On Nov 11, 7:54=A0pm, marcia <so_you_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Your "boy in the bubble" reference makes me think of a hamster in one
> of those rolling plastic balls. If she had one of those, at least she
> could exercise.
<snort> ROFLMAO
> What really strikes me, though, is how someone can claim an MCS
> disability (if there is such a critter; SSD seems to recognize it as
> legitimate, or at least legitimatized)
Actually, MCS may have not been a disability last year, but it may
indeed be a disability this year (I am not making the opinion that
this woman has a disability of any kind). The Americans Disabilities
Act (ADA) just underwent its first major underhaul, and it was just
signed into law by President Bush this fall.
Under both versions, the active definition of an individual with a
disability is:
"Someone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities."
Under the original ADA, a physical impairment was defined as: "Any
physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or
anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems:
neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory
(including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive,
genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine." However,
written into the original ADA, is this clause: "Environmental,
cultural, or economic disadvantages, such as lack of education or a
prison record also are not impairments."
NOW ... under the recently ratified ADA (usually referred to as ADARA
these days, or S.3406, which has now been passed into law, the main
active definition of disability is the same (second and third prongs
do not refer to active disability, are obviously excluded and need not
be gone into at this point):
`(1) DISABILITY- The term `disability' means, with respect to an
individual--
`(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
more major life activities of such individual;
MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITIES are now defined as (but not limited to): `(A) IN
GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include,
but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks,
seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting,
bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating,
thinking, communicating, and working.
`(B) MAJOR BODILY FUNCTIONS- For purposes of paragraph (1), a major
life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function,
including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal
cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain,
respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
> when they spend more hours
> OUTSIDE the "bubble" than INSIDE it, with no resulting physical
> distress. Doesn't that seem odd?
It does seem odd to me since they are talking about a "bubble"
situation, but maybe that's not exactly what they're referring to. We
don't have the references needed to evaluate whether it actually
alleviates her condition. I have very severe allergies and I use a
high-powered air filter, but I don't run it 24/7.
> You would think 14 hours of exposure/
> day would be enough to exacerbate her symptoms if they were really
> caused by her environment, wouldn't you? It only takes my husband a
> few minutes outdoors to react to pollen. After 14 hours, he'd be
> miserable.
Who knows? We just don't have enough information to do more than
conjucture on this. You are right, from the information given, it
seems ludicrous. However, from a legal point of view, EVEN if this
woman met the definition of disability as above, she still does not
have the right to a physical accommodation that is far greater than
what she actually requires to raise her to the level of the able-
bodied.
I can make an analogy. Let's say "Steve," a grade-school teacher, had
a legitimate psychiatric disability to where he couldn't wake up on
time to go to work, and he was constantly late to work. According to
the ADA, he has a right to work, and he cannot be discriminated
against by being prevented from working. Steve decided that he needed
to get a fully-trained golden retriever service dog to wake him up
every morning, so that he would never be late to work again, and he
began taking his dog to work with him every day. The dog started
distracting the students. The students' performance decreased.
Parents started getting upset because their kids had allergies. Does
"Steve" have a right to accommodation to wake him up every morning?
Of course. But a full-sized service dog would be far from a
"reasonable" accommodation. Steve would have had ever right in the
world to get a pet dog and train the dog to wake him up. But no judge
in the world would agree that a service dog would be a better
accommodation than an alarm clock. If the alarm clock doesn't work,
you put it across the room. If one doesn't work, you get two, and put
them in different places. There are also vibrating mattresses, and
lights that go on and off. All of these devices are much less
invasive to others, and much less likely to put others at risk, than a
service dog.
She just doesn't have two legs to stand on, legally, from any
standpoint.
best, Helen
p.s. thanks for the hamster ball visual ... made my day.
|
