Americans with Disabilities Act

[Suezoled]

Just wondering: what constitutes a mental disability?

Obviously, Schizophrenia and the like are included in mental.

But what about:

-ADD (attention deficit disorder)
-clinical depression (mild to moderate)
-OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder)
- Dyslexia
-post traumatic stress disorder

etc.

 

[bug_girl]

So far, the supreme court has pretty much struck down anything other than profound physical disability.
so, even though i have epilepsy, and have to deal with that everyday, because my seizures are controlled with drugs, i am not disabled under this law. (as determined by the courts.)

that would also include depression, etc., if it is treated or treatable by drugs.

there also is the "reasonable accomodation" clause. so, if it would require an unreasonable amount of effort (determined by the employer) to accomodate an employee with either physical or mental disability, the employer doesn't have to hire them, or can fire them if they are a current employee.

it's all very depressing.

edited to add: http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/persedisabilities.html

 

[Dancing David]

The ADA is a very weird beast, there are many accomodations made for learning disabilities in school, which is about as close as you will get for accomodation of mental disorders.

The interpretation of disability has been played fast and loose by the people trying apply the law in it's early stages. the courts have placed considerable restrictions on the implimentation of the act.

The courts have ruled that if a condition can be alleviated or treated by a conventional tratmen then it is not a disablity. So airline pilots can be told that they can not wera galsses, bacuse that is not a disabling condition. (This was a huge issue in the airline industry, pilots sued under the ADA, saying that poor vision was a disabling condition and the court ruled that because glasses could remedy it, it was not a disablity. So airlines can say that pilots may not fly commercial planes who wera glsses.)

The act itself merely states that an employer must accomadate a disabled person who is capable of preforming the tasks of a given job. Reasonable accomodation has been considered that things like wheel chair ramps are reasonable, a private office because someone who is easily distracted is not.

The courts have also played fast and loose with what a disablity is and have essentialy gutted the Act.

 

[crimresearch]

Actually, the USSC did NOT rule that any treatable condition is not a disability.

"For example, individuals who use prosthetic limbs or wheelchairs may be mobile and capable of functioning in society but still be disabled because of a substantial limitation on their ability to walk or run. The same may be true of individuals who take medicine to lessen the symptoms of an impairment so that they can function but nevertheless remain substantially limited. Alternatively, one whose high blood pressure is "cured" by medication may be regarded as disabled by a covered entity, and thus disabled under subsection C of the definition. "
Sutton et al. v United Airlines inc.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=527&invol=471

**************************************

The pilots in Sutton had vision that was correctable to 20-20...they were not disabled by having perfect vision.

The same would apply to those whose dandruff can be cleared up with shampoo, or whose tone deafness can be alleviated with singing lessons...OR those whose depression can be helped to the point that they are able to participate in major life activities.

Those whose depression, etc. is somewhat eased by medication, but who still cannot function fully in one or more major life activities are still covered by the ADA.

Paul

 

[bug_girl]

From the Federal Goverment website i referenced above:

Accordingly, various lower courts have not accorded per se disability status to such conditions as alcoholism,2 drug addiction,3 heart disease,4 seizures,5 diabetes,6 cancer,7 hemophilia,8 Tourette’s Syndrome,9 asthma,10 Meniere’s disease,11 Hepatitis C,12 and Attention Deficit-Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD).13

2 See, e.g., Bailey v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 306 F.3d 1162, 1167-68 (1st Cir. 2002.); Reg’l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35, 46-47 (2d Cir.2002); Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 316-17 (5th Cir. 1997); Wilson v. Internat’l Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Warehousemen, 47 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1359 (S.D.Fla. 1999); Goldsmith v. Jackson Memorial Hosp. Public Health Trust, 33 F.Supp.2d 1336, 1341-42 (S.D.Fla.,1998).

