[nfb-talk] FW: Congress Fast-Tracks Dramatic Expansion of ADA

[T. Joseph Carter]

Aaron,

I don't think we should take a stand directly on the bill yes or no, but
rather advocate for those changes to the bill we can agree are appropriate
if we can agree on them.  Here follows a message I sent elsewhere in reply
to the big crosspost:


I don't know that I support this completely.

While it's true the ADA is easily circumvented and the courts have applied
the narrowest of interpretations to the law, consider this:  A person has
bi-polar disorder that is adequately controlled by medication.  The meds
flatten the peaks and fill in the valleys, but the cycle remains and you
do have manic and depressed days.  Not as much either way, though.  When
depressed, they may stop taking their medication, thinking it'll get them
back to a manic stage.  When manic, they may stop so they can benefit from
the biological high.

The manic state can be a little annoying for co-workers, but it's mostly
harmless.  The depressed state can really impact the workplace, clients or
customers, co-workers, and basically anybody who walks in the door.  Now,
a person with bi-polar disorder has every right to choose whether or not
to take their medication.  However, I believe that I as an employer also
have the right to say that if their choice interferes with their work, I
have a right to replace them with someone who will make better choices.

In California, that person could claim that I'm discriminating against
them on the basis of their disability by not providing them a reasonable
accommodation for their mental illness.  In California, they'd win that
argument as far as the legal system is concerned because I am not legally
allowed to consider the pill bottle in their desk drawer that they've
decided to stop taking.

The ADA, with precedent set by the supreme court, does not grant them the
right to choose not to take their medication and demand that I make some
accommodation or allowance for the outcome.

As these bills are presently written, that would change.  It shouldn't.


I support the expansion of disability to properly cover medical and
recognized psychological conditions, though I would like to some real
consideration of what precisely does "reasonable" mean.

Actually, I would like some real analysis of what's reasonable anyway.  A
number of people believe the ADA does a great job of requiring physical
access to public places for people in wheelchairs, but presently I can
find places in my region that claim they are not required because they
provide reasonable accommodations otherwise.  I disagree that it is
reasonable, for example, to say that a restaurant need not install a ramp
because a couple of waiters can bodily lift a person and their chair up
the steps.

The ADA does require revision, in my opinion, to prevent abuse.  That
abuse cuts both ways, though.  On one hand you have people claiming
anything is a disability and that you must give them exactly what they
want as an accommodation.  That's not acceptable.  On the other, you have
people refusing to provide reasonable accommodation because they claim a
clearly unreasonable accommodation is sufficient.  That's not acceptable
either.

The issue seems to be how to properly, objectively define disability and
reasonableness.


On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 06:37:44PM -0600, Aaron Cannon wrote:
> What, if any, position has the NFB taken on this?
> 
> Aaron