Welfare programs like the SSA base disability requirements in labor standards from the ‘80s – generates discrimination and the presumption of dishonesty

Regrettably, at the onset of 2023 – there remain multiple vectors through which people with disabilities face discrimination. These can range from inaccessible and inconsiderately designed public spaces and transportation infrastructure to more subtle, yet arguably just as damaging forms of inequitable treatment such as inaccessible websites and negative public attitudes. Nonetheless, where the flames of injustice undoubtedly burn most ferociously is when discrimination penetrates those areas that exist for the sole purpose of protecting and assisting the most vulnerable in society. The welfare and benefits system is, perhaps, the most obvious example of such a sphere. Welfare discrimination typically manifests in several different ways – all of which can be deeply upsetting for claimants with disabilities and can encourage them to dwell on uncomfortable existential threats, such as whether they are welcome participants within society and if they will realistically be able to financially sustain themselves in the future. Many disabled claimants that have battled with the welfare system, be it in the U.S. or western Europe will testify that one of the most egregious and stress-filled forms of discrimination is the presumption of dishonesty – whereby even claimants living with incurable lifelong conditions are required to submit onerous levels of medical evidence year upon year. Another complaint from claimants relates to a sense of gamification in the system. That is to say, rather than making application processes as equitable and accessible as possible – they are purposefully designed to be difficult to navigate through the weaponization of misleading and unclear language and processes. The impression here is that there exists an element of playing to the gallery in demonstrating to the taxpaying electorate that the government is fiscally responsible and tough on welfare. The bigger question could of course be – who is it that’s being asked to pay the highest price? Of course, if Government doesn’t want to appear overtly deliberate in its intentions to isolate and marginalize people with disabilities – there is always the age-old tactic in disability discrimination of simply saying nothing at all and looking the other way. This works exceptionally well because disability discrimination is, to put it bluntly – entrenched across all parts of society. It is the most steadfast of defaults with it's occasional absence usually being the exception that proves the rule. Therefore, perpetuating it couldn't be easier – just do nothing and let the status quo fossilize and calcify all by itself. A prime example of this is the recent story published in the Washington Post about the way in which job roles that have been obsolete for decades are still being used by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to assess claimant’s suitability for work. These job roles include nut sorter, dowel inspector, egg processor or cutter-and-paster of press clippings. As these jobs are still listed in the federal government’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles, which was last updated in 1977 – they can still technically be used to deny claimants welfare benefits on the grounds of being able to carry out one of these roles. This is in spite of the fact that the U.S. Department of Labor, the original author of the index, abandoned it in 1991 due to prevailing economic shifts and changes in labor patterns. Apparently, it has been a long-held ambition of the SSA to revise the list and eventually update it into something more reflective of 21st-century labor trends. Unfortunately, more than 3 decades, encompassing the entire period that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been on the statute, is deemed an insufficient quantity of time by the SSA to accomplish this task and so, for disabled American welfare claimants, the long wait goes on. Kevin Liebkemann, a New Jersey attorney who trains disability attorneys told the Washington Post, “It’s a great injustice to these people…..We’re relying on job information from the 1970s to say thumbs-up or thumbs-down to people who desperately need benefits. It’s horrifying.”