AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

[JazzysMom]

In one of my husbands Union bulletins I found this article:

<b>CONGRESS STRENGTHENS AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT</b>
Congress took action this year to set federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, straight on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA Amendments Act, which was signed into law in September, was Congress's response to court decisions over the past 18 years that have eroded the intent of the law.

The ADA Amendments Act takes effect January 2009. The new law expands the definition of disability to include many more major life activities, as well as a new catergory of major bodily functions.

Moreover, it clarifies that "mitigating measures" like medication or prosthetics may not be taken into account in the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.


***Does anyone have any feelings on how this could affect CFers?***

 

[JazzysMom]

In one of my husbands Union bulletins I found this article:

<b>CONGRESS STRENGTHENS AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT</b>
Congress took action this year to set federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, straight on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA Amendments Act, which was signed into law in September, was Congress's response to court decisions over the past 18 years that have eroded the intent of the law.

The ADA Amendments Act takes effect January 2009. The new law expands the definition of disability to include many more major life activities, as well as a new catergory of major bodily functions.

Moreover, it clarifies that "mitigating measures" like medication or prosthetics may not be taken into account in the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.


***Does anyone have any feelings on how this could affect CFers?***

 

[JazzysMom]

In one of my husbands Union bulletins I found this article:

<b>CONGRESS STRENGTHENS AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT</b>
Congress took action this year to set federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, straight on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA Amendments Act, which was signed into law in September, was Congress's response to court decisions over the past 18 years that have eroded the intent of the law.

The ADA Amendments Act takes effect January 2009. The new law expands the definition of disability to include many more major life activities, as well as a new catergory of major bodily functions.

Moreover, it clarifies that "mitigating measures" like medication or prosthetics may not be taken into account in the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.


***Does anyone have any feelings on how this could affect CFers?***

 

[JazzysMom]

In one of my husbands Union bulletins I found this article:

<b>CONGRESS STRENGTHENS AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT</b>
Congress took action this year to set federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, straight on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA Amendments Act, which was signed into law in September, was Congress's response to court decisions over the past 18 years that have eroded the intent of the law.

The ADA Amendments Act takes effect January 2009. The new law expands the definition of disability to include many more major life activities, as well as a new catergory of major bodily functions.

Moreover, it clarifies that "mitigating measures" like medication or prosthetics may not be taken into account in the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.


***Does anyone have any feelings on how this could affect CFers?***

 

[JazzysMom]

In one of my husbands Union bulletins I found this article:
<br />
<br /><b>CONGRESS STRENGTHENS AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT</b>
<br />Congress took action this year to set federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, straight on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
<br />
<br />The ADA Amendments Act, which was signed into law in September, was Congress's response to court decisions over the past 18 years that have eroded the intent of the law.
<br />
<br />The ADA Amendments Act takes effect January 2009. The new law expands the definition of disability to include many more major life activities, as well as a new catergory of major bodily functions.
<br />
<br />Moreover, it clarifies that "mitigating measures" like medication or prosthetics may not be taken into account in the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.
<br />
<br />
<br />***Does anyone have any feelings on how this could affect CFers?***

 

[NYCLawGirl]

This isn't a legal opinion, and please keep in mind that I haven't done much research into the new ADA Amendments Act, but I do know that "breathing" is one of the bodily functions that is now covered by the ADA. Basically, I think the major impact on CFers is that a healthier cystic who is not "severely limited" in walking or other activities and whose disease is more ore less controlled with medications would be more protected now. The employer would not be able to argue that the disease is not limiting in such an instance. The main effect here is to ensure that employers aren't able to argue their way out of compliance by narrowing the definition to basically exclude most disabled persons who are still able to work.

In other words, someone like myself, who has not taken disability and is still working full time, but has CF and needs certain accommodations (i.e., extra notice for travel time, certain time off for doctors visits and reduced night hours - remember, law firms expect attorneys to be available 24/7 and I obviously am not) might not have been covered under the SCOTUS definition because I can walk (most of the time) and perform other "life functions" like dressing myself, eating, etc. In fact, I can do most things. What I cannot do all too often is breathe, and no one would argue that CFers are not "significantly limited" in that area (although some people with very high PFTs might still have an issue there). This law ensures that I can get the protections of the ADA without, for example, becoming immobile.

I would think CFers and other sufferers of chronic illnesses would stand to benefit the most from these changes. As a group, we are likely to suffer from disabilities that are difficult for the rest of the population to understand. We may look fine and be able to do most activities, but we still have significant special needs in order to maintain a normal level of activity.

