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."

Re:Uhhh, no shit.

[plague3106]

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...

Disability is about more than "whining".

[2Flower]

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?

Re:well...

[uchian]

In this case, the injury was caused by years of typing at work. So why shouldn't she be recompensed like anyone else disabled by on-the-job injuries?

Surely this is a risk of the job, like breaking your leg in football?

I mean, how many people who type nowadays DON'T know about RSI? If you don't know that after being in front of a keyboard for 24 years, your foolish. I have already considered the possibility of getting RSI later in life, weighed it up with my wish to be a software developer, and decided that I am prepared to live with it if (or more likely, when) the time comes.

The analogy with football is the best here - the risk is known, perhaps typists who are _that_ worried should get insurance in case they develop RSI?

I recommend the opinion

[graybeard]

Read it here: [uscourts.gov] The woman simply didn't prove her case.

I disagree with Judge Berzon's dissent, especially where she writes:

The fact that using a computer is so essential to modern life that teaching that skill universally has become embedded in our national educational policy must inform our understanding of the ADA's disability definition.

Using a computer is not essential to modern life, just as having a new pair of Skechers is not essential to my daughter's happiness. (And just what do we do to teach kids computing skills? Let them draw pictures & try to find pr0n on the web.) The ADA does not say that you are entitled to everything you had before you were disabled; it says you must have a fair shot at a job in spite of your disability. Cleary, she no claim.

"Disability" vs "Disabled"

[Jetson]

PC-ness aside, there is a significant difference between someon who requires some accomodation for a diminished capacity and someone who is unable to perform the minimum required tasks of their employment.

The employer's obligation is to ignore dimished capabilities that do not affect job performance. They can't refuse to hire someone on the basis of an incidental disability. The most certainly can refuse to hire someone who is incapable of performing the essential job tasks.

I don't argue that a person who is unable to type isn't going to face fewer job prospects. I just think it misses the point-- laws against discrimination are expected to protect people from discrimination, not force employers to find work for disabled people.

Re:She's an Ingrate!

[L41N14L]

I'd have to agree. My sympathy for this woman vanished as soon as it said that she'd sued for discrimination. It sounds like the newspaper did everything they could for her (including trying to reassign her), and then let her go when it became clear that she couldn't do the job. It seems like the only way they could avoid being sued would be to pay her a salary for doing nothing.

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.

"Substantial Limitation"

[imadork]

Is the question really whether or not she can still type? Or is it whether or not her carpal tunnel has rendered her unable to work?

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.

Hmm....

[jamesoutlaw]

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".

Doesn't seem right

[graphicartist82]

What if you have a Masters in Computer Science, and you have a car accident and damage your hands to the point of not being able to use a computer. According to this ruling, would they just tell the poor guy that he has to go flip burgers for the rest of his life?

I think the issue is missed

[linuxpng]

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.

Re:well...

[Mr. Troll]

Sing it out man.......

This is pretty self explanitory, no? If you can't do the job, then you should not be employed to do said job. I remember the big whoopla about the lowering of standards of physical strength for certain jobs (firefighters in particualar). Immagine the loss of family members in a house fire because a small weak firefighter couldn't carry them out. Well dear reader, take comfort in the knowlege that your loved one died so that a person could do what they wanted to do for a living, rather than what they were qualified for.

This is ridiculous

[Tim Macinta]

The government in the US is terribly inconsistent. There was a story back in 1999 about a phone sex operator suing for workers compensation because she got carpel tunnel from masturbating on the job . She won. On a fundamental level, the big difference is that the phone sex worker could have conceivably still performed her job because her voice is the only essential capability needed for it. A reporter, on the other hand, would be seriously put out by the loss of her hands. Something is terribly backwards in these outcomes.

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 [salon.com] was the most reputable reference I could find to back it up). I'm hoping something like this will explain the discrepency here.

Re:Disability is about more than "whining".

[swordgeek]

You're right, but what do you suggest? The bottom line is that this woman is incapable of doing her job anymore. Furthermore, her employer has made every reasonable (and from the sounds of it, some exceptional) attempt to keep her healthy and able to work.

