Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Shananigan's avatar

So it's really like the "undue burdern" thing.

Expand full comment
Beargorod People's Recublic's avatar

Basically, the effect of that ruling was to severely narrow the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the ADA, one must experience a "substantial limitation" on "one or more major life activities" in order for the Act to kick in and require one's employer to provide a reasonable accommodation for one's disability. In the Sutton case, Scalia and company reasoned that, if a workplace accommodation functions to reduce or remove your limitation, then your disability must not have been all that "substantial" in the first place. So basically, many/most folks whose accommodation would make them able to work would end up not qualifying for an accommodation in the first place.

As an example, I'm Type I diabetic, but with no complications thus far. As a result, the only accommodations I ever need are the ability to take 30-45 seconds here and there to test my blood sugar or take an insulin shot, and the ability to keep a small amount of sugar close at hand for insulin reactions (which require immediate treatment; a can or bottle of soda pop is usually enough). The need to manually manage my metabolism in this way is probably a substantial limitation on my major life activities -- but the management itself vaporizes the problem and leaves me completely able to work. If I had an employer whose labor rules precluded my diabetic activities and who wanted to be a real slapnuts about it, s/he could argue that under Sutton's reading of the ADA, I'm not even disabled.

Expand full comment
434 more comments...

No posts