Disability protections ordered for sexually incapacitated

[flashl]

By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — A South Carolina breast-cancer survivor has beaten the State Department and convinced judges in Washington that the inability to have sex is a disability protected under federal anti-discrimination laws.

The new appellate-court ruling gives Piedmont, S.C., resident Kathy E. Adams another potential shot at serving overseas. More broadly, the ruling cracks open the courtroom door for additional legal challenges by those who are sexually incapacitated.

"I think it's a major victory for former cancer patients, and for anyone who has had their sex life disrupted," Adams' attorney David H. Shapiro said Tuesday.

Adams, herself a practicing lawyer, wants to compel the State Department to hire her as a foreign service officer and provide back pay. She'll now go before a jury and trial judge, unless the State Department relents first.

[unblock]

1. this one is a bit bizarre

i'm a huge supporter of rights for the disabled (actually, i'm a huge supporter of rights for everyone :)), but in this case i'm hard-pressed to argue that she was denied employment based on her lack of libido.

if her disability were really lack of libido, this does not in any way prevent her from doing her job. it might affect her life otherwise, but how does that affect her employment?

in truth, her disability is her need for ongoing medical care as a result of having had cancer, and THAT is why she was denied employment.

it is the ongoing need for medical care that should be the protected disability, not the lack of libido.

[flashl]

2. Maybe, she found a way to use the viagra vs birth-control pill argument for women?

[LiberalFighter]

3. How does a sex disability prevent one from doing their job or related to their job?

[flashl]

4. From article ...

In its 2-1 decision, issued Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Adams has a case against the State Department. Most significantly, the influential D.C. circuit court ruled for its first time that laws that protect people with disabilities from discrimination cover "sexual relations."

...

"At the risk of stating the obvious, sex is unquestionably a significant human activity, one our species has been engaging in at least since the biblical injunction to 'be fruitful and multiply,' " appellate Judge David Tatel wrote, adding a citation to the Book of Genesis.

Tatel concluded that sex is the kind of "major life activity" that Congress considered when it passed the Rehabilitation Act in 1973. The law, like the better-known Americans with Disabilities Act, prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities.

Lawmakers defined a disability as an impairment that "substantially limits" a major life activity. Courts still struggle to explain what that means. Last week, for instance, the D.C. appellate court determined that "sleeping" is a protected major life activity.

[unblock]

5. but merely *having* a disability isn't enough

you have to show that the disability is what prevented you from getting hired, or got you fired, etc.


as i said above, i think they misidentified the disability; it's the need for ongoing medical care that's the problem, not the lack of libido.

[flashl]

6. I hear you. Here is where the door open ...

The court majority, however, reasoned that "it makes no difference whether an employer has precise knowledge of an employee's substantial limitation" so long as the employer knows about the impairment.

[LiberalFighter]

7. But how did that effect the person doing their job?

[flashl]

8. She was denied a job. nt

[LiberalFighter]

9. Because she couldn't have sex?

[flashl]

10. "D.C. circuit court ruled .. laws that protect people with disabilities .. cover "sexual relations""