again i bring up a few of us that do the same type of work. if the
emploers are allowed to say "look ken got ligament and tendon damage from
straining to sit straight at a desk, so we will not hire KAT, because she
has cp too", is that fair and right.
  i know employers don't want to open themself up for workers comp cases,
but, then again why discriminate against someone who will not get hurt. and
Lord knows, TABS see us as all the same. they do not know the differences in
cp. i have friends that i still after years have to remind them that i have
cp, not md.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Salkin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 4:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Decision Affecting ADA Rights


Well, yes, but we don't want the ADA language to become so restrictive that
basic decisions are taken out of our hands, such as whether to apply for a
job or not.  I certainly would not want an employer to come along and say I
was out of a job because I had a greater chance of a heart attack due to
stress or that I should not be working because I could fall and break my
leg, which could conceiveably be a danger to my well-being and health, just
to protect future workers compensation expenses.  Unfortunately, as Kyle
pointed out earlier, I can see employers taking yesterday's Supreme Court
decision to the other end of the limits.

Remember that all too often, the bottom line determines the actions, not
fairness.

Kat

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:27:15 EDT RIchard Hudson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

In a message dated 6/11/02 1:37:27 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> There's one guy in the shop here who keeps yelling, "ADA! ADA! ADA!",
> everytime he gets a migraine.  Wants me to join in the fray, but I'm
afraid
> that he's going to get the pins knocked out from underneath us if he
doesn't
> shut his yap.

This is why the ADA is TOO inclusive. and why proff of a disability should
be
 required.

Richard Hudson