Abstract
In this response to Robert Hammel's Some Reflections on New York City's Disability Law, the author intends to show that the assumptions underlying Hammel's reflect paternalistic and attitudinal problems that disability law was meant to counteract. The author first provides an overview of civil rights law to argue that disability law fits into traditional anti-discrimination law. The article then examines specific concepts central to disability law, and argues that the federal experience of disability law may be useful in interpreting New York City's disability law. The article then challenges specific contentions offered by Hammel, and argues that his conclusions are not inevitable under New York's broad disability definition. Finally, the author provides insight into the future of New York's disability rights law.
Recommended Citation
Janet Eriv,
PERSISTENT MISCONCEPTIONS: A RESPONSE TO ROBERT HAMMEL,
23 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1219
(1996).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol23/iss4/12