Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are you able to obey this law?(ADA)
TownHall ^ | 06/07/2006 | John Stossel

Posted on 06/07/2006 5:24:38 AM PDT by devane617

By John Stossel

Jun 7, 2006

Some shortsighted employers don't give jobs to people with disabilities, even when the disabled could do the work. Politicians thought the way to stop this discrimination was to make it illegal. That's what politicians tend to do. But in the real world, even Congress can't wish problems away. Their well-intended solutions create nasty unintended consequences. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is proving to be yet another sad example.

Consider what an employer has to do to try to obey the ADA. Even the job interview is a minefield. Julie Janofsky, a labor lawyer, patiently explained to me that it is forbidden even to ask certain disability-related questions. If an applicant comes to my office with his arm in a sling, I can't ask whether he's disabled. It would be "discriminatory."

I can't ask about past drug addiction -- or even about current addiction, if the drugs are legal. "You can't ask me if I'm addicted to Valium," said Janofsky, "because if I'm addicted to Valium now, I'm protected under the ADA."

How are employers supposed to understand this? I confronted Gilbert Casellas, head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under President Clinton. He said the ADA is a wonderful law, and had the nerve to say it isn't complicated. "None of this stuff is rocket science," he said.

So I asked him about Janofsky's example: If you come to me applying for a job, and your arm is in a sling, can I ask you why your arm is in a sling?

"You can ask -- you know what? I'm going to ask you to stop the tape, because we're getting into -- "

I was incredulous. "You want to check?"

The head of the EEOC had just said the law wasn't complicated, and every employer in America is supposed to obey it, but he had to consult one of his experts.

They discussed the issue for about five minutes, and then Casellas indicated he was ready to resume. So I asked again, and this time he had an answer: "You can ask me whether I can do the job."

"You say the interview rules are simple," I said. "[Yet] you run the EEOC [and] you don't even understand them well enough. You have to stop and ask your assistant!"

"Well, because you asked me a specific question. . . ."

That's the point! Every employer is in a specific situation, and lawyers are ready to pounce if they don't do everything according to the law. And the laws are now so complex, it's impossible to obey all of them. Exxon gave Joseph Hazelwood a job after he completed alcohol rehab; when Hazelwood then let the Exxon Valdez run aground, a jury found that he'd recklessly gotten drunk before taking command--and that the company had been reckless to give him the job. So then the company decided people who've had a drug or drinking problem may not hold safety-sensitive jobs. The result? You guessed it -- employees with a history of alcohol abuse sued under the ADA, demanding their right to hold safety-sensitive jobs. Employers can't win. They get sued if they do, sued if they don't.

What would the head of the EEOC say about that? Amazingly, he said, "That's an easy case." He claimed Exxon "illegally discriminated."

So Exxon should not have to pay billions of dollars for the Valdez spill?

Casellas answered, "Well, you know, that's another issue."

Not his problem.

Complicated laws like the ADA eventually hurt the people they were meant to help. The ADA has led many employers to avoid the disabled. One poll found that since the ADA was passed, the percentage of disabled men who were employed dropped. "Once you hire them, you can never fire them. They are lawsuit bombs," one employer said. "So we just tell them the job has been filled."

This unintended consequence of the ADA shouldn't have been a surprise. If you give some workers extra power to sue, those workers become potential "bombs," and some employers avoid them.

Politicians bragged that the ADA "fixed the discrimination problem." But what really happened is that lawyers got richer, and the disabled got fewer opportunities.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: disability
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
Once Drug abuse and alcohol got included in the ADA is became very bad law.
1 posted on 06/07/2006 5:24:40 AM PDT by devane617
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: devane617

My kids get darn tired of hearing me caution them to "beware of unintended consequences" - Oh, how I wish some of the lawmakers had that drilled into them, and maybe tattooed on their hands...


2 posted on 06/07/2006 5:30:13 AM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (Rugged individualists of the world, unite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devane617

Once laws start trying to make stupidity mandatory, forget whatever they were trying to accomplish in the first place.


3 posted on 06/07/2006 5:32:39 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devane617

"Once you hire them, you can never fire them. They are lawsuit bombs,"

This also sounds like federal government employees


4 posted on 06/07/2006 5:34:31 AM PDT by ebersole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devane617

No.

It was a very bad law from the get-go.


5 posted on 06/07/2006 5:34:44 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devane617

ADA is a nightmare and it is getting worse. More old and fat people are getting hauled around by scooters so access is becoming more of a problem. We are doubling and tripling the number of people needing access.


6 posted on 06/07/2006 5:38:22 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devane617

When asked during his campaign for president what he considered his greatest achievement in congress, Bob Dole cited getting the ADA passed.


7 posted on 06/07/2006 5:39:09 AM PDT by Bahbah (The Dream Act...the latest nightmare to be brought to you by the US Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devane617

i thought the ADA specifically exempted substance abuse from protection. when did this change?


