DRCNH Home > Get Involved > News > Cohen Op Ed

May 24, 2005

Last week the New Hampshire Senate voted to deny citizens with disabilities equal protection when it comes to employment. In a 12-12 vote, the Senate failed to afford individuals with disabilities the same right to equal employment opportunity as racial and religious minorities and women; indeed all citizens.

It was a shocking development. All the public testimony before the House and Senate Committees supported this long overdue civil rights legislation. The bill had won the support of the House, and had been recommended by the State Human Rights Commission and the Governor’s Commission on Disabilities as well as the House Committee (15–0 vote) and Senate Committee (4 to 1 vote), who studied the bill and heard the testimony.

There is, however, one more chance for the 12 senators who voted against the bill and their colleagues to send a message that all of New Hampshire’s citizens deserve a fair shake when it comes to employment.

HB 561 would make it illegal for an employer with six or more employees to deny a person a job based on his/her disability when an employer could provide “a reasonable accommodation” to enable the person to perform the job. The bill would not grant individuals with disabilities greater rights than anyone else. All it does is make New Hampshire join the federal government and most other states in acknowledging that persons with disabilities are ready and able to work if given an opportunity.

This modest civil-rights legislation should have passed easily given the broad support that the bill received and its laudable purposes. Based upon the floor debate, it appears that some Senators may have been misled by erroneous information that was supplied behind the scenes. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

What are the facts about reasonable accommodations?

First, this bill does not require an employer to hire an individual with disability who cannot perform the essential elements of a job. An employer would not be compelled to give a person in a wheelchair a job that requires standing and heavy lifting. He would not have to hire a deaf person to be a telephone receptionist.

Second, if an accommodation is needed to do the job, the employer only has to provide one that is “reasonable” and that will not cause undue hardship to the business. For example, a sign language interpreter would not have to be provided full time to enable a deaf person to perform a job.

Third, most accommodations are not expensive. Studies show that the average cost of an employment accommodation is only $240. Twenty percent of all accommodations for employees actually cost nothing extra. This is essentially the case for two staff in my office who use wheelchairs. In many instances, an accommodation will help other employees and customers as well. We have a voice amplifier in our office conference room to enable a key employee to participate more effectively at meetings. This piece of relatively inexpensive equipment has made it easier for other participants to hear more clearly.

There is plenty of free guidance available to help employers. Standards to determine the difference between a reasonable accommodation and an undue hardship have existed since 1973. The NH Human Rights Commission and other agencies offer advice to employers in order to prevent claims and disputes.

History shows that frivolous claims are very infrequent. The bottom line is that those few frivolous claims don’t outweigh the basic civil right and social benefit that is gained by this bill. We are all just one accident, one illness – or the march of time – away from needing its protections ourselves. The frivolous claims argument did not ultimately prevent the passage of anti-discrimination laws against racial minorities or women, and it should not here.

With Memorial Day so recent on our minds and the daily accounts of soldiers in battle, we should also remember that the protections in this bill would benefit soldiers who have suffered amputations and other permanently disabling injuries in Iraq or Afghanistan as well as veterans of other wars.

HB 561, with its built in reasonableness and undue hardship protections, not only is compelled by basic human rights and American values, but also ultimately makes economic sense for the individual, the taxpayer, society, and New Hampshire’s businesses. I think the vast majority of small and large businesses would agree. I trust and hope next time around all 24 Senators will.