The Americans with Disabilities Act
As a 'living document', the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) leaves much open for suggestion and modifying. For example, Service Animals are only briefly mentioned. Persons with disabilities are allowed to be accommodated by their Service Animal.
The next sticky part is that the definition of a Person With a Disability (PWD) has unfortunately changing as well. What happens in law, in a nutshell, is that often other cases are cited (referred to) as examples for reaching a decision. In regards to the ADA, whenever a court decides if a person is disabled or not, the repercussions go much further.
For example, there were two sisters, both pilots. As noncommercial pilots, their eyeglasses were not of concern. But when they tried to get jobs as commercial pilots, the airline had a policy that all pilots must not have to wear eyeglasses. Against the advice of many advocates, the sisters took the airline to court. Their reasoning was that as persons with disabilities (vision), they were protected by the ADA. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court who decided that since the sisters had near perfect vision with their glasses, they were not considered disabled and therefore not protected by the ADA.
This translates into if your assistive device relieves you of your disability, you are most likely not protected by the ADA. I am out of the 'legal loop' at the moment and don't know if this has been tested in other courts yet. Does that mean that if you use a crutch and therefore walk, are you disabled as defined by the ADA? If your hearing aid gives you near perfect hearing, are you disabled? What about if you use your SD as your mobility aid? As you can tell, this has long term implications.
The ADA states that one or more life activities must be effected.
Another case involved a woman who had injured her arm at work due to repetitive motion. She requested and was granted another job within the same business. Later, the job she was given changed and the requirements could have resulted in re-injury or making it worse. She wanted another job but the business refused. She took them to court stating she was protected by the ADA and they had to accommodate her disability. Again, advocates attempted to talk her out of this.
The Supreme Court decided that since she could brush her hair, brush her teeth, and other wise do life activities, she was not disabled and not protected by the ADA.
You must decide if your disability would stand up in court (no pun intended). Not that you are disabled at all, but that you are disabled as defined by the ADA and subsequent decisions. Qualifying for Social Security Disability (SSDI) benefits does not automatically qualify you. Nor does NOT qualifying! The SSDI basis is that you cannot be gainfully employed.
Links to ADA information
Publications:
Commonly Asked Questions about Service Animals in Places of Business
ADA Business Brief: Service Animals
Text version of the ADA itself
ADA & IT Technical Assistance Center:
Home | ADA Info | State Law | Dawgs | Equipment | Training