In the U.S., physical perfection requirements appear in many job descriptions.
In the medical area, they are called "technical standards."
Technical standards-related barriers have existed for a very long time in US
medicine. (Early technical standard: doctors must have penises.) The Disabled
Student Services in Higher Education listserv discusses this issue often, as
these workers at universities and colleges mediate between prejudiced faculty,
"bloody-minded" students, and their own uncertainty about the law and the right
thing to do. Try searching for "technical standards" in the DSSHE-L archives:
http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=dsshe-l
As far as what effect civil rights laws can have....Title I of the Americans
with Disabilities Act specifically addresses the issue of physical perfection.
Employers may not conduct pre-employment physicals. Except where it's deemed a
"bona-fide employment qualification" (BFEQ) you can't have employment
physicals, either. (Sample BFEQ: firefighters must be able to carry 150 pounds
of dead weight up and down ladders.)
If employers put "able to lift 40 pounds" or "good oral skills" on a job
description, they must be prepared to defend exactly why the person hired for
that particular position *must* have those physical capabilities. (Defend it in
court, however, at least four years later, if and only if the person
discriminated against can afford a lawyer.)
However, our Supreme Court has recently decided three cases on this issue. In
so doing, they gave much weight to prejudice and the medical model of
disability. In particular in the SUTTON v UNITED AIR LINES case, two working
pilots who wished to hire on at another airline were refused the chance because
they required glasses to have perfect vision. The Supreme Court supported the
second airline's requirement that their pilots must have good vision without
glasses. Many understand this decision to mean that employers are free to
discriminate against people who have impairments that can be mitigated by
assistive technology or medications, even if the impairments are not "cured".
This continues a Supreme Court tradition from 1979, SOUTHEASTERN COMMUNITY
COLLEGE v. DAVIS, which said that a community college could legally prevent a
hearing-impaired woman from even enrolling as a nursing student, because she
would probably be unable to meet the technical standards.
At 9:23 PM -0500 on 9/8/99, NAGASE Osamu said, in part:
> Are these kinds of impairments as
> disqualifers common in other places?
> Also, if you can guide me to literature
> about this issue, I would be grateful.
--
Jesse the K -- Madison WI USA -- <[log in to unmask]>
English usage is sometimes more than mere taste, judgment, and education
sometimes it's sheer luck, like getting across the street. E.B. White
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|