3 See, e.g., Zenor v. El Paso Healthcare System, Ltd., 176 F.3d 847, 860 (5th Cir. 1999).

4 See, e.g., Weber v. Strippit, Inc., 186 F.3d 907, 913 (8th Cir. 1999).

5 See, e.g., Deas v. River West, L.P., 152 F.3d 471, 476-79 (5th Cir. 1998).

6 See, e.g., Kapche v. City of San Antonio, 304 F.3d 493, 497-98 (5th Cir. 2002); Beaulieu v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, 161 F.Supp.2d 1135, 1142 (D.Hawaii 2000). See, also, Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471, 483-84 (1999) (dicta) (to “find all diabetics to be disabled” would be “contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ADA”).

7 See, e.g., Godron v. Hillsborough County, 2000 WL 1459054, *2 n.3 (D.N.H.,2000); Hirsch v. National Mall & Serv., Inc., 989 F.Supp. 977, 981-82 (N.D.Ill. 1997); Pimental v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 236 F.Supp.2d 177, 182 (D.N.H., 2002); Schwertfager v. City of Boynton Beach, 42 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1359 (S.D.Fla. 1999).

8 See, e.g., Bridges v. City of Bossier, 92 F.3d 329, 336 n. 11 (5th Cir. 1996).

9 See, e.g., Lanci v. Andersen, 2000 WL 329226, *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Purcell v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 1998 WL 10236, *8 (E.D.Pa. 1998).

10 See, e.g., White v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 2003 WL 203111, *3-*4 (S.D.Ohio 2003); Ventura v. City of Independence, 108 F.3d 1378, 1997 WL 94688, at *1-*2 (6th Cir. 1997) (unpublished opinion) (individualized inquiry of effects of plaintiff’s asthma); Minnix v. City of Chillicothe, 205 F.3d 1341, 2000 WL 191828, at *2 (6th Cir. 2000); Heilweil v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 32 F.3d 718, 724 (2d Cir. 1994); Boone v. Reno, 121 F.Supp.2d 109, 111 (D.D.C. 2000); Castro v. Local 1199, Nat’l Health & Human Servs. Employees Union, 964 F.Supp. 719, 725 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); Gaddy v. Four B Corp., 953 F.Supp. 331, 337 (D.Kan.1997); Emery v. Caravan of Dreams, Inc., 879 F.Supp. 640, 642-43 (N.D.Tex. 1995).

11 See, e.g., Perkins v. St. Louis County Water Co., 160 F.3d 446, 448 (8th Cir. 1998).

12 See, e.g., Quick v. Tripp, Scott, Conklin & Smith, P.A., 43 F.Supp.2d 1357, 1366-67 (S.D.Fla. 1999); Ellis v. Mohenis Services, Inc., 1998 WL 564478, *3 (E.D.Pa. 1998); Reese v. American Food Service, 2000 WL 1470212, *5 (E.D.Pa. 2000).

13 See, e.g., Bercovitch v. Baldwin School, Inc., 133 F.3d 141, 155 (1st Cir. 1998); Davidson v. Midelfort Clinic, Ltd., 133 F.3d 499, 505-06 (7th Cir. 1998); Demar v. Car-Freshner Corp., 49 F.Supp.2d 84, 89-90 (N.D.N.Y. 1999); Bingham v. Oregon School Activities Ass’n, 37 F.Supp.2d 1189, 1195 (D.Or. 1999).

14 White v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 2003 WL 203111, *3 (S.D.Ohio 2003) (“No impairment constitutes a disability per se).

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks Crimesearch, I did use the word alleviate intentionaly but not strictly enough.

The issue however is that the application of the ADA is in the 'lack of suficient alleviation to still cause significant impairment'.

I feel that the people who iled all the loony laws suits in the begining are as responsible for the limiting of the ADA as large corporations.

 

[Dancing David]

Bug Girl, there is a standard that is recognised by the Us government, and it is the application and recieving of Social Security benefits, howevr the assignment of substance dependance to the disablility cayegory was changed very quickly.

But the ADA does not make reference to any standards such as the ones used at the Social Security Administration. So the courts and pertitioners have considerable freedom in persuing the ADA.

