Slashdot Mirror
Inability to Type Not a Disability
gizmo_mathboy writes: "The 9th Circuit Court has ruled that not being able to type does not give one protection/privilege under the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). This article on Yahoo! has information concerning the case."
How would you feel if you suddenly are forced to give up a programmer's comfortable salary?
It would suck, no doubt. But just b/c i WANT to make money doing something i'd like to do, doesn't mean its my RIGHT. My salary depends on how much my company values me, if they suddenly think i have no value (or even all companies think programmers are valueless), well its time to retrain and start doing something else. Obviously i'd like the same salary, but who said it was my right to find another job with a similar salary?
Also, i highly doubt your hands would become amputated from working on a keyboard...
I would have responded to this article, but I can't type...
"He was a wise man who invented beer." -- Plato
The minute I read the article, I realized what we'd be seeing in this thread on /. ... lots of modded up (+2, Funny) jokes about laziness, mocking posts saying RSI and carpal tunnel don't exist, etc, etc. Sad, really, that things are that predictable...
Obviously, not every single person claiming to have a disability actually has one. The guys with temporary paper tags in their windows filling up the handicap spaces so I can't park close enough to unload my walker from the car are very suspect... but just from what I'm reading here, this looks legitimate rather than someone being 'Lazy'.
And in her chosen profession, yes, not being able to type is a serious problem. As the third judge pointed out, in modern life in general typing is becoming more and more of a critical skill unless you wanna stuff tacos for a living. (CmdrTaco?) It's not fair to punt someone from the line of work they've trained for just because they COULD do something else that doesn't involve typing.
So, if you take as truth that we are dealing with a legit disability here and it's one that directly relates to her livelihood... the issue then becomes 'Well, what can be done?'. To that, I'm not sure. It sounds like lots of accommodations have already been made, to the point where they've run out of things that can make the situation more bearable for the reporter and allow her to do her job. I'm not sure if firing was appropriate, but they have hit a wall. That's the real issue here; not if she's faking it, but how can this be handled in a feasible and reasonable way?
While it's clearly important that employers do as much as they can to support employees with disadvantages, such as this woman, there comes a point when they simply can't do the job any more. It's not their fault, but at the same time, it's not the employer's fault, and they certainly don't deserve to be taken to court over it.
I've seen companies bend over backwards to accommodate workers with disabilities. But at the end of the day, they need employees who can produce for them. It sucks, but there are some jobs that physically can't be done by some people. I for instance can't juggle, so I don't work in a circus.
Articles like this always tend to freak me out. I'm one of the more autistic geeks out there- couldn't finish school, couldn't keep a normal job because of 'Asperger's Syndrome', a sort of communication-enabled autism. Nobody knew what the hell it was when I was growing up. I developed an ulcer and tried everything from pizza cook to inventory and stockroom for a guitar pickup company, continually getting 'fired in sorrow' by people who knew that I was killing myself _trying_ to do what they wanted, but something was just not fitting somewhere. I turned to drugs (BAD F**KING MOVE) which helped stave off suicide for the time being. I ended up in debt, in a homeless shelter, from there to a psych ward (voluntarily- beat the homeless shelter as long as I behaved well enough to be legitimately allowed to refuse psych meds) and it was there that I found an advocate that got me on social security Disability.
That has meant a lot over the last 6 years or so. I'd never been able to live free from fear of homelessness or hunger before. Your mention of 'skiing holidays' was wonderful because it put things in perspective- I live on about $6K a year. No car (I don't consider myself fit to drive), no DVD player, no cable TV, yada yada. And yet being free from hunger and the destruction of my former life is such a blessing that I feel guilty when reading the harangues of people with ten or twenty times the income and resources of me!
I used to be lazy- or something that looked like it but was more like being stressed into immobility. Once I had the ability to define things on my own terms for a while, it turned out I wasn't lazy, and now I even court RSI ( ;) ) doing things that I like, or things that I mostly like that seem to be a path out of Disability towards a niche I can actually handle. For instance, I'm doing things related to costuming and finding there are actually people out there who'll pay money for that. Great! And so I do that for 12 hour days, alternating with days where I can't face it and sit back and don't do it anymore. I always liked audio and sound engineering, and one thing I taught myself over the last couple years is programming (in 'REALbasic'- sort of RAD language like a cleaner VB), and I now maintain an audio mastering program that I wrote for my own use- but GPLed.
