Chapter 6 explains the need for a revision of the ADA. Current negotiations on the ADA are without positive outcomes. There are several reasons for this lack of progress such as deadlock in the Doha Development Round, the mega trade agreements or unwillingness on the part of top users of anti-dumping measures. Still, alternative solutions are proposed to settle the hidden trade protectionism in anti-dumping problems. Normative solutions include a comprehensive reform of the ADA. The study proposes changes to procedural justice in anti-dumping procedures. Due to the constraints on the substantive reform of the ADA in a short timescale, other possibilities are also discussed in order to improve procedural justice, including but not limited to (1) publishing best practice guidelines; (2) creating a standard questionnaire to be used by all WTO members; (3) reforming and fixing the DSM; (4) raising awareness among exporters. This chapter aims to highlight the current state of the negotiations on the ADA as well as the importance of procedural justice during a possible revision of the ADA and other practical means.

Chapter 1 is the introduction to the book. The chapter provides the background to the problem. The anti-dumping investigations are conducted with complicated procedural rules so that exporters cannot cooperate with the investigating authorities. Investigating authorities tend to inflate anti-dumping duties and use anti-dumping for protectionist purposes taking advantage of the non-cooperation. In this context, research questions are listed in connection to the main problem. The scope of the research is also set in Chapter 1.

Chapter 6 focuses on special treatment stigma—the stigma that accompanies the need for any modifications in the workplace. First, I present evidence that employers are reluctant to accommodate workers regardless of whether the accommodation is needed because of a disability, pregnancy, or caregiving responsibilities. Second, I describe what happens when employers do accommodate workers—both in terms of what workplace consequences flow from those accommodations, and how those accommodations affect the accommodated employees’ relationships with their coworkers.

Chapter 3 starts with a history of disability discrimination in the workplace and beyond, leading up to the current protections we now have—most notably, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The chapter then turns to the difficulty of defining and conceptualizing disability, both legally and normatively. Courts, legislatures, scholars, and society in general do not agree on how broadly or narrowly to define disability. This chapter then discusses one of the primary reasons courts and employers have leaned toward a narrow definition of disability—the reasonable accommodation mandate in the ADA. I will first provide a conceptual analysis and defense of the accommodation obligation before turning to the law surrounding the reasonable accommodation provision of the ADA, including the employer’s defense to the accommodation mandate—the undue hardship provision.

Chapter 7 first explores the theory behind protecting people with disabilities and workers with caregiving responsibilities. It then explores the practical justifications for protecting these groups of employees. Finally, it explains why my proposals go beyond protecting specific groups of employees and instead protected everyone.

Chapter 9 proposes a universal accommodation mandate, which would allow employees to request modifications to the structural norms of the workplace (when and where work is performed) and to request modifications to how the physical tasks of the job are performed. This chapter explains how the mandate would work, discusses various applications of the mandate, briefly addresses logistical issues, and then responds to the anticipated criticisms.

Chapter 1 introduces the concepts and ideas I discuss throughout this book. First, I provide a summary of the experiences of both individuals with disabilities and workers with caregiving responsibilities in the workplace. This summary exposes the difficulties these two groups have when trying to meet the expectations of their employers. Second, I introduce some of the laws and legal concepts that are discussed throughout the book—the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, sex discrimination under Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Third, I briefly explain my proposal for reform. Finally, this chapter provides a brief outline of the structure of the rest of the book.

Meaningful access to social participation sets a standard for repairing harms imposed by disability discrimination. To be meaningful, access must secure more for people for whom opportunity has been arbitrarily proscribed than merely ushering them through a newly unbolted door only to confront further barriers impelled by bias. Meaningful access to a social process is diminished or denied when individuals, due to disability, are prevented from achieving the benefits that generally motivate individuals to participate in that process. Yet interpreting the meaningful access standard has proved elusive for courts. An influential early decision made the illusory affirmation that the door was open to people with disabilities receiving Medicaid because they had the same fourteen days of eligibility for hospital care as others, even though they disproportionately required longer hospital stays to achieve similar care goals.

Being designated as disabled under the law comes with an array of legal rights. These rights range from negative rights against discrimination by the state and by private actors in employment and public accommodations to positive rights to accommodations, financial (welfare) benefits, and even healthcare. Other statuses also trigger these kinds of protections, but few produce the same panoply of benefits: for example, race discrimination similarly elicits antidiscrimination protections by the state, but rarely any positive rights. Unemployment can yield welfare benefits, but is rarely protected under antidiscrimination law.