If she can't do her job, then the company shouldn't be forced to keep her on. She received long term disability, she received worker's compensation, and now she's claiming discrimination because they won't pay her to not do her job. In this particular case, what I think she deserves a big smack on the head.

Does she have an injury? Most definitely. Is it a permanent disability? With regards to her job, yes--but that shouldn't make her automatically entitled to keep that job. Get out! Deal with the fact that you've worked yourself out of this particular career path, and find something else to do!

Or put another way, you mention that you use a walker. Would you file a discrimination suit if you got turned down for a job as a jogging instructor?

Purpose of the ADA

[edp]

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.)

Very True

[neoshmeng]

I have a step brother who is quadraplegic. He can move his arms, but not his hands. He types using gloves with a 'stick' on each glove. He IS disabled but he can still type, just not very fast. In fact, he is the webmaster at a major university.

It's hard to say whether or not she should qualify for being disabled since she will live almost a completely normal life, but she should definately get worker's compensation.

And getting a termination letter from her employer like that...That's just a cruel thing to do. What jerks!

Re:Hrmm...

[treat]

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.

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.

Re:Voice Recognition

[NearlyHeadless]

Working in a particular job is not a right (most times), but the employer should not be able to decide unilaterally what accommodations they will make and which ones they will not.

Of course the employer should be able to decide unilaterally. Once upon a time America was the land of the free, and people were able to choose for themselves which things were important in an employee and which were not. Then we had laws which banned discrimination, which supposedly meant you had to treat people who were equally qualified the same and ignore irrelevant characteristics. Now, with the ADA, people who cannot do the job as well, or cost more to do the job, are supposed to be treated "equally"? What a joke.

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.

Re:Doesn't seem right

[chinton]

Two points...

One, get a better analogy -- if you can't use your hands well enough to use a computer, then you won't be able to flip burgers... :^)

Two, if you can't do the job -- for whatever reason -- then you shouldn't have it. Yes, that is kind of harsh, but take another example. A brilliant surgeon loses the use of his hands -- would you still let him operate on you? Would anyone? Should his hospital be forced to keep him employed in the same position?

Re:Doesn't seem right

[bravehamster]

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?

What if you're deaf and you're a composer? Oh wait...

furthermore

[linuxpng]

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.

well...

[NeoTomba]

There go my chances to live out the American Dream.

Thinking about it now, I guess my plan to claim that I was a programmer who couldn't type was flawed from the start...

-NeoTomba

Re:Uhhh, no shit.

[baptiste]

OK - hold on a second. Its one thing if some random burger flipper can't type. Its a whole other story if your career involves typing. How many of you here saying 'well of course its no disablility' would be saying the same thing if you lost your fingers in an accident? Your programmers, IT types, etc. WTF would you do? Use of a computer today is required in most fields - sure she can work at McDonalds, but thats a serious impact to her career and incoming earning potential.

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?

A medical condition IS a disability

[Langolier]

Unless employers are required to make reasonable accomodations for disabled employees, they will preferentially hire those with no disability. But many people with a minor disability can still be much more productive in their chosen profession than they would be doing some other work which their disability does not impact. By the government guaranteeing a level playing field (by prohibiting taking the disability into account, not by prohibiting choosing the person who is most qualified in all other regards, ignoring the disability), we allow people not to be blacklisted from their careers because of a disability that could be reasonably accomodated. Those who claim the free market will resolve this would say that the employee, who is less productive than employees without a disability, should be willing to work for less, but still earn more than they would outside their profession. But most large organizations have standard salary scales, and could not make special deals with everyone based on their perceived productivity. So the free market does not work in this case. People who liken the inability to type due to RSI to the inability to type due to laziness or stupidity are bad people. And the stupid should not be discriminated against either. Some people may have misunderstood the article - the employer provided some minimal accomodation (chairs, etc - these are just paying lip service to the need to prevent RSI), but refused to provide speech-to-text capability, saying it was an unreasonable accomodation. Or even worse, they claimed that the disability didn't fall under the ADA, and therefore they didn't even have to make reasonable accomodations.

She's an Ingrate!

[JCMay]

Let me get this straight...

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.

Re:Doesn't seem right

[Jon Peterson]

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.