In the example below regarding the employee claiming anger management as a disability, requiring his fellow workers to put up with his outbursts of anger is not a reasonable accommodation in my opinion. It would be like requiring fellow employees to bring food to an employee claiming obesity as their disability. Was this a court ruling on an assumption on the part of the employer? Perhaps a more reasonable accommodation if one is to be made for an anger management disability, which seems a questionable disability at best, would be to minimize the individual's contact with the other employees by moving the individual to a closed office or alternate location if possible.
Steve - C4, 21 years From: Dan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:21 PM To: Quad List Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] ADA exactly. How long did it take us to get curb cuts and accessibility to public buildings Indeed, we are still fighting for these rights. The ADA was envisioned to help those of us with severe disabilities. However, now it has been diluted with every manner of physical impairment, either real or imaginary. If It took those of us with severe disabilities 20+ years to accomplish what we did, how much longer will it take us to make any strides towards equality now that every Yahoo has joined the disability wagon? I was just reading that an employee was having outbursts of anger at the workplace. He was going to be fired until he told his manager that he had a disability. His disability was anger management issues and he was being treated for it. So now he cannot be fired and his fellow workers have to put up with his outbursts of anger as long as he doesn't hurt anyone and he gets his work done. What has this world come to? Dan 08:34 PM 9/22/2009, Quadius said something that elicited my response: Turning the ADA into a catchall will eventually diminish and dilute the ability of lawyers to effectively gained those reasonable accommodations from employers if everyone is considered to have some sort of disability. At least that's my thinking. Then again, I'm not a lawyer. Thank goodness. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Steve Oldaker < [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Dan, While I am not thrilled with the dilution of what constitutes a disability in the new ADA, I don't see how the new ADA would be the death of the old ADA. A key component of the ADA, both old and new, is REASONABLE accommodation. The majority of reasonable accommodations involve minimal or no cost, and expensive accommodations are often financed through tax deductibility or state Vocational Rehabilitation programs. Also, the disabled employee must still meet all the requirements for the job, i.e. skills, education, experience, etc. The newly included disabilities, perhaps considered marginal by those with severe disabilities like quadriplegia, should require no more reasonable accommodations than those with severe disabilities, likely less. I am only addressing employment and reasonable accommodation. There may be other perceived or real negative ramifications regarding the new ADA that I am not aware of and/or have not considered. Steve - C4, 21 years -----Original Message----- From: Dan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:44 PM To: Quad List Subject: [QUAD-L] ADA What is going on with the ADA? Am I the only one that thinks the new ADA is going to be the END of the ADA? According to the new rules, everything is considered a disability. I mean really, ADHD, wearing eyeglasses, nervousness, overweight, underweight, too tall, too short, acne. It seems like there is nothing that is not a disability. I would hate to be an employer today. 95% of my staff would be wanting an accommodation for their quote unquote disability. With all of these disabilities floating around, how in the world can they all be enforced. And if they are, life as we know it would come to a standstill. Sometimes I think this was some sort of an evil plot to do away with the ADA. Could someone please tell me how or why this happened? This law will never be undone, because it is sacrosanct. Can you imagine someone saying they want to limit the requirements of the ADA. What do you guys think? Dan
