The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division is once again "open for business," according to the division's new chief, Thomas Perez, in remarks to ACS members and covered live by C-SPAN.

"In the first 60 days that I've been on the job, we have already done as much hate crimes activity as was done in the entire fiscal year of 2006. And by the way, that was a leap year. And we've done as much as was done in fiscal year 2007," Perez told an ACS audience at the National Press Club, in a YouTube clip now available here. "Don't listen to my words, look at our actions."

Perez's commitment to restoring the division follows years of limited enforcement, decreased hiring of racial minorities, and a working environment that led African-Americans to be 50 percent more likely to quit or resign than were white employees. Under President George W. Bush, a scandal also arose around politicization in the division's case-selection and Justice Department hiring. "We will make sure that this chapter of our history is the best one yet," Perez declared in his conclusion, posted to YouTube courtesy of MainJustice.

Seven months ago, the United States issued a list of human rights commitments and pledges in support of U.S. candidacy for membership in the U.N. Human Rights Council. The decision to join the Human Rights Council was the right thing to do. It was as an important step in breaking with the Bush administration's unilateral and disastrous policies on human rights. While we welcomed this move, we noted that the Obama administration had "missed an opportunity to detail exactly how it will reaffirm its commitment to ending human rights violations at home beyond vague rhetoric." We warned the Obama administration to "move beyond ambiguous commitments which are similar to the ones heard from the Bush administration over the past eight years."

There is no question that this administration is currently facing multiple and daunting challenges, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the safe closing of Guantánamo, the economic crisis and rising unemployment, health care, energy reform and much more. However, nearly a year after Obama's inauguration, the administration has yet to announce any major domestic human rights initiative, outline a detailed plan to honor and expand our existing human rights commitments and translate them into domestic policy, or incorporate them into the daily working of the U.S. government.

Tomorrow, the president will accept the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize is traditionally given out on Human Rights Day, which marks the 61st anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who led the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in the 1940s, called this landmark document "the Magna Carta for humanity."

We have seen this administration take bold steps in the early days of Obama's presidency when three executive orders were signed pledging to close Guantánamo within one year, end CIA secret detentions overseas and reaffirming the absolute prohibition against torture. Furthermore, the administration has also committed to advancing civil rights and promoting equal opportunity. We all remember the presidential speech on civil rights delivered at the NAACP annual meeting, and the administration's strong support for legislation like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which the administration supported in testimony before Congress (PDF). The president has committed to advance women's rights by issuing an executive order establishing the White House Council on Women and Girls and prioritizing a critical women's rights treaty for ratification. The administration's commitment to persons with disabilities has been made clear in the signing of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the White House's celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

However, there has been much debate and criticism about decisions the Obama administration has made in the subsequent months on a number of important issues. The administration has been reluctant to fully investigate acts of torture committed by the Bush administration and end the practice of extraordinary rendition. The practice of invoking the state secret privilege to block accountability continues, and the discredited military commissions in Guantánamo Bay have been revived. There has also been no announcement of a significant action or initiative to fully honor our human rights commitments and treaty obligations and fully incorporate them into national security policies including the treatment, detention, trial and repatriation of detainees in U.S. custody overseas notwithstanding the announcement in September of the detention and prison reforms in Afghanistan.

Therefore, we must continue to make the case for human rights here at home by supporting the goals of the Campaign for a New Domestic Human Rights Agenda - a broad coalition of approximately 50 U.S.-based human and civil rights, civil liberties and social justice organizations tasked with finding the best fusion between civil rights and human rights. Key objectives of the campaign include:

• A new, enhanced executive order revitalizing the Interagency Working Group on Human Rights to coordinate the efforts of federal agencies and departments to respect and implement human rights obligations as U.S. domestic policy;
• Transforming the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights into a U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights;
• Monitoring government compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which the U.S. ratified in 1994; and,
• Strengthening federal, state, and local government coordination to support human rights.

On Human Rights Day 11 years ago, President Clinton issued an executive order creating an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights, which was subsequently disbanded during the Bush administration. The ACLU reiterates its call for the resurrection of a more effective Interagency Working Group on Human Rights to coordinate and promote human rights within domestic policy, and for the implementation and enforcement of ratified human rights treaties and essentially bridging the often artificial gaps between civil rights and human rights.

Further, President Obama must make it clear that human dignity is of paramount importance, and that accountability for human rights is a U.S. national interest. The administration must seize the opportunity to uphold core American values of fairness and justice for all by building a much-needed human rights infrastructure here at home.

While presidential speeches, like the one expected in Norway tomorrow, are important to rally public support for human rights, what is needed is unequivocal and concrete action to honor human rights commitments at home. Too many people have suffered as the United States' human rights record crumbled under the Bush administration. The time is for action is now.

[This was initially published at Huffington Post. Image via United Nations Photo.]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act takes effect today. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, "The long-awaited measure, ... debated in Congress for 13 years, will pave the way for people to take full advantage of the promise of personalized medicine without fear of discrimination."