 

[NYCLawGirl]

This isn't a legal opinion, and please keep in mind that I haven't done much research into the new ADA Amendments Act, but I do know that "breathing" is one of the bodily functions that is now covered by the ADA. Basically, I think the major impact on CFers is that a healthier cystic who is not "severely limited" in walking or other activities and whose disease is more ore less controlled with medications would be more protected now. The employer would not be able to argue that the disease is not limiting in such an instance. The main effect here is to ensure that employers aren't able to argue their way out of compliance by narrowing the definition to basically exclude most disabled persons who are still able to work.

In other words, someone like myself, who has not taken disability and is still working full time, but has CF and needs certain accommodations (i.e., extra notice for travel time, certain time off for doctors visits and reduced night hours - remember, law firms expect attorneys to be available 24/7 and I obviously am not) might not have been covered under the SCOTUS definition because I can walk (most of the time) and perform other "life functions" like dressing myself, eating, etc. In fact, I can do most things. What I cannot do all too often is breathe, and no one would argue that CFers are not "significantly limited" in that area (although some people with very high PFTs might still have an issue there). This law ensures that I can get the protections of the ADA without, for example, becoming immobile.

I would think CFers and other sufferers of chronic illnesses would stand to benefit the most from these changes. As a group, we are likely to suffer from disabilities that are difficult for the rest of the population to understand. We may look fine and be able to do most activities, but we still have significant special needs in order to maintain a normal level of activity.

 

[NYCLawGirl]

This isn't a legal opinion, and please keep in mind that I haven't done much research into the new ADA Amendments Act, but I do know that "breathing" is one of the bodily functions that is now covered by the ADA. Basically, I think the major impact on CFers is that a healthier cystic who is not "severely limited" in walking or other activities and whose disease is more ore less controlled with medications would be more protected now. The employer would not be able to argue that the disease is not limiting in such an instance. The main effect here is to ensure that employers aren't able to argue their way out of compliance by narrowing the definition to basically exclude most disabled persons who are still able to work.

In other words, someone like myself, who has not taken disability and is still working full time, but has CF and needs certain accommodations (i.e., extra notice for travel time, certain time off for doctors visits and reduced night hours - remember, law firms expect attorneys to be available 24/7 and I obviously am not) might not have been covered under the SCOTUS definition because I can walk (most of the time) and perform other "life functions" like dressing myself, eating, etc. In fact, I can do most things. What I cannot do all too often is breathe, and no one would argue that CFers are not "significantly limited" in that area (although some people with very high PFTs might still have an issue there). This law ensures that I can get the protections of the ADA without, for example, becoming immobile.

I would think CFers and other sufferers of chronic illnesses would stand to benefit the most from these changes. As a group, we are likely to suffer from disabilities that are difficult for the rest of the population to understand. We may look fine and be able to do most activities, but we still have significant special needs in order to maintain a normal level of activity.

 

[NYCLawGirl]

This isn't a legal opinion, and please keep in mind that I haven't done much research into the new ADA Amendments Act, but I do know that "breathing" is one of the bodily functions that is now covered by the ADA. Basically, I think the major impact on CFers is that a healthier cystic who is not "severely limited" in walking or other activities and whose disease is more ore less controlled with medications would be more protected now. The employer would not be able to argue that the disease is not limiting in such an instance. The main effect here is to ensure that employers aren't able to argue their way out of compliance by narrowing the definition to basically exclude most disabled persons who are still able to work.

In other words, someone like myself, who has not taken disability and is still working full time, but has CF and needs certain accommodations (i.e., extra notice for travel time, certain time off for doctors visits and reduced night hours - remember, law firms expect attorneys to be available 24/7 and I obviously am not) might not have been covered under the SCOTUS definition because I can walk (most of the time) and perform other "life functions" like dressing myself, eating, etc. In fact, I can do most things. What I cannot do all too often is breathe, and no one would argue that CFers are not "significantly limited" in that area (although some people with very high PFTs might still have an issue there). This law ensures that I can get the protections of the ADA without, for example, becoming immobile.

I would think CFers and other sufferers of chronic illnesses would stand to benefit the most from these changes. As a group, we are likely to suffer from disabilities that are difficult for the rest of the population to understand. We may look fine and be able to do most activities, but we still have significant special needs in order to maintain a normal level of activity.

