Restoration of Employment Choice for Adults with Disabilities Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 21, 2026
Bottom line
The bill fundamentally alters federal policy on subminimum wage employment for adults with disabilities, emphasizing individual choice while potentially broadening access to such employment for those 18 and older.
What it actually does
This bill significantly amends Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which currently restricts the employment of individuals with disabilities aged 24 or younger at subminimum wage. It shifts the focus from restricting subminimum wage employment for young adults to enabling it for individuals aged 18 and older, provided they receive career counseling and explicitly choose such employment. The bill also introduces an exception for employers if state units fail to provide required counseling and mandates documentation sharing.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill restores essential workplace choice and opportunity for adults with disabilities, allowing them to accept employment that aligns with their individual preferences and needs, even if it involves subminimum wages. They contend that restricting such options can limit employment access and that informed individual choice, coupled with counseling, empowers individuals rather than limiting them.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill weakens protections for individuals with disabilities by potentially expanding the use of subminimum wage employment, which they view as exploitative and a barrier to competitive integrated employment. They argue that 'choice' in this context can be coercive due to limited alternatives and power imbalances, and that the original intent of Section 511 was to phase out subminimum wage for younger individuals, a goal this bill appears to reverse.
The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, but its implications are complex and require careful consideration of existing law and policy debates.
Section 2(1), amending 29 U.S.C. 794g(a)
Shift in Subminimum Wage Employment Framework for Adults
This provision changes the core framework for employing individuals with disabilities at subminimum wage. Previously, entities were generally prohibited from employing individuals aged 24 or younger at subminimum wage unless specific counseling and information were provided. The amendment reverses this, stating that any entity can employ individuals aged 18 or older at subminimum wage if they receive the required counseling and choose to accept such employment. This fundamentally shifts the policy from restriction to conditional enablement for adults.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this change empowers adults with disabilities by giving them more employment choices. They believe that if an individual, after receiving comprehensive counseling, freely chooses subminimum wage employment, they should not be prevented from doing so by federal law. This promotes autonomy and access to work for those who might otherwise struggle to find employment.
Critics contend
Critics argue this provision rolls back crucial protections, potentially expanding subminimum wage employment rather than phasing it out. They contend that 'choice' can be illusory for individuals with limited alternatives and that the focus should be on facilitating competitive integrated employment at or above minimum wage.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between individual autonomy and choice in employment versus the protection of vulnerable populations from potentially exploitative labor practices. It also reflects a debate over whether subminimum wage employment is a necessary option for some or a systemic barrier to full inclusion.
Section 2(2), amending 29 U.S.C. 794g(b)(2)
Ambiguous Age Range for Counseling Frequency
This amendment changes the age range for which the counseling requirements (from subsection (a)) apply each time an individual's wage is adjusted. The original text applied this to individuals '24 years of age or younger.' The amendment changes this to '17 years of age or younger.' This creates a significant textual ambiguity or contradiction, as the amended subsection (a) now applies to individuals '18 years of age or older.' As written, it implies that the requirements for '18 or older' would apply to '17 or younger' when wages are adjusted, which is logically inconsistent.
Section 2(3), amending 29 U.S.C. 794g(c)
Employer Exception for State Unit Failure to Provide Counseling
This provision creates a new exception for employers regarding the mandatory counseling requirement. If an employer makes documented efforts to contact the designated State unit to arrange counseling for an individual, but the State unit fails to provide that counseling, the employer is deemed to have satisfied the requirement. This shifts the burden of ensuring counseling from the employer to the State unit, provided the employer can demonstrate good faith effort.
Section 2(4), amending 29 U.S.C. 794g(d)(1)
Documentation Sharing Requirement for State Units
This amendment requires designated State units, when documenting that an individual has received the necessary counseling and information, to make copies of that documentation available to the employer if the individual is already employed by that entity. This ensures employers have official proof of compliance with federal requirements.
The bill changes 'No' to 'Any' and 'unless' to 'if' in the introductory clause of Section 511(a). This seemingly minor grammatical shift fundamentally transforms the legal presumption regarding subminimum wage employment for individuals with disabilities.
Section 2(1)(A)(i) and (iii), amending 29 U.S.C. 794g(a)
Why it matters:While grammatically precise, the profound policy implication of reversing a prohibition into a conditional permission is often conveyed through such subtle textual alterations in legislative drafting. It's standard practice to amend existing text directly.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these changes are essential to effectuate the bill's core purpose: to shift the legal framework from one of restriction to one of choice and opportunity, allowing adults with disabilities to accept subminimum wage employment if they choose.
Case against: Opponents would highlight these as the most insidious changes, as they subtly but completely reverse the protective intent of the original Section 511(a), making subminimum wage employment the default permissible option rather than a restricted one.
Estimated impact: This grammatical change is the lynchpin for the entire policy reversal, impacting all individuals with disabilities aged 18 and older who might be considered for subminimum wage employment.