Advocacy

The practice of paying subminimum wages to workers with disabilities has its roots in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. Section 14(c) of the FLSA permits employers, upon receiving a certificate from the U.S. Department of Labor, to compensate individuals with disabilities at rates below the federal minimum wage. This provision was originally intended to integrate disabled World War I veterans into the workforce by providing employment opportunities that might otherwise be unavailable.

When President Roosevelt signed the FLSA of 1938, this was a landmark law that established minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor protections, but it initially excluded several groups of workers. When it was first passed, agricultural workers, domestic workers, and others, many from marginalized communities, including Black and immigrant workers, were not covered by its protections. This was largely due to political compromises to gain support from Southern lawmakers who sought to maintain exploitative labor practices. Over the decades, these exclusions were addressed for most groups—agricultural and restaurant workers gained coverage in 1966, and domestic workers in 1974. Yet, workers with disabilities remain the only group still legally subject to subminimum wages under federal law.

The subminimum wage model was intended to reflect productivity differences between disabled and non-disabled workers. However, it has often been exploited, providing employers with a convenient loophole to secure cheap labor while perpetuating the economic marginalization of disabled workers. This framework ignores systemic barriers like inaccessible workplaces, insufficient accommodations, and societal biases that limit opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

This policy eventually led to the establishment of “sheltered workshops,” now referred to as “work centers.” These facilities primarily employ individuals with disabilities, often in segregated settings, and have been criticized for offering limited opportunities for skill development and advancement. Critics argue that such environments perpetuate low expectations and hinder the economic independence of disabled workers.

Advocates for disability rights argue that linking pay solely to productivity is fundamentally flawed. In most industries, non-disabled workers are not paid strictly based on their output; instead, factors like seniority, education, and role determine pay scales. Applying productivity as the sole metric for disabled workers not only discriminates but also fails to account for the diverse skills and valuable perspectives they bring to the workforce. Furthermore, this system reinforces poverty rather than empowering individuals to achieve independence and growth.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s recent proposal to phase out Section 14(c) certificates signifies a pivotal moment. This change aligns with broader efforts to shift away from outdated models like “sheltered workshops,” which often limit skill development and advancement, toward competitive, integrated employment that values all workers equally. States such as Alaska, Maryland, and New Hampshire have already enacted laws to eliminate subminimum wage practices, setting a precedent for federal action.