politics Book Review, January 2006
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was intended to send a clear message to society that discrimination on the basis of disability is unacceptable. As with most civil rights laws, the courts were given primary responsibility for implementing disability rights policy.
Mezey argues that the act has not fulfilled its potential primarily because of the judiciary's "disabling interpretations" in adjudicating ADA claims. In the decade of litigation following the enactment of the ADA, judicial interpretation of the law has largely constricted the parameters of disability rights and excluded large numbers of claimants from the reach of the law. The Supreme Court has not interpreted the act broadly, as was intended by Congress, and this method of decision making was for the most part mirrored by the courts below. The high court's rulings to expand state sovereign immunity and insulate states from liability in damage suits has also caused claimants to become enmeshed in litigation and has encouraged defendants to challenge other laws affecting disability rights. Despite the law's strong civil rights rhetoric, disability rights remain an imperfectly realized goal.