Republicans only: should employers be required to accommodate employees with disabilities?

[america is tariffied]

DEI included accommodations btw
Republicans have also made attempts to attack the ADA

[Robert California]

Not a Republican but I'll answer without voting in my capacity as a non-Democrat. I can'r speak to the current state of law on this matter but there should at the conceptual level be a line between "can do the job (with accommodation)" and "can't/won't do the job". For obvious reasons this distinction between this should be well-thought out and clearly worded. I spent too much of 2023-2024 around people who were obviously edge cases but who either fell into the second category or used disability regulations to intentionally skirt rules and responsibilities.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

There is no clear answer to this question. It depends on the type of work, what the accommidations are, etc. In general though, I don't think this is DEI. That is more so preferentially hiring people with disabilities whereas this is more so giving them the accomidations needed assuming they've been hired on merit.

[america is tariffied]

There is no clear answer to this question. It depends on the type of work, what the accommidations are, etc. In general though, I don't think this is DEI. That is more so preferentially hiring people with disabilities whereas this is more so giving them the accomidations needed assuming they've been hired on merit.

This person has no idea what DEI is.

Accommodation is a fundamental part of DEI. DEI has never been about "you have to hire this type of person," but always about avoiding excluding people due to bias. Rolling back DEI policies increases the odds of someone who DOESN'T have merit being hired because of some kind of favoritism or disdain for certain types of people. DEI didn't require you hire the guy with the disability, it meant that you didn't pass over the guy who had a disability that was not relevant to his ability to do the job.

I'm sorry you "don't think this is DEI," but providing a larger monitor to a visually impaired person is literally providing diversity, equity, and inclusion to the visually impaired person via accommodation.

It is diversity because the visually impaired person has different lived experiences and needs.
It is equity because the visually impaired person is given the opportunity to contribute as an equal team member because of the accmmodation.
It is inclusion because the visually impaired person is now able to be included in a function they otherwise could not operste in.

[america is tariffied]

Not a Republican but I'll answer without voting in my capacity as a non-Democrat. I can'r speak to the current state of law on this matter but there should at the conceptual level be a line between "can do the job (with accommodation)" and "can't/won't do the job". For obvious reasons this distinction between this should be well-thought out and clearly worded. I spent too much of 2023-2024 around people who were obviously edge cases but who either fell into the second category or used disability regulations to intentionally skirt rules and responsibilities.

There is an expectation that you must be able to do the job with accommodations. There is no expectation of a delivery company hiring a blind person to drive a delivery truck.

This is different from "this guy needs a larger monitor to do an office job."

[dead0man]

obviously there has to be a line, people in wheelchairs don't get to be firefighters no matter how much they want to, but they can certainly answer 911 calls or do paperwork at the station.  But what if it's a volunteer or small department and the station isn't set up for wheelchairs ('cause why would it be?).  Should tiny town be forced to spend 10% of the budget on upgrading the station for one guy?  I'd say no.

It's got to be real hard to prove guy with birthmark on face didn't get hired at Burger King because of the birthmark, even if it's true.  But Burger King has an excellent point that guy with birthmark on his face might drive away business.  It isn't fair, but it is what it is.  I'm sure lots of lawyers have and will continue to make lots of money arguing from both sides.

[america is tariffied]

obviously there has to be a line, people in wheelchairs don't get to be firefighters no matter how much they want to, but they can certainly answer 911 calls or do paperwork at the station.  But what if it's a volunteer or small department and the station isn't set up for wheelchairs ('cause why would it be?).  Should tiny town be forced to spend 10% of the budget on upgrading the station for one guy?  I'd say no.

It's got to be real hard to prove guy with birthmark on face didn't get hired at Burger King because of the birthmark, even if it's true.  But Burger King has an excellent point that guy with birthmark on his face might drive away business.  It isn't fair, but it is what it is.  I'm sure lots of lawyers have and will continue to make lots of money arguing from both sides.

Again, the expectation for accommodations is that the individual must be capable of performing the job with them.

Tiny town not making fire station accessible is not in line with ADA unless it is privately owned, which it almost certainly isn't.

"Guy with birthmark might drive away customers so I get it" isn't materially different from "guy being black may drive aeay customers."

Is the expectation that people with disabilities should just disappear?

[Joe Kakistocracy]

This is an excellent resource for employers to identify and determine what reasonable accommodations can be made based on different types of disability.

Employer or not, I would recommend any of us to peruse this list and educate ourselves for when these conversations come up.

[dead0man]

Tiny town not making fire station accessible is not in line with ADA unless it is privately owned, which it almost certainly isn't.

why the distinction between public and private?  There certainly are privately owned fire departments, they would be expected to shell out a quarter million dollars for ramps and wider doors for a paper pusher, but a public department wouldn't?  That sure is convenient!

"Guy with birthmark might drive away customers so I get it" isn't materially different from "guy being black may drive aeay customers."

