Wow...this actually raises some interesting,and IMHO, valid points.

First of all, the author's right in saying the US Supreme Court's decision in
the worker's comp case is going to require Talmudic interpretation of the ADA
legislation.  They have created a legal landmine that will be in the courts
for years.

I agree with this:

'The ADA, of course, does not even aspire to total leveling. Differences in
ability only matter to the law if the ability of one person in the comparison
falls below a threshold into territory labeled "disability." And the law does
exempt disabilities from its protections when they are "job related." But the
line between ability and disability is inherently arbitrary, and the effort to
protect disabled people from job discrimination without forcing employers to
hire less-qualified candidates is inherently self-contradictory.'

There are too many cases in which a person is hired only on the basis of his
disability rather than his or her ability, and that detracts from the overall
purpose of the ADA.

I know some will get mad at me for saying this, but I would far rather listen
to a AB pianist play Mozart Sonata in A perfectly than a disabled person
bumble through it.  People should be judged on ability first, and disability
second, not the other way round.

Kat



On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:47:38 EDT "BG Greer, PhD" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

The List members need to read the following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5719-2002Jun30.html