i am wondering what prompted you to write this...is there a specific incident you are thinking about. tell us the story.Merelyme
Ever since I saw two opposing views of H.R. 3195 which is the "ADA Restoration Act of 2007" from U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Political Think Tank The Heritage Foundation and others that expressed their concerns about "expanding" the disabilities in the law. Of course I disageed with their theories and thinking. But this does make me wonder.
I am thinking... at what level should a person be considered "disabled" compare to "able" people in this world? I am some concerns of the ethics of some those who abuses the law, especiaally the attorneys who knows better.
Over the years, I have seen from a manager's point of view that there are those who I considered "able" were using ADA to "protect" themselves in whatever situation they were in. I have seen this happened many times over the years which frustrates me.
This new breed of opportunistic litigants who profit from exploiting this law. This kind of "fear of lawsuits" have triggered unintended consequences and those with who are really disabled will suffer at the end. Often local small businesses, non-profit organizations and governments suffer more than large corporations and governments who were able to afford legal actions.
One thing I did noticed, those who are really disabled didn't sue for money because they sought independence and equality so they can "live" while those who are "able" sue for money because they are just greedy. We have to remember that we disabled people understand that this law was originally designed to open doors for the disabled has forced some business to close their doors altogether because of non-able people's lawsuits. The key for the Americans with Disabilities Act is to provide access for the disabled, not a payday for greedy able artists.
I want ADA to be used for both employers and employees with disabilities by sitting down and find truly reasonable accommodations that can be compromised without hardship. Many people with disabilities do WANT to work and they WANT to be independent. However there are "red tape" barriers that preventing people with disabilities to gain indepedence, especially those who abuses ADA.
So... at what level of "disability" should be for a person who is qualified for ADA's reasonable accommodations?
Sure.. everyone is considered "disabled" one way or another but how severed? How bad? Compare to those who are suffering more, how bad is "disabled"?
I am disabled but I am able than most people with disabilities. I may be deaf but I am able with "reasonable" accommodations. I may have Multiple Sclerosis but I am able with "reasonable" accommodations. I just make sure I don't abuse my accommodations and understand the real purpose of the law. It is essential to understand that the ADA is a civil rights law; its purpose is to end discrimination against people with disabilities and to provide them with equal opportunity for everyone with disabilities.
Now, I want to say that I do agree with some lawsuits that some businesses, corporations and other employers deserved to be sued. I have listed a few links regarding those lawsuits that were proper and reasonable.
Of course, attorneys love and always looking for "loopholes" for courts to decide. That's where the "real" costs which can lead to problems for those who are really disabled down the road. How do we close loopholes that we think those who think they are disable but really truly able?
Thanks for letting me vent, Merelyme. (smile)