*ramble* sorry for the ramble. All this strikes _very_ close to home. The upshot is, actually, that I don't have total sympathy for this reporter. I think it's great if she gets SSI and is allowed to live on about 6K a year (trust me, one can) to provide a space for her to learn what else she can do. I _don't_ think she is entitled to stick to what she _thinks_ she 'is' in life. At different times, I've thought I 'was' a cook, a stockroom person, a writer for The Absolute Sound (got several articles published actually), a Mac tech, etc. I don't believe any of these things really were so suitable that I should have been allowed to _stick_ myself in that role permanently. I'm glad I moved on from those things, and can draw on all of it as I continue in life.
I think the biggest reason this woman deserved to lose this particular case is because life changes, seemingly faster and faster, and you can't put down an anchor. The most you can ask for is a damn good life raft. I have that, I use it- I don't bitch that the government doesn't give me more money or expect it to under-write the possible paths _away_ from disability for me. It'll take longer for me to chisel out a niche in society this way. That's okay. By the time I do, the niche may not last, but I'll have got good enough at chiseling out niches that I'll no longer fear anything.
My advice to this reporter would be: can you sit back and take stock without fear of homelessness and starvation at this point, and what other roles in life could you see yourself filling?
The court made the point that she is not injured to the point that her daily life activities are impared. And even though she may not be able to keep up with the pace of typing at her old job, there are ways to be employed in her field that don't involve so much typing. She's not shut out of her field the way that, say, a truck driver would be if he went blind.
Does anyone have a right to be able to keep working at the same job after they get injured? What about minor league baseball players that get career-ending injuries, even debilitating injuries? They can't engage in their chosen profession anymore, and they haven't made tons of money yet so they can retire, but none of them claim disability. The good ones become coaches, and the bad ones go into a totally diffenent field. Maybe that's a bad example, because baseball players don't expect to be playing until they're 55, but you get what I mean.
Now, the job likely caused the carpal tunnel, but that's a different issue altogether. Regardless of what caused it, she has it now, and unfortunately has to live with it now.
I'm certainly not trying to make light of this woman's problem, because it is serious. I'm just wondering where you draw the line that says that a person can or can't find work in their field due to their injuries or disabilities. If a person can't continue at their job, but can do a similar job, does that count as being "substantially limited" in your abilities?
I hope I never have to find out.
Well.. I typically "lean left" politically, but in this case, I agree with the courts. It appears that the employer made reasonable efforts to accommodate the reporter.
I wonder what type of medical treatment she had... if I remember correctly, there are surgical techniques that can be performed to correct these types of injuries.
I also wonder how much effort she put into researching assistive technologies- other than voice recognition. In 1997, voice recognition technology might not have been adequate, but currently, I think that's a very viable option. Via Voice appears to be a great product (of course, I'm making that judgement based only on the demo's I've seen).
She's got all kinds of employment opportunities.. it looks like she's just looking for an easy way out. When people are put into a difficult situation, they can play one of two roles: the "helpless victim" and the "adapt and overcomer". I saw a woman once who had no arms but still used a computer. She typed with her toes. If that woman can use a computer, I see no reason why the reporter in this article could not adapt and overcome her injuries. It looks like she's rather be a "helpless victim".
When someone files for disability, they receive money from the federal government stating that they cannot work. Say some construction guy has been working on houses for 20 years and is finally to old and worn out (due to injuries) that he can no longer build houses or whatever. He files for disability to help him live. Well what happens when a 55 year old programmer has carpel tunnel or arthritis? I guess you should hope by the time you reach that age you can dictate your code to the computer. I think this is not as obvious as it first seems.
Oh well... I'm probably missing something here. Perhaps qualifiying as "disabled" under the ADA is more stringent than the requirements for workers comp. Or perhaps, as another poster mentioned, there is more to this case than the defense attorney is letting on. Or maybe this phone sex worker story is an urban legend (a Salon article was the most reputable reference I could find to back it up). I'm hoping something like this will explain the discrepency here.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
A number of the responses speak to whether the inability to type is a disability with regard to the job. Of course it is, but that isn't the issue. In fact, a law that required employers to let people who cannot do the job do the job would be stupid, even in this age of stupid laws.
A purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act (which I do not necessarily agree with) is to let people who are disabled in life be employed. The idea is that a blind person ought to be able to find some employment that they can do and not have an employer turn them away because they are blind and a nuisance. The idea is not (I hope) to prohibit employers from turning a person away because they cannot do the job.
So, if a person cannot type, they should not be entitled to a job that requires typing. (Of course, if an employer caused the disability, perhaps they should be liable for that.) And since typing does not prevent most of life's activities and not any critical activities and, in all likelihood, does not prevent a person from finding some other job, this disability does not qualify for protection by law from discrimination.
