By Tamar Asedo Sherman

Myth 1: A common misconception is that people with disabilities get preferential treatment in applying for jobs, thanks to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This erroneous thought could lead others to resent people with disabilities, thinking that we are not qualified for our jobs and were hired only because we have a disability.

It’s not that simple. We must meet all the same basic requirements for a job, have the requisite skills, experience, education, and be able to perform all the essential functions, with or without reasonable accommodations. The truth is that an employer is free to choose the most qualified candidate and to base that decision on reasons unrelated to a disability.

All things being equal between job candidates, however, an employer is encouraged through tax incentives, to give the nod to the person with a disability who can do the job with a reasonable accommodation. The intent of “reasonable accommodation” is to give the person with a disability an equal opportunity, not a better one.

Myth 2: There is frequently confusion over what constitutes a disability and who is covered under the ADA. A person who has an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity such as seeing, hearing, speaking, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, learning, caring for oneself, or working, is covered by the ADA.

Specifically, the law includes an individual with epilepsy, paralysis, HIV infection, AIDS, a substantial hearing or visual impairment, mental retardation, or a specific learning disability. It excludes an individual with a minor condition of short duration, such as a sprain, broken limb, or the flu.

People with alcoholism are considered to have a disability and are protected by the ADA; people who are addicted to illegal drugs, however, are not protected by the ADA unless they are no longer using drugs. Further, an employer can discipline, fire, or refuse to hire an individual whose use of alcohol adversely affects his job performance.

Myth 3: Another common misconception is that providing reasonable accommodation is expensive and creates a financial hardship for owners of small businesses, but businesses with fewer than 15 employees are not covered by the ADA. In fact, reasonable accommodation generally involves modifying job tasks, the work environment, or work schedule and costs less than $500 in most cases, sometimes it costs nothing at all.

Myth 4: Many believe that people with disabilities are filing lawsuits right and left, making a nuisance of themselves and clogging the courts with frivolous charges. In fact, the majority of ADA disputes pertaining to employment are resolved through informal negotiation before ever reaching the courts. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the number of complaints represents only a tiny fraction of the millions of people with disabilities who are employed or seeking employment.

Three controversies over disability issues are currently raging in New York. One revolves around a UPS truck driver with diabetes who drove a truck while he was having visual problems stemming from his out-of-control blood sugar. Yet once he started using insulin to maintain his blood sugar levels, he was put “on leave” from his mechanic’s job and escorted off the premises because his employer did not think it was safe for him to test drive a truck.

He claimed that diabetes was a disability and he was protected under the ADA. The court disagreed, ruling that he was ameliorating the diabetes with insulin, so it was not a disability. Yet many state laws do not permit persons with epilepsy or diabetes controlled by insulin to be interstate truck drivers.

Another situation entails a young man without a disability whose coffee concession at a suburban Connecticut train station was taken away from him and given to a man who is blind and trained specifically for that job. It seemed that the man with a disability was being given preferential treatment, which outraged commuters who felt that the man who greeted them with their “usual” coffee and bagel every morning was ousted from a job he was performing well.

The third controversy is over whether a service dog can be allowed to attend school with a high school student who is deaf in East Meadow, Long Island. The administration claims the boy has no need of the dog in school and that the dog could trigger allergies in other students. The boy’s parents say the ADA guarantees him the right to bring his service dog wherever he needs it.

Surely a worker who relies on a service dog would expect to be able to bring the dog to the workplace. We’re following the case to see how it resolves.

Tamar Asedo Sherman works as an employment specialist at UCP-Suffolk in Hauppauge, NY. She can be reached at action@unitedspinal.org