Bring back the ‘at will’ principle!

“> So, is my employer required to get a powered lift to hoist my ample back side up into the cab and refit a dozer with a “wide base seat” to accommodate my “disability”?

No, because that accommodation is not reasonable. Unless you happened to have all of that crap just lying around.”

If obesity is a disability, as you say with the braile reader / converter – how is the above NOT a reasonable accommodation? If an employer in an office environment must spend the sums (on the specialized equipment, on the labor to do it, on the possible losses in efficiency due to the time it takes, etc) required to take a perfectly good typed document and convert it to braile for a blind employee, why WOULDN’T a contstruction company have to spend equal sums (on the specialized equipment, the lift and wide seat, on the labor, the lift operator and having some one else do the routine maintenance expected of a typical dozer operator, and possible losses in efficiency) of having to hoist up a morbidly obese but formerly only husky dozer driver?

Do explain how in the one case it’s reasonable (the office environment with the blind) while the other (the obese bulldozer operator) is not.

Especially since:
“No, because that accommodation is not reasonable. Unless you happened to have all of that crap just lying around.”
Well, at my large aerospace employer, they don’t happen to have braile converters here in the office, nor tools that can take the computer design software (on double wide screens to boot) and convert it such that a blind person could be a aerospace designer.

Bottom line: The EEOC is full of it. Obesety is not a disability, period, and no accommodation need be made.

> You have to accommodate that reduced performance

Yeah, as in, if you need a guy to be able to read a report, and he says, “okay, let me convert it to Braille” you have to accommodate that.

> at least, up to some silly high threshold

The word you are looking for is REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. Don’t forget that word “reasonable.” Everyone else does.

Oh, and once again, that is exactly what the law says about religious discrimination—since 1964.

> So, is my employer required to get a powered lift to hoist my ample back side up into the cab and refit a dozer with a “wide base seat” to accommodate my “disability”?

No, because that accommodation is not reasonable. Unless you happened to have all of that crap just lying around.

VMS

Actually Sutton has been modified significantly by amendments to the ADA.

The employer would only have to use chairs that it perceives to be extra wide and heavy duty.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1943.ZS.html

Uhhh….I don’t think so. Even if it DOES affect their job performance, you can’t fire them. You have to accommodate that reduced performance (at least, up to some silly high threshold).

Walter – correct me if I’m wrong on that one.

Here’s another one – construction worker. I start off as a typical, slightly husky bulldozer operator. But, I like my pork rinds so much that I balloon up to the point where I can’t even clamber up into the cab of my D9 any more (much less fit in the operators seat, or do the other routine maintenance that’s expected of an operator, like greasing the tracks, checking the engine oil, etc). So, is my employer required to get a powered lift to hoist my ample back side up into the cab and refit a dozer with a “wide base seat” to accommodate my “disability”? How about having another operator perform the routine maintenance checks normally expected of a ‘typical’ operator?

Shoot…..the Simpsons episode is classic on this very subject. I hope the defendant to the BS EEOC suit plays it in full.

the ADA doesn’t say you can’t fire anyone. just that you can’t do it based on their disability unless it truly affects job performance.

and it is literally no different than what the law says about religious discrimination.

which is more unreasonable? To discriminate based on a disability, or to discriminate against a person who has no disability, but you perceive them to have one?

Isn’t it the second one? if the condition is not actually disabling, then it makes no sense to pretend like they have this great impairment.

I mean suppose you to be hired as a dock worker. But the foreman heard a false rumor that your right leg was artificial. So the foreman refuses to hire you and even when you prove you have two natural legs, he refuses to out of pride. isn’t that crazier than if the guy actually was missing a leg? i mean lifting heavy things when you are missing a leg is problematic at best. but if you are not, how could it possibly be a problem.

That’s what the “perceived as” prong of the definition of disability is all about. if you are not actually disabled, then the discrimination makes less sense, not more.

Of course some of the confusion here needs to be laid at congresses feet. When you think about it, the ADA is a little upside down. For instance we think of racial discrimination as a classic example of unjustified discrimination. why? because color doesn’t matter. smart people can be white, black, asian, etc.; dumb people can be white, black, asian, etc. Color is not a good proxy for skill, knowledge, character, etc.

But the ADA requires you to have a difference–one that is generally more likely to be relevant than skin color. So for instance, i am nearsighted. that is not a disability under the ADA so if someone fires me for wearing glasses there is no cause of action. But if i was actually blind, i would have a cause of action. but which is more irrational? to discriminate against the guy wearing glasses? or the guy who is actually blind? which impairment is more likely to be relevant. i think the answer is pretty obvious.

if you start by asking about the rationality of the discrimination in the first place, the idea of protecting those incorrectly perceived to be disabled, makes a lot of sense.

Btw, someone asked if being on drugs counted. the answer is yes but only if you are getting treatment. So a recovering addict has some protection, but if the guy is getting high, tough on them. they can be fired and as far as the ADA is concerned, they are not disabled.

Now i do think that if a person has been clean and sober for five years, that discriminating against them based on that past, or because now he won’t go drinking with the guys is irrational, and rightfully banned. but i think there should be no protection until the addict has more clearly whupped the thing. if i had my druthers, i would change that aspect of the ADA.