Again, the ADA is intended to protect people who would be discriminated against on grounds unrelated to their ultimate ability (that is, with remediation) to do the job, not to protect people who would be discriminated against on grounds related to their ability. (I think the ADA goes too far, protecting people who will have much less net productivity than more qualified workers, but this is unrelated to whether it does apply in this case.)
ATTENTION! Legal note: The above post may not be read in the State of Kansas.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
So she chose a profession that she could not perform adequately, and now wants others to be forced to allow her to do it anyway. Does this apply to any skill, or just typing? Can I be a sprinter if I weigh 300 pounds and can't run? Can I be deaf and have a job that requires talking on the phone all day? Can I be blind and direct traffic?
Oh, but typing is different - it's a physical activity that some people can't perform a great deal of. OK, how about construction or garbage collection. Jobs that require constant physical exertion. Many people can't handle this. Should the ADA protect them?
The ADA was meant to protect people who, say, are in a wheelchair, and could do their job if only there were a ramp up the stairs so they can get into the office. That's a far stretch from someone who lacks a basic requirement for the job.
It reminds me of the Vonnegut story of Harrison Bergeron, where people who are better at something are artificially handicapped so that everybody is equal. If employeres are allowed to consider my characteristics which make me good at a job, they should be allowed to consider those that make me bad for a job, too, including those I'm born with or those that I acquire by accident.
If this employer is wrong, so what. There are four million other employers in the country. Surely if something is not important for a job, most other employers will agree with you.
It shouldn't be the responsibility of every individual or every business to have the wisdom of Solomon. Fairness in the private sector comes about from choice.
I was involved in an accident a few years ago that left me missing two fingers on my left hand. That of course make normal keyboarding impossible. I am an IT professinal and I have never been cut any slack becasue of my (and I hate using this term) disablity, and never thought I deserved any either, I have to applaud the court for not buckling under pressure and finally saying that SOMETHING was NOT a disablity.
What if you are a pilot and develop mild epilepsy?
Hell, what if you are a sailor and develop severe sea sickness?
What if you're deaf and you're a composer? Oh wait...
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
We basically have the defense attorney's side of the story. The story basically suggests that she became too much of a burden on the company (cost wise) and they fired her. What happens if the other side of the story is she came in 2 hours late, took a 3 hour lunch and left at 3:00 in the afternoon while hanging out at the coffee machine most of the day? I know it's a gross exaggeration, but where is the company's side? I posted earlier that I supported disability for this kind of issue, but I think there must be something more going on behind the scenes in this issue that we have not been told.
The dissenter said "the majority's ruling ignores the reality that computers and the ability to type and write are essential skills in the modern world."
But, the person in question _could_ type and write - just not fast and not for extended periods of time. A small minority of jobs require being able to type or write extensively.
Many fat middle aged Americans can't walk or run either fast or for an extended period of time, but they don't get away with disability allowance for that.
-----
for Taco. He was hoping claim a combination grammatical/typo handicap.
Someone loses their ability to work in their profession and, for most, participate in their hobby/mental exercise/what-have-you then they are disabled. How does this not apply to typing? Unless someone wants to get me a nerve implant right to my brain/spinal cord, Ima fight that if anything happens to my hands to where I can't type.
.ph0x
---
ps -aux | grep mind
Where are the people who are against this decision...?
oh wait.
I've been there. Anyone who has read my posts may notice that I often swap letters in words (especially the - its often teh) Theres a reason and its not dyslexia :) A few years ago, I was working in teh yard after a big storm hit. Lots of trees down, etc. Was finally getting the stumps to a burn pile to get rid of them. As I was rolling a stump onto the pile, it rolled forward, grabbed my glove and rolled onto my hand. A small sharp piece of metal or something punctured my wrist (1/4' max) and severed 3 tendons to my fingers on my left hand - I couldn't move them at all.
After surgery, I had months of rehab to slowly get the tendons back into shape without ripping them apart. Typing was out for some time. I was an IT manager who did about 50% mgmt and 50% seniuor IT tech work due to staffin glevels. It was a HUGE imparment to my work. This was in 97 or so, and I tried ViaVoice and stuff. It kinda worked, but was brutal and slow. Todays technology may be better so this is moot, but in 97 it wasn't up to par.
My productivity was greatly impacted during my recovery. I can understand where this woman is coming from. Due to a failin gin the therapy of my fingers, the tendons for 2 fingers fused at the repair site and I've lost about 70-80% of the independence of them (ie they move together often) So for some reason I often swap letters in words as I type not even realizing it since my brain has been wired to move my fingers to type in such a way for years. My point is, inability to type is a serious issue!
