I've always thought the original ADA legislation as drafted was too vague
and inclusive.  Now unfortunately the Supreme Court may whittle it down to
practically nothing.

Kat
----- Original Message -----
From: "RIchard Hudson" <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.c-palsy
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: The ADA


> In a message dated 7/12/02 12:34:15 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
[log in to unmask]
> writes:
>
>
> > even states in a definition of "disability" as person
> > once erroneously labeled with a disability. So, if a kid is mislabeled
and
> > placed in an MR class in the 3rd grade, say, he is covered under the ADA
> > when
> > he is 30 years old and has an IQ of 120! The is a little known segment
of
> > the
> > ADA.
> >
> >
>
> The sad fact is that it's TRUE in a way. "Anyone perceived as having a
> disability?"
> Does'nt it mean that if someone THINKS that they have a disability, they
are
> protected  by the ADA  .
>
> The ADA is too inclusive, too vague and allows too many people who have
> "disabilities": like substance abuse, and other addictions to get a free
ride
> on the ADA. Worse yet employers can hire these people instead people with
> real disabilities and still say that they are being compliant..
>
> Richard Hudson