Hi Ramon,

When the Supreme Court is using limiting criteria to define disability, I
wonder what you mean by "those of us who are truly disabled." By their
criteria, a person who can see, hear or ambulate without accommodation or
equipment is not disabled. This excludes people with learning disabilities,
psychiatric disabilities, and other types of hidden disabilities that do not
keep them from eating, brushing their teeth or even gardening (using Supreme
Court standards). But those of us with hidden disabilities still may need
accommodations to fully participate in education and employment. With a
narrow definition of disability that excludes us, we don't have protections
against discrimination. It also means that if your disability effects the
need for accommodations in employment or education, but you are able to
operate without accommodations in your home environment, you will forced
into a job where they don't have to provide reasonable accommodations for
your disability. Arlene Mayerson of DREDF made the Supreme Courts failings
clear: "You are either not disabled enough to qualify, or you are too
disabled to do the job."

This ruling isn't just about people with carpal tunnel syndrome (which, by
the way, is not always curable), but about narrowing the definition of who
deserves protections to fully participate in society. I'm particularly
interested to know how this will play out for people with hidden
disabilities, like a person with a learning or psychiatric disability who
may only be considered disabled when the disability becomes "visible" at
work or at school.

Tracy Scharn

-----Original Message-----
From: * EASI: Equal Access to Software & Information
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ramon Castillo
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Decision


Hi Ross,

Sorry this news made you sick.

The Supreme Court didn't shoot down the law, they just UNANIMOUSLY clarified
it.  The Supreme Court doesn't make laws, they just try to interpret them to
the best of their ability.  This law was designed to help those of "us" who
are "truly" disabled.  Those with disabilities limited to specific job
function can get retrained and receive assistance through workers'
compensation in the meantime.

Also, you shouldn't underestimate economics.  If not for profits, companies
would not be able to stay in business and hire anyone, much less spend money
on accommodations.

Please don't be sick.  But since it bothered you so much, be thankful you
live in Canada.


--
Ramon Castillo




-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Eadie [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Decision


Hi,

I posted this message a while ago, but I found it was not sent in reply to
the list - just to the sender of the original message.  As for the
decision's affect on other vocations and education, I fear the decision
will set it all backward.  And to think we in Canada constantly raved that
we needed an ADA.  Anyway the message I originally sent follows:
I was so very angry today.  Being so upset made me feel sick.  I was
listening to prairie public telvision (PBS) news this evening, and I was
totally disgusted with a guy who thought this Supreme Court decision was
good and just.  As a Canadian, I was aghast at the general disregard for
disability by employers in the U.S.A..  Has it come to that:  economics
takes presidence over one's health and welbeing?  I should say Canada can
be just as bad, but I will take the Charter of Rights and Freedoms over the
ADA.  This woman with the work injury and disability should be applauded
for not giving up and continueing to try and work instead of taking a
worker's compensation claim.  Not that worker's compensation should not be
given to her anyway for her loyalty to the company she works for.  Toyota's
compensation premiums would go up in this country for having a lot of
people getting injured and going on worker's compensation.  This woman
should be treated like a queen for not putting the economic pressure on
Toyota.  On CBC Radio I heard someone say that a country's society could be
judged by how it treats its citizens with disabilities.  If this measure is
applied, I am afraid the ratings are low in both countries if a business's
economics or profit takes presidence over people.
Ross Eadie
Voice:  (204) 339-5287