 

[cbish]

I don't know if they're related but there seems to be a similarity. In education, we deal with what is called a 504. It's section 504 of a 1972 civil rights act. It basically says schools must provide accomodations for anything that disrupts one's normal life functions. Even though, it's been around since '72, it didn't rear it's ugly head until about 10 years ago. Lawyers, parents, and even school districts jumped on this to demand accomodatons for students with medical disabilities including things as loosley defind as ADD & ADHD. At first, schools buckled, but when it became clear that it was getting too costly, schools began challenging some of claims. The problem with the law, is it's too vague.

 

[crimresearch]

BG's observation that merely having a condition no longer affords automatic guarantees of limitless accomodatons is quite true.
It does NOT mean the the obverse applies, i.e. All cases of depression, epilepsy, etc. are not automatically barred from ADA status either...the specific criteria in Sutton still have to apply.

and David posted:

"I feel that the people who filed all the loony laws suits in the begining are as responsible for the limiting of the ADA as large corporations..."

Absolutely!!

To oversimplify, the USSC ruled that there had to be *some* restrictions on what qualified as disabled, to stem the tide of dandruff and nose hair claims....as well as substantively treatable claims for depression and other recognized conditions.

They chose a certain case to draw a line in the sand, and both sides came away with different perceptions of how that ruling should be applied.

Employers saw it as an opportunity to deny lots of claims for accomodation, including some clearly reasonable.
Advocates for those with disability claims see the Sutton ruling as allowing legitimate claims such as depression, etc. within narrower parameters. So, back to court we go...

One other note, it was mentioned that the public school system is accomodating larger groups of disabilities under the 'learning disabled' label.

Once universities realized that they were going to be seeing a balloon in students requiring accomodations *some* dollar conscious administrators took it upon themselves to fight against ADA students, the elderly, minorities, etc as a cost saving measure...just like big greedy corporations...

Paul

 

[sickstan]

As an occupational physician, I'm often required to inform people about their ADA privacy and employment rights.

All mental illnesses are covered under ADA except alcoholics and chemical dependents who currently use the substance. A physician has enormous responsibility and power to determine what reasonable accommodations are needed to allow a person to work in certain settings.

I recently saw a person who was in some stage of acute alcohol withdrawal, with signs of liver disease. This person I had to exclude from work.

I also saw a prospective bus driver who had marked tangentiality of speech. If his job was only to drive the bus, I might find he's good to go, but he also has to communicate with riders and coworkers. His speech went off into theories about sheep and gradations of black, when I was really only interested in, say, his parents. Truly inappropriate for his job.

I often see people with long-standing amblyopia (lazy eye) who have never developed normal visual acuity in one eye. These people I have denied the right to operate company vehicles.

People who are deaf often need to work in areas where they can be alerted to dangers visually.

Otherwise, I'm sure there are examples where a single diagnosis can mean very different things for those at work. Personality disorders can be very disruptive at work. Ever work with a person with narcissistic personality disorder? The employee may function well alone, but if he has to deal with a tough, no-holds-barred environment, he may well act destructively. Remember your last encounter with a borderline personality disorder? They may have the office up in flames with turmoil. I suppose these are situations that may require a physician to place limits on the contact and responsibilities of an employee so that they may remain productive.

I don't know if that answered any questions, but hey.

 

[Dancing David]

posted by sickstan
Remember your last encounter with a borderline personality disorder?

My favorite was when I made a client yell at me by saying that I felt that they weren't boderline at all but narcissistic! They evidently felt that BPD gave them more lattiude for excessive behavior.

 

[bug_girl]

the net effect of the ADA rulings that i have seen is that no one is willing to identify as disabled. Most of the disabled folks i know say that ADA was just a clever trick to get people to self-identify so that they can be fired more efficiently. several lawyers i talked to say they no longer accept disability cases, since they expect to be overruled.
i have students who are unwilling to seek treatment because they are terrified that it will go on their records. Telling them that it is confidential doesn't help--in reality, it is very difficult to prevent someone, somewhere, in a huge university, from writing something down.
i am hoping that the plan to reintroduce the bill for retuning goes forward, although i'm not optimistic.