In working for her employer she injured herself by working at a workstation that wasn't ergonomic. She got CT really bad (my Mom had it - she couldn't even pick up a coffee cup at the worst - she finally had her hand and wrist cut open and they managed to reduce the pain so she sould sitll code) Then her company let her go (though its nice they did try to accomodate her) Bottom line is she is seriously disabled and its got her fired. She deserves disability in this day and age - sorry - call me a bleeding hear tliberal if you want (you'd be wrong) but inability to type is a huge imparment. She'd have to have someone to transcribe her stuff which to a company vastly increases the cost of her as an employee - not likely in this day and age.
So before scoffing at this, just think what it would be like if YOU couldn't type. Sure you MIGHT be able to improvise and such - but your productivity would go WAY down - would your employer just accept that or get rid of you?
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
I was hoping to use this ruling to force the NBA to let me play, even though I can't run, jump, dribble, or shoot.
"He hated Mexicans, and he was half Mexican. AND he hated irony!"
Obviously the comments posted here will all be biased against the proposed new law. After all, you have to be able to type to post here, don't you? Most of the SlashDot readers type for a living anyway. That really limits those with an opposing view from being represented in this discussion.
Now imagine if one day you stopped being able to type... Its not impossible... Maybe you suffered nerve damage in your hands, or you lost a few fingers in a farming accident. There are lots of ways to gain this particular disability. You wouldn't be able to work, you wouldn't be able to play computer games, and you wouldn't be able to chat on IRC. Worst of all, you wouldn't be able to post comments about your plight on message boards like SlashDot that have no provisions for those suffering from this particular disability.
Second, with an RSI, it does not only prevent one from using a keyboard, but when severe, you have problems sleeping (from the pain), and eating (because you keep droping things), or shopping, because your hand strength goes to almost nothing.
You also have to keep in mind that the ADA analysis is a fact specific test that is done on a case by case basis. There are circuits that ruled in one case that CTS is a disability, and in another ruled that it was not. This does not say if they also considered the state disability laws - which have a different standard for disability.
Fight Spammers!
Consider, a blind person can dress him/herself, do laundry, make a bed, even shop in some cases. They cannot drive, of course, however they can get around by walking or bus. And in some cases, someone with carpal tunnel or similar may not be able to drive safely, as the pain it causes their wrists can be extreme.
There was one comment on slashdot recently about a man who owned a small computer company, who was completely blind, but walked around without a cane or any sort of guide, built, troubleshooted, took apart, added to, computers by touch, using brail or text-to-speech for interaction with the computers, etc.
However, if they had fired this reporter because she'd gone blind, she would likely have won without trouble.
Voice recognition is COMPLETELY viable, even in 1997 it was usable, esspecialy if the user had some use of their hands to allow for manual corrections when neccisary. All they would have had to do was spend a few hundred dollars on Dragon Naturally Speaking, and a few bucks on a microphone, and everything would have been fine.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
She complains in 1994, so the paper buys her special office furniture to help. A few years later she complains and they give her an extended leave to recouperate. A few years later she complains again and the paper decides that they can't do anything else to help her so they let her go.
This is discriminatory? It seems to me that they bent over backwards to help her do her work. About the only thing they didn't do is inject painkillers directly into her wrists.
What are they supposed to do? They publish newspapers and are not in the healthcare business. Staff writers that, after that much accomodation, can't write are a liability.
Perhaps they should have made her do weight training excercises to prevent this kind of injury. Weight training has been shown to increase bone density, muscle mass and tone, joint stability and more. Face it: the human body was not designed for desk work.
What if you are an artist and become colour blind?
What if you are a pilot and develop mild epilepsy?
Hell, what if you are a sailor and develop severe sea sickness?
It's bad luck. Life sucks somtimes. You have to get on a deal with it. These days people think the world owes them something, that they have some kind of right to be compensated for really bad things happening.
There is no such right. If I get hit by lightening and paralysed from the waist down, our society will keep me alive. It will give me a home, food, some level of nursing care perhaps. Hopdfully my friends and family will give me something more. But society does not, and should not, give me recompense for my misfortune. It should not pay for me to go on disabled people's skiing holidays just because I could have gone skiing before. It should not require everyone and their dog to bend over backwards to make my life better. It does not give me any moral superiority over anyone at all.
Sometimes, life just sucks. It's nice to know that, unlike most people in the world, when we get blinded, crippled, or otherwise screwed up, we will not have to walk the streets in filthy rags begging, or to stare at the concrete walls of a hospital for the rest of our days.
-----