8 posted on 06/07/2006 5:39:42 AM PDT by camle (Keep your mind open and somebody will fill if full of something for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hegemony Cricket

First, I love your handle. I've had that little pun rolling round in my head for a few years now. Second, how long will it be before high school coaches will be barred from kicking smokers and drug users off their teams? After all, they have an "addiction," a "disability."


9 posted on 06/07/2006 5:40:46 AM PDT by zook ("We all knew someone in primary school who had a really powerful magnet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: devane617
what really happened is that lawyers got richer,

Well, that's what government is for.

Apparently.

10 posted on 06/07/2006 5:41:45 AM PDT by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devane617
On a larger scale, this demonstrates the nature of bureaucracies.

1) They are created to carry out vague, often well-intentioned projects;
2) They are populated by grifters, incompetents, and careerists;
3) They protect incompetence by encouraging anonymity and dilution of blame;
4) If they are accountable at all, it is usually only to another bureaucracy, which is usually as incompetent as they are;
5) They end up existing to serve themselves, not the purpose to which they were intended.

Bureaucracy in government is the greatest peril to liberty this country faces.

11 posted on 06/07/2006 5:43:45 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devane617

MORE MOONBAT JUSTICE....
(ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BY ANDREW MC CARTHY>>>
NRO the CORNER BLOG)

.....Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Jackpot Justice in Oakland [Andy McCarthy]

You can bet our troops are not the only ones who will have to endure hours of sensitivity training. A state jury in Alameda County has awarded $61 MILLION in damages to two Americans of Lebanese descent (Edgar Rizkallah and Kamil Issa) after they won their harassment suit against FedEx.

The plaintiffs were FedEx drivers who were called "terrorists," "camel jockeys," and worse by their manager, one Stacey Shoun. Somehow the jury decided this was worth not only $11 million in compensatory damages for the plaintiffs' "emotional distress," but an additional $50 million in punitive damages because Fed Ex and Shoun had acted with "oppression and malice."

What did FedEx do to rate this whopping penalty? Not only did it fail to take adequate corrective action after the drivers complained; the company is also reported to have "failed to provide managers with anti-discrimination training." Without such training, you see, human beings with an IQ of 11 or above would have no idea that it's inappropriate to call someone a "camel jockey" in the workplace.

This is what rule-by-lawyers gets you. "FedEx," of course, will not pay a penny of this award (if it holds up on appeal, which, in California, it probably will). All of us who use FedEx (which is pretty much all of us) will have our pockets picked. Does that make ANY sense? And, while not arguing in favor of asinine boorishness, I must say, if Rizkallah and Issa were truly "emotionally distressed" over this, they would not have lasted long in The Bronx.

Beam me up, Scotty.


12 posted on 06/07/2006 5:43:55 AM PDT by IrishMike (Democrats .... Stuck on Stupid, RINO's ...the most vicious judas goats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devane617
My husband owns a small business and a woman was caught stealing from him and others in the office ....it turns out that she had a history of stealing from employees but none of her past references were able to tell anyone about it b/c of discrimination laws....so you can call references up but they can't tell you anything bad about the person that you want to hire. What is the point!

Makes you wonder what the unintended consequences would be with this:
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644156/posts
A safer society? Legalize drugs
13 posted on 06/07/2006 5:46:46 AM PDT by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hegemony Cricket

It'd do no good to have it tatooed on their hands, they'd never see it with their hands in our pockets all the damn time... :-)


14 posted on 06/07/2006 5:48:45 AM PDT by Andonius_99 (They [liberals] aren't humans, but rather a species of hairless retarded ape.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: zook
*Thanks* - I love puns & wordplay! :-)

Prolly not long at our current rate of adopting and acquiescing to utter stupidity. I have given up trying to "illustrate absurdity by using the absurd" because every time I do, some dolt comes along and says, "hey, that's a great idea right there..."
15 posted on 06/07/2006 5:50:55 AM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (Rugged individualists of the world, unite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hegemony Cricket

"Oh, how I wish some of the lawmakers had that drilled into them, and maybe tattooed on their hands..."

How about having it carved onto their foreheads, backwards with a pen knife so they can see it everytime they go to the head and look in a mirror.


16 posted on 06/07/2006 5:51:45 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (In a world where Carpenters come back from the dead, ALL things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: devane617

Bookmarked


17 posted on 06/07/2006 5:54:23 AM PDT by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andonius_99

So true, so funny, so sad, so maddening...


18 posted on 06/07/2006 5:57:56 AM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (Rugged individualists of the world, unite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

works for me!


19 posted on 06/07/2006 5:58:28 AM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (Rugged individualists of the world, unite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: devane617

I worked for the State of California and it was made very clear to me that under no circumstances was I to hire a disabled person because you can never get rid of them.

The legal relationship at interview time is much more tenuous than once a job offer is made. And we were VERY careful to not talk about the disability at all during the interview process. If the interviewee brought it up, we asked them to discuss it with the HR department.

I know we weren't alone.


20 posted on 06/07/2006 5:59:08 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Bipartisanship is when the Stupid Party and the Evil Party agree to do something that is both stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson