Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 25
Page 2 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Expanding the Definition of Disability Discrimination

Dirty Old Men Need Love Too

Curious George
ACOE
Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:22 PM

Post Reply

What about lack of sexual desireablity?

Who WERE these judges?

H.R. Specialist
V.A.
Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:30 PM

Post Reply

I will forever put the name of the dissenting judge on my wall, in a place of honor occupied by a shrinking number of intelligent federal employees:
Justice Karen LeCraft Henderson.

So who were the other two?

Major life activity

Thorn in the Side
DOD
Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:30 PM

Post Reply

When did f***ing become a major life activity? It's not included on the list in my LTC policy.

As I said in the Case of the Wrong-Site Surgery: Nuts!

More time

Fed Worker
DOD
Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:01 AM

Post Reply

Presumably this would not be a disability as one should have more time to work and think about work. I am not sure how this is a disability.

Define Sex

CLO
NAVY
Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:05 AM

Post Reply

The court must have looked at Bill Clinton's definition of sex. If it is Oral, than it is not really sex. The Agency solution in this case should be to : 1. Hire a prostitute (Sex Therapist) to help her overcome her disability. 2. Put cameras in all of the rooms in her house to verify her disability. 3. Physical demonstrate for/with the court her lack of fulfillment. All at the Agency's expense.

We need to have this court ruled metally disabled, disbanded and provided a real life.

Cancer and Disability

Federal Worker
Federal Agency
Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:28 AM

Post Reply

I am confused -- perhaps someone can clear me up on this. If a person is refused a job because she/he once had cancer, isn't this refusing a person a job because of a disability (a medical condition)? If I were to get the flu, a cold, mumps, measles, samonella poisoning -- and a doctor had certified me as cured -- could an agency refuse me a job because someday in the future I might get sick again? Or is cancer considered different?

I truly wonder if all of this "sexual dysfunction" issue came in because somehow there was a loophole in the ADA where they don't have to cover cancer or other illnesses.

This is crazy

Nameless, Faceless Nobody
DOD
Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:59 AM

Post Reply

The reason given is wierd. The result is right.

For crying out loud! She was medically cleared but some bureaucrat decides she doesn't qualify.

I wonder how many men with remitted cancer have been allowed such postings?

They should have found in her favor on the grounds that the denial was based on speculation and not on medical advice. Then there wouldn't be this really wierd bunch of unintended consequences hiking up the road.

Total Comments: 25
Page 2 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.