Is the expectation that people with disabilities should just disappear?

no, but I would hope I wouldn't have to hire a burn victim as a hostess of my restaurant if he's one of two people to apply, everything else on the respective resumes are the same, and the burn victim lives closer.  Does a cafeteria at city hall not have to worry about it?

[Blue3]

This thread is showing a profound lack of understanding of existing accommodations law and the ADA in general.

[dead0man]

This thread is showing a profound lack of understanding of existing accommodations law and the ADA in general.

I would hope so, why would you think regular jerks would have a full grasp of it?  It's not something that comes up regularly.  When was the last time it was discussed here?

[Steve from Lambeth]

This thread is showing a profound lack of understanding of existing accommodations law and the ADA in general.

I would hope so, why would you think regular jerks would have a full grasp of it?  It's not something that comes up regularly.  When was the last time it was discussed here?

Pants' grasp of the ADA is probably that it is "DEI," for the reasons stated in the OP, and therefore targeted for abolition in an upcoming Trump executive order.

[america is tariffied]

This thread is showing a profound lack of understanding of existing accommodations law and the ADA in general.

I would hope so, why would you think regular jerks would have a full grasp of it?  It's not something that comes up regularly.  When was the last time it was discussed here?

Pants' grasp of the ADA is probably that it is "DEI," for the reasons stated in the OP, and therefore targeted for abolition in an upcoming Trump executive order.

The ADA can't be revoked by executive order, but Republicans before (and now) appear to be at least open to the idea of employers discriminating against disabled people for their immutable characteristics.

[america is tariffied]

This thread is showing a profound lack of understanding of existing accommodations law and the ADA in general.

I'm very familiar with existing accommodation laws and the ADA, being that I rely on them becauze I am, in fsct, visually impaired.

This thread is showing that a majority of Republicans on Atlas believe discriminating against me should be legal.

[Damocles]

I was recently hired as a supply chain consultant. This is very mentally demanding work that requires you to pore through hundreds of pages of documents, make connections others might not see, and use structured problem solving and project management methodologies to give a solution to a client.

I could easily do all of that. As a matter of fact, I could be *hilariously* overpowered in that role. I chatted with one of my interviewers afterwards, and he said to the effect of, “You put the Harvard kids to shame,” and “The way you come up with solutions is just… beautiful, maybe a bit verbose, but still one of the best I’ve ever seen.”

I also have crippling ADHD that makes it difficult for me to attend to basic daily needs. When the hyperfocus gets triggered, I could stay on a single subject for hours at a time. But then the inattentiveness kicks in, and I can hardly finish a single thought without switching. I need powerful stimulants and other drugs in order to regulate my attention like a “normal” person.

~

Society is far better off that people with disabilities can be employed on the same terms as everyone else. Were it not for the ADA and the legal protections it gives, I would personally be much, much poorer. I would also not be able to bring my talents to an employer, who in turn would not be able to benefit from my contributions.

Even if you don’t give a sh#%t about people with disabilities, it still *literally* pays to do so in some instances.

[K.W.R.A.E. 8647]

There is no clear answer to this question. It depends on the type of work, what the accommidations are, etc. In general though, I don't think this is DEI. That is more so preferentially hiring people with disabilities whereas this is more so giving them the accomidations needed assuming they've been hired on merit.

This person has no idea what DEI is.

To be fair, is there any evidence he knows what anything is?

[The People's Liberation Army of Rancho Cucamonga]

The discretionary decisions private-sector employers make about hiring and firing should receive very little legal scrutiny. I won't go so far as to say there should be no standards whatsoever, but anything we can do to decrease the number of employment discrimination suits is ultimately for the best.

[leonardothered]

obviously there has to be a line, people in wheelchairs don't get to be firefighters no matter how much they want to, but they can certainly answer 911 calls or do paperwork at the station.  But what if it's a volunteer or small department and the station isn't set up for wheelchairs ('cause why would it be?).  Should tiny town be forced to spend 10% of the budget on upgrading the station for one guy?  I'd say no.

It's got to be real hard to prove guy with birthmark on face didn't get hired at Burger King because of the birthmark, even if it's true.  But Burger King has an excellent point that guy with birthmark on his face might drive away business.  It isn't fair, but it is what it is.  I'm sure lots of lawyers have and will continue to make lots of money arguing from both sides.

Holy hell lets never put you in charge of anything.

Someone with a BIRTHMARK on their face drives away customers? 90% of fast food is done in a drive through where you dont even see a cashier until the transaction is almost over

Holy hell what is wrong with you

[dead0man]

Holy hell lets never put you in charge of anything.

the few times people have, it has not gone well

Someone with a BIRTHMARK on their face drives away customers? 90% of fast food is done in a drive through where you dont even see a cashier until the transaction is almost over

Holy hell what is wrong with you

several things, like most people in my experience