|
20 jun 06 Should excessive flatulence be considered a disability and recognized under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? excessive flatulence (EF) isn't the sort of thing that makes doing your job, unaccomodated, an unreasonable challenge; it doesn't affect job performance. so, i wouldn't call EF a disabillity. it's a condition, such as psoriasis or excessive underarm sweat, but like these, EF doesn't equate a vocational disability. however, sufferers do constitute a distinct category that has shown to have faced discrimination (source), like ethnic minorities, the short, the fat, the ugly, etc, who tend not to get hired, face on-the-job discrimination, or receive other unfair treatment because of superficial qualities. someone exhibiting EF during an interview will probably not get hired, even though s/he might still be very able to do the job in question. so, through no fault of his or her own, a gastric condition will have had a negative effect on the possibility of being hired, which may have otherwise been good. if someone with EF and someone with normal colonic gaseous activity, with equal qualifications, are presented to an uneducated decision-maker, the unafflicted will almost always be hired. some sort of affirmative action might be in order -- hiring less-qualified EF sufferer over a more-qualified non-sufferer in order to mitigate years of prejudicial social practices; not morally, as some sort of revenge, but practically. because of the continuing, unspoken social policy of vocational maltreatment of EF sufferers, that minorty group as a whole has suffered from, in addition to their conditions, a lower average income, lower job satisfaction, and shorter careers (source). with affirmative action, EF sufferers as a socially disadvantaged group can be helped to recover. the question is not "can this person do the job with reasonable accomodations?", because excessive flatulence obviously doesn't affect job performance, or make a job more difficult to do. therefore, the ADA has no responsibility to make sure an otherwise qualified EF sufferer isn't passed over because of an unwillingness to provide reasonable accomodations. the problem lies in the perception of the EF sufferer in the workplace -- how will colleagues, underlings, bosses and clients regard the sufferer? it doesn't fall so much under the category of disability discrimination as it does minority discrimination, which isn't so well protected, except for certain categories of minority. is having to smell the output of EF less endurable than having to look at a really ugly colleague, or listen to one with uncontrollable tourette's syndrome? it's not a case of "can you do the job?," but "how will this effect your working with others?" ultimately, who is responsible for the prejudicial attitudes of fellow in the workplace? how is their behavior to be legally curbed? in an ideal world, being boracua, short of stature, odiferous, drool-emitting, beautiful, green-haired, or noseless wouldn't distract, bother, or sow seeds of no-confidence in colleages, bosses, underlings and clients. the aforementioned categories of people don't have disabilities, but rather posess qualities that might be less-tolerated, in the workplace or anywhere else. so, their protection doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the ADA, but rather something more like the NAACP, ACLU, or the supreme court. perhaps oddly, there isn't an umbrellla organization dedicated to the vocational protection of the "unusual employee". if an unusual employee (see above) doesn't otherwise fall into a protected category, then s/he can be fired at will without any sort of public and documented performance asessment, or simply not hired in the first place despite sufficient qualifications; "at will" hiring and firing practices can't legally be stopped. protecting the EF sufferer isn't the ADA's problem. however, it's possible that the EF sufferer should be recognized as a protected category. there obviously shouldn't be any prejudice in the workplace, against the EF or any other group, but there is, so legislation is required. EF carries with it a slight caveat, however -- it's reasonable to consider the possibility that it might affect the job performance of others. in that case, it would be the workplace's responsibility to provide reasonable accomodations not for the EF sufferer, but for the people around him or her. in an analagous situation, an employer might provide a mask for the really ugly employee to wear, so his or her work-fellows don't have to look at him or her. of course, this is rubbish. but EF is a bit different -- noxious odors are more intrusive and offensive than gazing at a hideous countenance; in the latter case, one can simply look away. the former necessitiates holding one's nose, which impedes computer keyboard and telephone use. the first thing to jump to mind is, of course, "nose plugs." but there's a better solution. from the FAQ: Q: How often do I need to replace my carbon filter? so no, it's not the ADA's jurisdiction. however, EF is a condition, analagous to AIDS, that lends itself to discrimination. refusing to hire someone because of flatulence during a job interview, or firing them for flatulence on the job, should be against the law, and offenders (haha) subject to criminal and/or civil penalties. |
ask a question