Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"(9) For purposes of subsections (7) and (8), discrimination includes:
(a) A refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises; or
(b) A refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
Sorry, I'd like to read some case law on whether having "sleep apnea' is tantamount to having a "handicap" as defined under current law.
Having a treatable/treated medical condition or disease is not congruent with being "a handicapped person" even for "insurance purposes.
Suggesting that not having a "generator", impedes a person the equal opportunity for full "enjoyment of the premises.......or to use and enjoy a dwelling" seems to be arguable and a cart of different color.
The salient issue again, is whether having "sleep apnea" is in fact recognized and endorsed as a "Handicap" .My sole opinion is that it probably is not...neither is having diabetes, cancer, migraines, or sleep-walking.
Sorry, I'd like to read some case law on whether having "sleep apnea' is tantamount to having a "handicap" as defined under current law.
Having a treatable/treated medical condition or disease is not congruent with being "a handicapped person" even for "insurance purposes.
Suggesting that not having a "generator", impedes a person the equal opportunity for full "enjoyment of the premises.......or to use and enjoy a dwelling" seems to be arguable and a cart of different color.
The salient issue again, is whether having "sleep apnea" is in fact recognized and endorsed as a "Handicap" .My sole opinion is that it probably is not...neither is having diabetes, cancer, migraines, or sleep-walking.
I would like to read some precedents.
You're wrong on ALL accounts. They may TRY to stop someone from accomplishing their goal, but there are MANY things that qualify a person for disability, and a court would have no choice but to uphold the ADA if you do qualify. I have a disease that you would never know about just by looking at me, and I am considered for disability. (I simply choose not to accept it because I am not a Democrat, and I can still earn my own keep.) But I could choose to let YOU pay for me. Just because you're not confined to a bed or wheelchair or whatever, doesn't mean you are not disabled.
Come on now, blondefatchick is a bona fide expert on *everything*. You can tell just by reading her posts. Pure and simple EXPERT. I loathe the fact that the rest of us are not even on the same playing field as her and her four digit IQ. I wish we were all that smart. If we had her brains, we wouldnt even need the Internet or message boards! Maybe we could just make a website where all people do is ask HER questions so she can give us the *perfect* and *right* answer every time? It'd be so simple, we wouldnt even have to question her truths! For now, I think we should all just suck on our pacifiers and wait for mama-blondefatchick to educate us all properly. That way we see the world as she does. Aaah, serendipity!
While I've respectfully disagreed with blondefatchick, she's made some good points without making ad hominem attacks which is much more than can be said for you.
While I've respectfully disagreed with blondefatchick, she's made some good points without making ad hominem attacks which is much more than can be said for you.
If you can rebut her points, please do so.
I dont have to, the admins already banned her and she already re-registered under the same username with an underscore after it.
It isnt about posting all the time, it's about treating people reasonably and not calling us retards and idiots when they disagree with opinions. Some people care more about their post count than their post quality. One of the ways I benchmark the usefulness of someones post history is looking at their rep. Reasonably a rep score of 1/2 of the post count score means the poster is pretty useful. Her rep was 10, which is the default rep score *anyone* new here gets. Call me bad at math, but if you try and post "useful" information to this forum, people like to rep you! So a score of essentially zero, well, no more to say about that.
I do enjoy your ad hominem reference, in which you then attack me personally after that reference. Shall we call that ironic?
Now OK OK OK, you said to refute her if possible.
Sure.
Ready?
Quote:
ADA Definition of Disability-Sleep Apnea
August 5, 2003
Dear
This responds to your June 12, 2003, letter inquiring whether you might be considered an individual with a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on your sleep apnea and/or blindness in one eye. Specifically, you state that due to your sleep apnea you use a "cpap machine" at night, and that the sleep apnea has an effect on you at home, at work, and with respect to driving if you do not use the "cpap machine." You also state that although you are legally blind in your right eye, you are nevertheless able to drive based on the vision in your left eye. While we cannot by informal correspondence provide an opinion regarding any particular individual's legal claim or potential legal claim, this letter is intended to offer general information regarding the legal issue about which you have inquired.
Under Title I of the ADA, an employer cannot discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. An "individual with a disability" as defined under the ADA is a person who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, (2) has a record of a substantially limiting impairment, or (3) is regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) defines "major life activities" as "functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." The Interpretive Guidance to the regulations further notes that "other major life activities include, but are not limited to, sitting, standing, lifting, [and] reaching." 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 Appendix § 1630.2(i). The Commission has also identified "[m]ental and emotional processes such as thinking, concentrating, and interacting with others" as examples of major life activities. EEOC Compliance Manual, Vol. 2, Section 902, Definition of the Term "Disability" (March 14, 1995) ("Compliance Manual") at 902-15. Sleeping has also been recognized by the Commission and numerous courts as a major life activity. However, many courts that have considered the question of whether driving is a major life activity have concluded that it is not. See, e.g., Champlin v. Wonewoc-Center School, 2003 WL 21509038 (7th Cir. 2003); Chenoweth v. Hillsborough County, 250 F.3d 1328, 1329-30 (11th Cir. 2001); Colwell v. Suffolk County Police Dept., 158 F.3d 635, 643 (2d Cir. 1998).
