Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
ADA
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Hi Joan,
If you're referring to the Americans With Disabilities Act - yes it does. Few people with MC had much success winning social security cases, and/or concessions from their employers, (such as expedited access to a bathroom, at all times), prior to the first of this year. On Jan 1, 2009, however, some changes to the law went into affect, so that now, someone with a diagnosis of MC, (or any other IBD), does not have to prove disability, either to an employer, or to the SSA, in order to win special treatment. Since the changes went into effect, an applicant's own certification of needs, (and a valid diagnosis), is sufficient proof, whether actual disability exists or not. IOW, an applicant can be in full remission, but if she or he asks an employer for reasonable accommodations, (such as quick access to a bathroom), the employer cannot legally refuse. IOW, the changes in the law, took all the legal argument, out of it. Apparently, not everyone is aware of the changes, however. This site gives a pretty good explanation of the changes, and how they would apply to someone with an IBD:
http://autoimmunedisease.suite101.com/a ... lities_act
Here's an even better explanation:
http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/amendments_notice.html
Tex
If you're referring to the Americans With Disabilities Act - yes it does. Few people with MC had much success winning social security cases, and/or concessions from their employers, (such as expedited access to a bathroom, at all times), prior to the first of this year. On Jan 1, 2009, however, some changes to the law went into affect, so that now, someone with a diagnosis of MC, (or any other IBD), does not have to prove disability, either to an employer, or to the SSA, in order to win special treatment. Since the changes went into effect, an applicant's own certification of needs, (and a valid diagnosis), is sufficient proof, whether actual disability exists or not. IOW, an applicant can be in full remission, but if she or he asks an employer for reasonable accommodations, (such as quick access to a bathroom), the employer cannot legally refuse. IOW, the changes in the law, took all the legal argument, out of it. Apparently, not everyone is aware of the changes, however. This site gives a pretty good explanation of the changes, and how they would apply to someone with an IBD:
http://autoimmunedisease.suite101.com/a ... lities_act
Here's an even better explanation:
http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/amendments_notice.html
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
DUH
DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV.
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
I went a few rounds through ADA regulations at my previous job. It can get pretty complicated if the job description for your position has medical fitness requirements. I was working for the federal government and going out to sea for several months at a time, so I was required to pass an annual sea duty physical. Physically, there was nothing prohibiting my performance of sea duties, but I would need medical accommodations when it came to the food provided at sea. A few years ago, the office decided they needed someone with my skills to be classified emergency essential, so it was written into the job description. There were a handful of us with those skills, so it didn't have to be my position, mine just happened to be the one pulled from the database. Emergency essential means I could be deployed for up to six months on as little as 48 hour notice. The office said they couldn't reasonably accommodate a special diet for emergency essential positions and I was no longer qualified for my position. Since "I failed to maintain adequate health status to perform the required duties of the position" I would be "subject to disciplinary action including reassignment, possibly at a decrease in pay, or termination". I was told that the government was within their rights to add the emergency essential requirements to my job description because it was based on the perceived emerging needs of the organization. The way the instruction was written, once the declaration of unfit for duty is made, the organization would have 90 days to affect "disciplinary action".
In my case, I was in very good standing performance-wise and health-wise other than the diet restriction and the front office would have been willing to work with me to have the emergency essential stipulation removed from my job description. It actually was in direct conflict with some of the other duties listed in my job description which required I stay within a one hour commute of the office during emergency situations - can't do that if I'm out at sea. I decided to leave anyway, because of (1) I had enough of bad office politics not related to this issue, (2) the meeting with the lawyers where they said the organization is within their rights to re-write a job description to meet perceived emerging needs and (3) I found a job in my field which is more flexible with respect to travel and has better promotion potential. Even though I had people in the front office willing to work with me now, in the future, someone without as much compassion could come in, re-write my job description and then I could be reassigned, possibly demoted and potentially out of a job in 90 days. Since I'm single with no one else's paycheck to fall back on, I didn't want the added stress of knowing at any time I could be looking at a 90-day pink slip because of someone flipping a coin to determine which job descriptions get re-written.
Karen
In my case, I was in very good standing performance-wise and health-wise other than the diet restriction and the front office would have been willing to work with me to have the emergency essential stipulation removed from my job description. It actually was in direct conflict with some of the other duties listed in my job description which required I stay within a one hour commute of the office during emergency situations - can't do that if I'm out at sea. I decided to leave anyway, because of (1) I had enough of bad office politics not related to this issue, (2) the meeting with the lawyers where they said the organization is within their rights to re-write a job description to meet perceived emerging needs and (3) I found a job in my field which is more flexible with respect to travel and has better promotion potential. Even though I had people in the front office willing to work with me now, in the future, someone without as much compassion could come in, re-write my job description and then I could be reassigned, possibly demoted and potentially out of a job in 90 days. Since I'm single with no one else's paycheck to fall back on, I didn't want the added stress of knowing at any time I could be looking at a 90-day pink slip because of someone flipping a coin to determine which job descriptions get re-written.
Karen
The government can be pretty heavy handed at times.
I agree with Joan - glad you found a better position.
Tex
I agree with Joan - glad you found a better position.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
-
barbaranoela
- Emperor Penguin
- Posts: 5394
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 6:11 pm
- Location: New York