 

[NYCLawGirl]

This isn't a legal opinion, and please keep in mind that I haven't done much research into the new ADA Amendments Act, but I do know that "breathing" is one of the bodily functions that is now covered by the ADA. Basically, I think the major impact on CFers is that a healthier cystic who is not "severely limited" in walking or other activities and whose disease is more ore less controlled with medications would be more protected now. The employer would not be able to argue that the disease is not limiting in such an instance. The main effect here is to ensure that employers aren't able to argue their way out of compliance by narrowing the definition to basically exclude most disabled persons who are still able to work.
<br />
<br />In other words, someone like myself, who has not taken disability and is still working full time, but has CF and needs certain accommodations (i.e., extra notice for travel time, certain time off for doctors visits and reduced night hours - remember, law firms expect attorneys to be available 24/7 and I obviously am not) might not have been covered under the SCOTUS definition because I can walk (most of the time) and perform other "life functions" like dressing myself, eating, etc. In fact, I can do most things. What I cannot do all too often is breathe, and no one would argue that CFers are not "significantly limited" in that area (although some people with very high PFTs might still have an issue there). This law ensures that I can get the protections of the ADA without, for example, becoming immobile.
<br />
<br />I would think CFers and other sufferers of chronic illnesses would stand to benefit the most from these changes. As a group, we are likely to suffer from disabilities that are difficult for the rest of the population to understand. We may look fine and be able to do most activities, but we still have significant special needs in order to maintain a normal level of activity.

 

[JazzysMom]

Thanks Piper!

It sounds like it is giving us more room for the times that things "just arent right" versus being incapacitated!

 

[JazzysMom]

Thanks Piper!

It sounds like it is giving us more room for the times that things "just arent right" versus being incapacitated!

 

[JazzysMom]

Thanks Piper!

It sounds like it is giving us more room for the times that things "just arent right" versus being incapacitated!

 

[JazzysMom]

Thanks Piper!

It sounds like it is giving us more room for the times that things "just arent right" versus being incapacitated!

 

[JazzysMom]

Thanks Piper!
<br />
<br />It sounds like it is giving us more room for the times that things "just arent right" versus being incapacitated!

 

[ladybug]

Just curious... Does the ADA effect anything other than workplace stuff? For example, does this protect us with regard to public buildings (i.e. we are entitled to a place that is smoke free because of our breathing difficulties) or travel issues... For example, charging us for O2 that we NEED to use an airplane, etc.? Does anyone know?

I personally think these are HUGE issues for those of us with disabilities... We should have the same accomodations that people in wheelchairs, etc. are entitled to IMO. People who need a wheelchair to get on a plane are not charged for the wheelchair etc.

Anyway, sorry if this digresses a bit, but I'm curious how the "toughening" laws help us in other ways besides the workplace.

 

[ladybug]

Just curious... Does the ADA effect anything other than workplace stuff? For example, does this protect us with regard to public buildings (i.e. we are entitled to a place that is smoke free because of our breathing difficulties) or travel issues... For example, charging us for O2 that we NEED to use an airplane, etc.? Does anyone know?

I personally think these are HUGE issues for those of us with disabilities... We should have the same accomodations that people in wheelchairs, etc. are entitled to IMO. People who need a wheelchair to get on a plane are not charged for the wheelchair etc.

Anyway, sorry if this digresses a bit, but I'm curious how the "toughening" laws help us in other ways besides the workplace.

 

[ladybug]

Just curious... Does the ADA effect anything other than workplace stuff? For example, does this protect us with regard to public buildings (i.e. we are entitled to a place that is smoke free because of our breathing difficulties) or travel issues... For example, charging us for O2 that we NEED to use an airplane, etc.? Does anyone know?

I personally think these are HUGE issues for those of us with disabilities... We should have the same accomodations that people in wheelchairs, etc. are entitled to IMO. People who need a wheelchair to get on a plane are not charged for the wheelchair etc.

Anyway, sorry if this digresses a bit, but I'm curious how the "toughening" laws help us in other ways besides the workplace.

 

[ladybug]

Just curious... Does the ADA effect anything other than workplace stuff? For example, does this protect us with regard to public buildings (i.e. we are entitled to a place that is smoke free because of our breathing difficulties) or travel issues... For example, charging us for O2 that we NEED to use an airplane, etc.? Does anyone know?

I personally think these are HUGE issues for those of us with disabilities... We should have the same accomodations that people in wheelchairs, etc. are entitled to IMO. People who need a wheelchair to get on a plane are not charged for the wheelchair etc.

Anyway, sorry if this digresses a bit, but I'm curious how the "toughening" laws help us in other ways besides the workplace.

 

[ladybug]

Just curious... Does the ADA effect anything other than workplace stuff? For example, does this protect us with regard to public buildings (i.e. we are entitled to a place that is smoke free because of our breathing difficulties) or travel issues... For example, charging us for O2 that we NEED to use an airplane, etc.? Does anyone know?
<br />
<br />I personally think these are HUGE issues for those of us with disabilities... We should have the same accomodations that people in wheelchairs, etc. are entitled to IMO. People who need a wheelchair to get on a plane are not charged for the wheelchair etc.
<br />
<br />Anyway, sorry if this digresses a bit, but I'm curious how the "toughening" laws help us in other ways besides the workplace.