"Defining 'Disability' Down"

[John Russell]

In a message dated Tuesday, April 20, 1999 7:03 AM
OnwardMike at aol.com writes:

>> The legal question to be decided is whether the airline's requirement for
perfect *un*corrected vision is a reasonable one.
Have you ever hear of shears, mechanical problems, and negative G's all of
these things can make total chaos out of a cockpit.
The problem is that we allow people that know nothing of the subject
deciding the amount of the award from the lawsuit.  Sometimes deciding
totally on emotions.  If we put warning on cigarettes then why not allow me
to know that this person is not up to speed (my judgement) before going down
that gangplank.  Does this person have more rights than me?
I'm not a wimp when it comes to flying, gunner on night medivacs in Nam,
hang gliding for the last twenty years.  It would be ok to do recreation
flying with this person, but when I pay or have my family onboard I expect a
100%.
That's all for now.

-----Original Message-----
From:	AMP-L-owner at u.washington.edu [mailto:AMP-L-owner at u.washington.edu] On
Behalf Of
Sent:
To:	Amputee Information Network
Subject:	Re: "Defining 'Disability' Down"

In a message dated 4/20/99 6:06:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sci-list at iprolink.ch writes:

<< There must be things I don't understand ... >>

Regina, old friend, the Americans with Disabilities Act seems to be one of
the things you don't understand.  You have been consistent over the years
here (charter member of the list, so it's more than three) in your position
of "tough love" -- cutting PwDs very little slack where parking spaces or
toilets are concerned.

<<
 If one is as blind as a bat or epileptic, for instance, there are hundreds
 of jobs available on this earth ... why wanting to be a jet pilot ... >>

The pilot in question wasn't "blind as a bat."  She has 20/20 vision with
corrective lenses and is presumably able to do the job with skill and
competance without risking the lives of passengers or -- more importantly
(I've learned to put a smiley here  :) -- the very expensive jet aircraft.
The legal question to be decided is whether the airline's requirement for
perfect *un*corrected vision is a reasonable one.

Epilepsy would be a much harder issue.  If it could be shown that the
medication absolutely ruled out the possibility of an attack (rather than
"most of the time"), then I would consider the person eligible to fly.  If
not, then it would be appropriate for the airline to reject that applicant.

I think the actual case involves hypertension (high blood pressure), which
is
much easier to answer.  The medication works all the time, I believe.  And
if
it didn't, or the person forgot to take it one day, the resultant
hypertension would increase the chance of a stroke or heart attack but they
would be far from a certainty.  A big chunk of the population is walking
around with untreated hypertension and they're not all dropping dead or
crashing their cars.  Failure of the pilot to take the medication or to don
corrective lenses would presumably be a violation of the terms of employment
and grounds for dismissal -- even with the ADA.

<<
 If one is in a wheelchair, he sure can do another job than delivering
pizzas
 for Domino's ... unless he wants to sue them with the only purpose of
making
 money. >>

The ADA limits what an employer has to spend to make a reasonable
accommodation to what an employee with a disability needs to do the job.
Equipping a van for a wheelchair user might cost more than is required,
depending on the adaptive equipment required.

On the other hand, a power chair might be just the thing to zip through
heavy
traffic to get the pizza there on time and while it's hot.  So would a
motorcycle, and we've got several list members who have already paid for and
installed the necessary adaptive equipment, although delivering pizzas might
not match their career goals.

<<
 I wonder if I'm not going to sue Elite model agency one next day. I'm sure
 that if I apply as top model they won't accept me ... this is an obvious
 case of discrimination. >>

Your case could claim that if only they had done some cosmetic surgery,
reduced breast size, instructed you on how to be anorexic, you could have
met
all of the requirements of the job.  On the other hand, they also hire
people
to model the misses sizes and savvy retailers here (e.g., Sears) show people
in wheelchairs in their ads and catalogs.  Last Friday, I visited Legoland
in
Carlsbad, CA, near San Diego.  There was a Lego model of the U.S. Capital.
Of the 50 tiny (two or three inches) bystanders in front, three were in
wheelchairs.  Lego had moved beyond the token one, and the ADA might have
had
something to do with it.

Michael B.