Do these people now have more of a voice and a greater chance to actually push society in the direction they've been striving for?

Ad astra per aspera

Nevertheless, we have an appalling history for access to buildings, and progress is very slow in this area.

A free fox in a free henhouse!

Reagan initiated the rollback of funding and the reduction in public services - "lower taxes and less guvment." The mandates remained, but the funding dried up. Schools began to change how they identified "special needs" students. Particularly hard hit were the children who are "retarded" or "developmentally delayed." They were seen as "functioning to their fullest," therefore, no special services need be provided. Imo, this justified allowing these children to fail in the regular school system. How many completed their basic education and graduated from high school?

To complicate matters, each state interprets the mandates a bit differently and sets different standards. Each school district determines the tests for identifying "special needs" students. A kid who moves from one school district to another within a state may find they have changed from being "special" to not being "special," losing supplemental services. Crossing state lines can also result in loss of services.

A friend's son is developmentally delayed. He lives at home and works at a local grocery store, part of a chain. He stocks shelves and bags groceries. He gets to and from work on his bike - a reliable employee, participating as fully as possible. The regular customers know him, as do many in the small community. He is accepted.

Now if the grocery chain considers the "bottom line," they might reduce costs by putting in "self service" checkouts. Fewer cashiers and fewer baggers, or perhaps none at all. So my friend's son would be out of a job.

Does the government have a role in preventing this from happening? If so, in what way? I don't know.

Here in the U.S. the discrepancy between the talk and the walk in regards to the importance of people is a chasm.

a provision, criterion or practice applied by or on behaf of ...
any physical feature of premises ... [that] places the disabled person concerned at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled

And second, "affirmative actions" in the US are not federal statutes. What is "opportunity" here is very much a moot point.

The constitutional principle of equal protection is the prerequisite of civil rights enforcement in the US. That is a very vague standard in effect as the Constitution doesn't define what constitutes either advantage or disadvantage per se. Consequently, all laws and enforcement actions since Brown v BoE concern tort procedures to identify comparative delivery of publicly funded services and financial benefits as well as and private enterprise engaged in public commerce and employment EXCLUDING clubs and religious organizations. Civil litigation rarely "trickles up" to statutes. Each instance is a private battle and, in fact, settlement terms of such disputes is frequently subject to "gag" conditions to protect defendent's interests from prejudicial public response to the outcome.

The foundation of "affirmative action" in the US is an EO signed by LBJ --never revoked-- concerning executive agencies' enforcement of the Civil Rights Act with respect to federal business and employment practices. That guidance has resulted in "set aside" allocations of appropriations (for any federal programming) by Congress, so-called "quotas," state-, federal- and NGO-sponsored "leadership" programming, and much contemporary political vitriol against "racial preferences" and "reverse discrimination" perceived to determine allocation of government funds. Read: resentment of competition for "American Dream" benefits.

Accordingly, Mr Obama's promise "to continue efforts by previous administrations to add 100,000 employees with disabilities to the federal workforce" recognizes the limitations of his office and influence on the general private practices. Litigation is still essential to enforcement of prohibitions of discrimination, so compelling equal protection on a case by case basis, privately.

Under the original Title VII, EEOC has no authority to bring lawsuits of its own. However, private individuals may file actions in court and EEOC can recommend to the Department of Justice that it bring pattern and practice lawsuits.

Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 amdended the Civil Rights Act in two very important ways. (1) identified specific types of commercial practices prohibited (e.g. housing discrimination); and (2) authorized EEOC investigatory powers to discover, determine, and certify a plaintiff's claim of discrimination, pursuant to civil litigation. Discovery is a very expensive project, when as suggested in the DDA a defendant claims ignorance of discriminatory practices.

The reality of these administrative conditions are assumptions of the HR Executive article you cite. For this reason I imagine the president of the American Association of People with Disabilities, an "issue advocacy" organization anticipating litigation of non-compliance with ADA, says

another Obama pledge [read: EO, agency memoranda on rule-making] would "touch an even bigger part of the economy." The president-elect promised to fully implement Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires the government and federal contractors to "take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities."

Today for all practicable purposes the EEOC is a (advisory) division of the office of the Attorney General of the USA in so far as the AG elects (as directed by the president) to prosecute class action complaints against a third party --or-- defend the US government in complaints brought by individual or class action suits. The latter point, I predict guarantee, will precipitate litigation of Social Security disability insurance benefits administration -- qualification of disability, determinations and appeals, claim processing, etc. -- and employers' dependencies. ADA advocates expect Mr Obama to direct agencies in facilitating such employee "entitlements."

ADA

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `employer' means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such person, except that, for two years following the effective date of this title, an employer means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 25 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year, and any agent of such person.

(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term 'employer' does not include--

(i) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the government of the United States, or an Indian tribe; or

(ii) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization) that is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Don't hold your breath for "a sea change."

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

The disadvantage that disabled people face is HUGE. Insurmountably huge. It requires a complete change of approach to address this. It isn't just about disability, it is about a sea change for the whole of society. Can Obama do this in America?

I really hope so.

Some fine comments from several people -as usual, MarketTrustee has encyclopedic information. Thanks.

There's another aspect of the problem faced by the disabled, and the quote above comes close to it.
I'm gonna just hit the high spots, because I'm sick today, and have no patience.

Laws are, in part, a reflection of public attitudes. Sometimes the law is a reflection of who we'd LIKE to be, rather than who we really are. And sometimes the "law" is a vengeful, hate-filled assault weapon aimed at those who EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE to be different- or, through no act of volition, ARE different.
Twenty years ago I was struck by the high quality care that disabled people got in France, but also at their isolation- no matter what the law says. It's improving. Finally the Down's syndrome kids are becoming integrated into the regular schools, after an avalanche of good studies showing it's good for both groups, but there's a lot of concealed resentment that "little darling" must endure the realities of drool and agression, of occasional disruption.

Disabled people are frightening. We remind all you "normals" of your own mortality- your own fragility.

The Bush administration went to great lengths to hide the evidence of the ultimately disabled resulting from the attempt to plunder Iraq-- the dead-- and to wall away the other disabled from public view. I think also from their own view -- and the American people enabled this--acquiesed in this fraud. Think about the Lancet study, and it's complete disappearance from main stream media. That's because we WANT it that way.
Chomsky speaks of the "Unworthy victims", and many who read his blazing, cold condemnations of what NEEDS to be condemned miss the fact that a huge swath of the social "us" can, by the magic of disability and the fear it brings, become transformed into the "them". From "Them", it's only a short step to becoming an "unworthy" "them".
The churches do mold behavior into kinder channels, but I think this is more because a commercial, market-based cultural model is BY IT'S NATURE, predatory and mean, of needs blind to the softer side- and many people have a better side to their natures-- perhaps most people. (Dons flame suit, checks oxygen level)
Laws and churches enable that kinder side-- provide an environment in which the aggressive, zero-sum executive can be a softer sort of person.
Without a social frame to enable and support empathy, you have only laws-- that fail.
Support from the human heart, one-on-one, is essential for the law to support the rights of the disabled--and all rights.  

Grabbing what you can, as John Ruskin said, isn't any less wicked when you grab it with the power of your brains than with the power of your fists.