Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
font size
options
 
Thursday, November 5, 2009

What about this scenario? A company hires an excellent tech worker who does a great job, but then decides, for whatever reason, to go off the drugs that keep his bipolar tendencies in check. Weirdness at work ensues and the excellent worker isn't able to do his job in the same way. Now what? Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, if a person's disability was "mitigated," by some means, say drugs, then the person wouldn't be considered disabled and wouldn't qualify for accommodations and wouldn't be able to sue for discrimination. New amendments to the bill now broaden the definition of disabled and change how this idea of "mitigation" should be applied.

What's happening now is that commissioners from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are traveling around the country to listen to various concerns about proposed regulations that will govern how the amendments are applied. In Friday, they were joined in Philadelphia by some officials from the U.S. Department of Justice. Among the speakers was management lawyer Sarah Bouchard, an attorney from Morgan Lewis, a Philadelphia law firm.

What happens, she asks, if the employee "refuses to take the appropriately-prescribed medication?" Or what if the employee says he can't afford the medication?

"This is a real concern for employers," she said, speaking about conditions such as bipolar disorder or ADHD. "Pre-amendment, a lot of these wouldn't have been disabilities.".

"We believe the regulation should make clear that an individual is no longer qualified for that position if he refuses to take a reasonable accommodation."

I have to tell you that I'm grateful to this blog, because I never have enough room in my articles to write much of what I report. 

Tomorrow the jobs numbers come out and we'll see, unfortunately, how little the economy has moved. Personally, I don't care what the stock market does. Jobs matter. Period. And not just any jobs. They've got to pay enough for people to live, not scrimp. Double period.       

Posted by Jane Von Bergen @ 4:45 AM  Permalink | 1 comment
Comments   
Posted 08:23 AM, 11/05/2009
ratbag
Jane, you are so right. Even before things tanked, there have been so many of us in parttime positions (read: women) for years now that pay less than living wages and carry no health care subsidization at all. (This alone costs me 500 a month!) And in my field, this is the best I can get. Yes, real jobs that pay a decent living. When?
1 comments
About Jane M. Von Bergen
Jane M. Von Bergen covers workplace issues, health insurance and organized labor for the Philadelphia Inquirer. A longtime business writer, she is now covering her second recession. Von Bergen began her reporting career in fourth grade and then married into it, falling in love with a photographer she met working while working for her college newspaper. They have two college-age sons, neither of whom is studying journalism.
Jobs At a Loss: An Inquirer Series