An impairment is substantially limiting when it prevents an individual from performing a major life activity or when it significantly restricts the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a major life activity, compared to the average person in the general population. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). "An impairment is substantially limiting if it lasts for more than several months and significantly restricts the performance of one or more major life activities during that time . . . . In addition, some conditions may be long-term, or potentially long-term, in that their duration is indefinite and unknowable or is expected to be at least several months. Such conditions, if severe, may constitute disabilities." EEOC Enforcement Guidance on the Americans With Disabilities Act and Psychiatric Disabilities (March 25, 1997) ("Psychiatric Disabilities Guidance"), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/docs/psych.html, at question 7; Compliance Manual at 902-30.
The determination of whether a person is substantially limited in a major life activity within the meaning of the ADA definition of "disability" must assess the person's limitations in light of any "mitigating measures" the person uses. See Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999); Murphy v. United Parcel Service, 527 U.S. 516 (1999). Mitigating measures can include things such as medications, corrective lenses, hearing aids, and prostheses, and could potentially include items such as a machine used during sleep to lessen the incidents or effects of sleep apnea. Mitigating measures also include any compensating behaviors an individual develops that limit the effects of an impairment. Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999). A person who is not substantially limited in performing a major life activity when using a mitigating measure does not meet the ADA's definition of having an actual "disability." Thus, in determining whether the impairment of sleep apnea substantially limits an individual in any major life activities, the Commission and courts will take into account the use of a mitigating measure the individual happens to use, examining whether the individual is substantially limited in a major life activity notwithstanding their use of the mitigating measure. See, e.g., Taylor v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 55 F. Supp. 2d 604 (N.D. Tex. 1999) (employee with sleep apnea sought time off for sleep study and was terminated shortly thereafter; condition not a disability where sleep apnea was completely corrected after diagnosis and use of air pressure machine, and employee able to drive, hold conversations, communicate, and perform his job).
An impairment substantially limits an individual's ability to sleep if, due to the impairment, his/her sleep is significantly restricted as compared to the average person in the general population, on a long-term or potentially long-term basis. For example, an individual who sleeps only a negligible amount without medication for many months, due to post-traumatic stress disorder, would be significantly restricted as compared to the average person in the general population and therefore would be substantially limited in sleeping. Similarly, an individual who for several months typically slept about two to three hours per night without medication, due to depression, also would be substantially limited in sleeping. By contrast, an individual would not be substantially limited in sleeping if s/he had some trouble getting to sleep or sometimes slept fitfully because of a mental impairment. Although this individual may be slightly restricted in sleeping, s/he is not significantly restricted as compared to the average person in the general population. See Psychiatric Disabilities Guidance at question 11. The determination of whether a particular person is substantially limited in sleeping is therefore a very fact-specific, individualized determination, and courts have reached varying conclusions depending upon the evidence of the limitation in a given case. McAlindin v. County of San Diego, 192 F. 3d 1226 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1243 (2000) (holding that plaintiff, who had anxiety disorders, raised a triable issue as to whether he was substantially limited in sleeping where the evidence showed that despite the use of medication he was frequently unable to sleep); but see Boerst v. General Mills Operations Inc., 2002 WL 59637 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that getting only a little bit of sleep, 2-4 hours a night, due to an impairment is not a substantial limitation).
Finally, with respect to the major life activity of seeing, the Supreme Court held that a person who has monocular vision is not automatically substantially limited in seeing, but rather that an individualized assessment is required to determine whether, taking into account an individual's compensatory strategies, if any, for the loss of vision of one eye, the individual is substantially limited in seeing. Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999). In Kirkingburg, the Supreme Court noted that "people with monocular vision ordinarily will meet the [ADA's] definition of disability" due to a loss of depth perception and visual field that is frequently substantially limiting. 527 U.S. at 567.
This has been an informal discussion of the issues you raised and does not constitute an official opinion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
There you go. US Government attorney's opinion on sleep apnea being covered by the ADA as long as the sleep apnea is a performance inhibiting condition. In otherwords, BlondeFatChick was spewing misinformation across these message boards. As usual.
To the OP, you really need to consult with a professional over whether you have the right or not to put a generator in your back yard if your HOA forbids it.
Remember there are a lot of things that should be ADA compliant that are not (subway stations, airplanes, etc) because we are a voluntary society.
when it comes right down to it, if i need a generator during a hurricane, even if it's to power my refrigerator and PS3, I'm going to do it and worry about the HOA later. They will probably be too busy taking care of the downed trees, and damaged pool, etc. to worry about my generator.
I'd go ahead and just make sure it's on the outdoors or in a well vented area. it should also be secured to prevent having it ripped off
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some people care more about their post count than their post quality. One of the ways I benchmark the usefulness of someones post history is looking at their rep. Reasonably a rep score of 1/2 of the post count score means the poster is pretty useful. Her rep was 10, which is the default rep score *anyone* new here gets. Call me bad at math, but if you try and post "useful" information to this forum, people like to rep you! So a score of essentially zero, well, no more to say about that.
