I wasn’t kidding. There’s yet another case up that illustrates the reason why we need the ADA Restoration Act:
Orr used to close his pharmacy for 30 minutes every day at noon, and eat lunch. That helped him control his diabetes. The new boss ordered him to instead stay in the pharmacy and eat between helping customers. Orr tried, but his blood glucose levels fell. He got tired easily.
“When he came in and fired me,” Orr says, “I asked him why I was being fired and he told me straight out: Because you’re diabetic.”
When Orr was fired, he sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. But a judge threw out his case, agreeing with Wal-Mart that Orr should not be considered disabled under the ADA. The reason: With his insulin, he could control his diabetes.
Um, aren’t employees supposed to have an actual break from work during their lunch breaks? Doesn’t Wally-World have pharmacy technicians who can run the till for half an hour?
Over at her blog, ReunifyGally, andreashettle describes a different case,
Carey was living in Georgia and had 20 years of experience working as an electrician when he applied for a better opportunity at a General Motors’ assembly plant in Arlington, Texas. GM offered Carey the job pending completion of a pre-employment physical examination. During that exam, GM’s physician asked Carey to raise his arms above his head. When he saw that Carey could only get his arms to shoulder level, the physician asked how Carey would perform overhead work. Carey, who had performed such work in the past, responded that he would use a ladder. Despite the fact that other electricians in the plant often used ladders or hydraulic lifts to do overhead work, the physician revoked GM’s offer of employment. (48)
Carey challenged GM’s decision. Even though GM revoked its job offer because of limitations resulting from Carey’s muscular dystrophy,(49) GM argued that Carey did not have a “disability” and was not protected by the ADA.(50)
As I explained before in my August 23rd post, “Mitigating Measures”, you can be considered “too disabled” to do the job, but “not disabled enough” to qualify under the ADA. This is a direct contradiction of what the original ADA was designed to address, and why we need the ADA Restoration Act.
Last time my congressman was in town, I went to visit with him about this issue. Unfortunately, I was too late in the line and ended up with only the opportunity to hand-write a last-minute note for one of his assistants to pass on to him. Some days later, I received a letter in reply. Most of the letter was devoted to describing the purpose and history of the bill, which is nice, but really just so much filler. (Behold the joys of the word-processing generated modifiable form letter.) The actual lines of reply read, “Please be assured of my continued support for programs serving those with disabilities and their families. Rest assured I will keep your views in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on this measure or similar legislation during the 110th Congress.” Blah-blah-blah … sadly, even this highly-generic reply doesn’t really say how he plans to vote; so at this point, it doesn’t hardly matter which Congress person the letter was from. Argh.
Nonetheless, we must “keep buggerin’ on” …