Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "NYCs New "Antidiscrimination" Ordinance is Hilarious!" video.

@ratherbwithhorses That's odd because every job my sons have applied for that has lifting requirements they're tested by an outside physician or healthcare facility to make sure they can. Those requirements are to protect the company from injury lawsuits.
7
As someone that has the most common excuse used, hypothyroidism, take your medication (it's extremely cheap) and the weight just falls off. It's really simple.
6
@jacquesstrapp3219 The governor controls the administration and health and safety codes and rules fall directly under them. That's how it can be done. Usually there's a comment period required though but I don't know if that's the case in New York.
4
@jadapinkett1656 Yes all those businesses that fly the flag are doing horribly. Oh wait, no they're not.
4
That's a violation of federal labor laws. So they'll either be fined by California or the federal government. I'd take my risks with California to see if that requirement would hold up in court.
3
You are. The Disability Act is for diseases or birth defects that limit a person's physical abilities but not to the point that they're unable to work if minimal accommodations are made. A step stool for a little person or space for a wheelchair to move around. Beyond that, it's the individuals problem. If there are medical devices that help, it's on the person to get them for example.
1
@In_Orbit That's already the case. For example if I have bad arthritis in my hands and I'm applying for a data entry position no amount of accommodation is going to make it to where I can perform the task as well as someone without it. That's the key. If I can perform the task as well as an able bodied person with something simple like room for my wheelchair, my disability shouldn't factor into being hired or not. That's all the Act was meant to address.
1
This is going to mainly impact building codes moving forward. Toilets that hold heavier weight will be required, taller doorways, reinforced floors, etc. None of that is on the business, except the toilet if they own the building. Well, not as far as the accommodation part outside higher rent in new buildings to pay for the increase building costs.
1
That's already happened. They've Down Syndrome ones, ones with prosthetics, in wheelchairs, and obese.
1
NY isn't an at will state.
1
Mostly this will affect future building codes. Buildings will have to have enough floor support to accommodate obese people and doorway taller. If a building doesn't have that, the employer isn't responsible.
1
@Habib_Osman Prove that there's a risk. Name the disease and prove the risk. That's the legal requirement for even considering the removal of someone's rights. Laws like this weren't even considered during the AIDs epidemic which was pretty much guaranteed death so the idea they're needed now is crazy. Edit: Violent paranoid schizophrenics can't be removed from the public unless proven, in court, to be a serious risk to the public's safety. This should be the same.
1
Because that's when the Disability Act was put into place. It's been defined in court cases what reasonable is. It's if a person is capable of performing the task but just needs space for a wheelchair. They also must have been found to be disabled, as in beyond their control, for it to be required. So if the job requirement is to be able to lift 100 lbs and the person has only one arm, no prosthetic, or one that can't bare that amount of weight no not being hired isn't discrimination because no amount of accommodation would allow them to. Being tall or overweight isn't a disability according to the federal government so that isn't protected under it. Edit: Being comfortable isn't a reasonable accommodation. So if they're too tall, but can squeeze in then there's no issue. The accommodation also must not require extreme lengths to be performed. In the example of the one armed person, the company is not required to provide them with a prosthetic that would allow them to perform the task. There are many, many court cases that more narrowly define the terms.
1
Being a little person is already classified as a disability so I don't know why they felt the need to add that. So is the syndrome that makes someone never stop growing. Generally for little people you just have to provide a step stool and a chair that adjusts heights. Pretty simple. Anything beyond that is on them. Obesity doesn't fall under a disability because it's not a medical issue as in a disease that causes limitations. It's not a disease at all. Unlike Styx said, if the building floor isn't strong enough to support them, that's not on the employer. What it will do is require future building projects to add additional support to accommodate it.
1