The Los Angeles Times reports: 

The most sweeping federal anti-discrimination law in nearly 20 years takes effect today, prohibiting employers from hiring, firing or determining promotions based on genetic makeup.

Additionally, health insurers will not be allowed to consider a person's genetics -- such as predisposition for Parkinson's disease -- to set insurance rates or deny coverage.

[Image via Lawrence OP.]

Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking revising its regulations to comport with the recent changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") under the ADA Amendments Act ("ADAAA"). The proposed regulations are consistent with the interpretation of the ADAAA outlined in "The ADA Amendments Act: An Overview of Recent Changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act" and mark a positive evolution in the law - one that reinvigorates the ADA by providing protection for individuals who were not previously covered.

The Americans with Disabilities Act was intended to be a strong and broad civil rights law. Once lauded as a tremendous step forward for the disability community, the Supreme Court not only turned the ADA on its heels but shoved it two steps back. In Toyota v. Williams, the Supreme Court transformed the broad scope of the ADA into a nearly insurmountable demanding standard. In Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., the Supreme Court required consideration of mitigating measures in determining whether a person is disabled and created a subjective standard for proving a covered entity regarded a person as disabled. These two cases shattered the inclusive standard applied by courts construing the definition of "handicapped individual" under the Rehabilitation Act - a standard Congress expected to be followed under the ADA - and invited courts to deny people seeking protection from discrimination. This contortion of the ADA resulted in lower court determinations that denied people with epilepsy, HIV, muscular dystrophy and cancer, among other disabilities, protection from discrimination.

Despite the past holdings and reasoning, the future of disability law is bright and the end of discrimination against persons with disabilities is near. The ADA Amendments Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2009, is a critical step towards meeting ADA's objective of providing "a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination" and "clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination' against people with disabilities." 

As the EEOC recognizes, "The effect of these changes is to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA." For example, consistent with the provisions of the ADAAA, the EEOC's proposed rules:

• provides that the definition of "disability" shall be interpreted broadly;
• revises the term "substantially limits" by providing that a limitation need not "significantly" or "severely" restrict a major life activity in order to meet the standard, and attempts to effectuate Congress's clear instruction that "substantially limits" is not to be misconstrued to require the "level of limitation, and the intensity of focus" applied by the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky v. Williams, 534 U.S. 134 (2002)
• expands the definition of "major life activities" through two non-exhaustive lists that are consistent with the ADAAA's legislative history:
o the first list includes activities such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and working
o the second list includes major bodily functions, such as functions of the immune system, special sense organs, and skin; normal cell growth; and digestive, genitourinary, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular, endocrine, hemic, lymphatic, musculoskeletal, and reproductive functions
• provides that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
• provides that the definition of "regarded as" is changed so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead provides that an applicant or employee who is subjected to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire, denial of promotion, or termination) because of an actual or perceived impairment will meet the "regarded as" definition of disability, unless the impairment is both transitory and minor.

Watchdogs for civil rights and liberties are encouraged to learn more about the ADA Amendments Act and participate in the public comment period. For an overview of the ADA Amendments Act, please see my recent ACS Issue brief. To comment on the NPRM or for additional information, visit here.

Together, we will ensure that the rights and dignity of people with disabilities are upheld and where they are not, the ADAAA serves as a powerful condemnation of and protection against discrimination.

In a recent Issue Brief released by ACS, Emily A. Benfer, supervising attorney and teaching fellow in Georgetown University Law Center's Federal Legislation and Administrative Clinic, examines the efforts of lawmakers to strengthen the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Benfer notes that, "Through a series of decisions, the United States Supreme Court narrowed the ADA's scope of protection and excluded individuals the Act was originally designed to protect, including people with epilepsy, diabetes and muscular dystrophy." Earlier this year, the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) went into effect. That act, Benfer writes, is aimed at restoring the ADA after federal court decisions had seriously undermined it.

Benfer's Issue Brief, "The ADA Amendments Act: An Overview of Recent Changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act," covers the "current status of disability rights under the ADA, as amended, and provides an overview of the ADAAA." 

In part, Benfer maintains that the new law should focus courts' attention on whether discrimination has occurred, instead of engaging in a process to decide whether a certain disability is covered by the law. She writes:

The ADAAA further increases the focus on the prohibition of discrimination by aligning the ADA with other civil rights laws. This was accomplished by eliminating language in the ADA that had prohibited discrimination of an individual ‘with a disability because of a disability' and replacing it with a simple prohibition on ‘discrimination on the basis of disability.' As the Report from the House Committee on the Judiciary explains, ‘[t]his change harmonizes the ADA with other civil rights laws by focusing on whether a person who has been discriminated against has proven that the discrimination was based on personal characteristic (disability), not on whether he or she has proven that the characteristic exists.' Based on the broad construction of the Rehabilitation Act and civil rights laws, courts should interpret the ADAAA generously and the focus should shift from whether a person is disabled and onto whether discrimination has occurred.

See Benfer's Issue Brief here.