While I can understand the need to limit the employers liabaility I am fearful that this will give employers another exuse not to hire someone with a disability.  Gee, we'd love ot hire you as a (fill in the blank here) but we think it would be too dangerous and might damage your health. I'm never comfrotable giving over decisions about my life to someone who has no clue abolut me or about disability in general.  Also, I think you kind of hinted at it bobby but I think there is a real difference between a disability and an illness. I have CP but don't consider myself ill.  In fact I feel pretty healthy for a 48 year old couch potato.
  "BG Greer, PhD" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I think the employer has the right to prevent any further litigation by
hiring someone who could be deleterious to the employees future health. Also,
a pet peeve of mine is that the large majority of decision on the ADA
rendered by the Supreme Court have involved what would not have been
considered a "disability" 20 years ago. Carpal Tunnel, Hepatitis C. The only
"real" disability was the PGA player and the court ruled in his favored.

Bobby

In a message dated 6/10/02 3:06:45 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

>I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, it seems to me it's the right
>of each person to decide whether to apply for a job or not. On the other
>hand, the employer has the right to decide not to hire a person, as long
>as it's not discriminatory. And I honestly don't think concern for one's
>safety is discriminatory at the face of it. However, I can foresee a lot
>of grey areas in this one. Any thoughts, anyone?
>
>Kat

Bill Hyatt
"I live in my own little world, but it's OK, they know me here."




---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup