Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has prohibited the employers from discriminating against the employees with disabilities in all aspects of employment including paying, hiring, firing, promotion and many others. The paper considers  how well the act has been able to achieve its goal, the difference in protection for someone with a correctable disability  and a non-correctable disability and how the act affects the right of an individual with correctable disability to sue an employer for discrimination. This is done in light to some recent court decisions with regard to the act. ADA profoundly changes the manner in which the society views and accommodates citizens with disabilities. It has created a more inclusive climate whereby the institutions, companies and organizations are able to reach out to people with disabilities.

How the act achieves its goal

The act achieves its goal by outlawing discrimination against people with disabilities in local government and state services, transportation, public accommodations and telecommunications. Most importantly, it has protected people with disability against job discrimination. The act sets a platform for equal opportunity. It mandates that Americans have to be accorded equality when it comes to pursuing of jobs. The Act greatly assists in eliminating the employers’ practices that will in turn make people unnecessarily different (Ingram, 2004). The law further compels the employers to provide reasonable accommodation to the job applicants ore employees with disability, unless if doing so is likely to cause significant difficulty or expenses for the employer. It goes an extra mile to forbid any tendency to harass an employee because s/he has a disability. This includes making offense remarks about the person with disability.

Terminating an employee who is qualified violates the Americans Disabilities Act. The legislation also imposes the need for reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities, unless if this will lead to undue hardship. Taking for instance the case of Josefina Hernandez, an employee of Walgreens for 18 years, she was fired after consuming a bag of chips that he did not pay first. Ms. Hernandez suffered from type II diabetes. She consumed the chips in order to stabilize her condition. Walgreen was aware of this, but the security guard is of the opinion that he did not understand her written response, and did not seek clarification as to whys ashes took chips without paying. As such, Walgreens was ordered to pay Hernandez $180,000 and also post the revised policy about accommodation of the disabled employees on the accommodation intranet site (Miller, 2014). Employers have an obligation to uphold the well-being of the vulnerable employees as stipulated by the act.

The difference in protection for someone with a correctable disability and a non-correctable disability

Under ADA, a person with correctable disability is not entitled to the same rights as a person with uncorrectable disability. ADA does not take into consideration individuals who have high blood pressure and poor eyesight.  The reason is that these health conditions can actually be corrected. An individual with an uncorrectable disability will include an individual who has a missing limb, is bound to the wheelchair or some other circumstances. A correctable disability includes such conditions as weak eyesight which can be rectified by the use of corrective glasses. Despite the fact that Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect people with correctible disabilities, these people are protected by the law against discrimination. As such, the major difference here is that the employees with correctable impairments are not a disabled under the provisions of ADA. Example of a ruling with regard is In Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., whereby the court emphasised that a mechanic who had medically controlled high blood pressure was not considered disabled. It was established that as long as Murphy continues with the medication for high blood pressure, nothing was actually limiting him to any substantial life activity despite the fact that he would haver been hospitalized if he was not taking the medication. It was further reaffirmed that UPS did not consider Murphy as substantially limited in the life activity of working. Even though she was well qualified to work in a variety of jobs,  the blood pressures condition excluded him  from working on commercial vehicles as a mechanic  because he will be required to road-test the vehicles that he has worked on(Miller, 2014).

How ADA affect the right of an individual with a correctable disability to sue an employer for discrimination

Clearly, ADA affect the right of an individual with a correctable disability to sue an employer for discrimination in the sense that s/he may find it hard to meet the threshold required to successfully sue the employer. An individual will be put to task to prove that the limitation is substantial enough to such an extent that sit will limit him or her in the daily activities. Most importantly, one should also establish beyond any reasonable doubt that any corrective measures taken may not remedy the situation (Hays & Mezey, 2006).

Corrective measures such as treatments, medication, or medical services are taken into consideration when evaluating if an individual meets ADA’s definition for disability. With this regard, the impairment of the plaintiff has to be considered has to be considered in its corrected state. This is evident in In Sutton v. United Airlines Inc. whereby the court ruled that the twin sisters who had applied for a job to become global airlines pilots were not disabled because the eye glasses could definitely correct their vision problems. The two sisters had been denied jobs by the American airline simply because they   had severe myopia. However, the ADA claims were dismissed by the court which insisted that they were not disabled since they could attain full vision if they used eyeglasses (Miller, 2014).

As far as Americans with Disabilities Acts is concerned, a disability is an impairment that should substantially limits and individual from the major life activities. As such, the rights of an individual with correctable disability to sue an employer for discrimination are affected in the sense that the guideline requires an individual to suffer from a substantial limitation (Hays & Mezey, 2006). If the condition can be corrected, then it will not be considered substantial. Despite the fact that the ADA may not be able to protect this individual, it is still possible for the individual to seek protection and legal recourse through the antidiscrimination laws that are in place.

References

Ingram, D. (2004). Rights, democracy, and fulfillment in the era of identity politics: Principled compromises in a compromised world. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.

Miller, R. L. R. (2014). Business law: Text and cases – the first course.

Hays, B. D., & Mezey, S. G. (2006). Disabling Interpretations: The Americans with Disabilities Act in Federal Court.

The post Discrimination appeared first on Custom Writing Service.