[mortis505]

From Sections 8-11 of the EEOC FAQ governing employers/employees responsibilities in the workplace.

"Accommodating Employees with Diabetes

The ADA requires employers to provide adjustments or modifications to enable people with disabilities to enjoy equal employment opportunities unless doing so would be an undue hardship (i.e., a significant difficulty or expense). Accommodations vary depending on the needs of the individual with a disability. Not all employees with diabetes will need an accommodation or require the same accommodation.

8. What types of reasonable accommodations may employees with diabetes need?

Some employees may need one or more of the following accommodations:

* a private area to test blood sugar levels or to take insulin
* a place to rest until blood sugar levels become normal(6)
* breaks to eat or drink, take medication, or test blood sugar levels

Example: A manufacturing plant requires employees to work an eight-hour shift with just a one-hour break for lunch. An employee with diabetes needs to eat something several times a day to keep his blood sugar levels from dropping too low. Absent undue hardship, the employer could accommodate the employee by allowing him to take two 15-minute breaks each day and letting him make up the time by coming to work 15 minutes earlier and staying 15 minutes later.

* leave for treatment, recuperation, or training on managing diabetes(7)
* modified work schedule or shift change

Example: A nurse with insulin-treated diabetes rotated from working the 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. shift to the midnight to 8 a.m. shift. Her doctor wrote a note indicating that interferences in the nurse's sleep, eating routine, and schedule of insulin shots were making it difficult for her to manage her diabetes. Her employer eliminated her midnight rotation.

* allowing a person with diabetic neuropathy (a nerve disorder caused by diabetes) to use a stool.

Although these are some examples of the types of accommodations commonly requested by employees with diabetes, other employees may need different changes or adjustments. Employers should ask the particular employee requesting an accommodation because of his diabetes what he needs that will help him do his job. There also are extensive public and private resources to help employers identify reasonable accommodations. For example, the website for the Job Accommodation Network (Job Accommodation Network) provides information about many types of accommodations for employees with diabetes."

"9. How does an employee with diabetes request a reasonable accommodation?

There are no "magic words" that a person has to use when requesting a reasonable accommodation. A person simply has to tell the employer that she needs an adjustment or change at work because of her diabetes.

Example: A custodian tells his supervisor that he recently has been diagnosed with diabetes and needs three days off to attend a class on how to manage the condition. This is a request for reasonable accommodation.

A request for a reasonable accommodation also can come from a family member, friend, health professional, or other representative on behalf of a person with diabetes. If the employer does not already know that an employee has diabetes, the employer can ask the employee for verification from a health care professional.

10. Does an employer have to grant every request for a reasonable accommodation?

No. An employer does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation if doing so will be an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that providing the reasonable accommodation would result in significant difficulty or expense. If a requested accommodation is too difficult or expensive, an employer still would be required to determine whether there is another easier or less costly accommodation that would meet the employee's needs.

11. Is it a reasonable accommodation for an employer to make sure that an employee regularly checks her blood sugar levels and eats or takes insulin as prescribed?

No. Employers have no obligation to monitor an employee to make sure that she is keeping her diabetes under control. It may be a form of reasonable accommodation, however, to allow an employee sufficient breaks to check her blood sugar levels, eat a snack, or take medication."


Follow the link from jazzbo, print it out, highlight these sections, and simply state your case. vulnerable26, I URGE you to sit down with your supervisors, The one on the floor and her boss/bosses, and discuss this. Explain that taking just a few minutes to treat a high/low, is much better than not being allowed to treat it and the complications/costs/disruption that not being allowed to treat would cause.

[Eddy]

ADA Home Page - ada.gov - Information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990

Americans with Disabilities Act

[DanG]

All the EEOC stuff sounds very accomodating - thanks for providing us with the text - I did not go to the link jazzbo provided.

However, my gut feeling is that I would be in a worse situation if I were to ever tell someone that I have diabetes. I would probably be out of a job, out of the insurance needed to support this habit, etc. I would rather suffer a bit high blood sugar level than lose the livelihood. I do not have much faith in people, as I are a people myself, and I know how mean and nasty I can be sometimes. Now, if I were a business owner - I can imagine I might become even more mean and nasty - the bottom line and all needs management moreso than a few workers with a special problem. So, thank you EEOC - but no thanks for me.

Another related issue is management of bs at work. Think back 20 years ago when meters were just coming to market - and testape was the norm - what did we know about blood sugar levels back then? This forum just had a guy that provided 10 wonderful segments of his 60 years of diabetes - the vast majority of those years with blood sugar levels nobody knew (probably) - because the meters were not available and lab testings were done infrequently, etc. He is still here after doing insulin for 60 years - I like that history. Application?: I can afford to know my bs is a bit high during a few hours of the day if I need to make sure that I do not go low during work hours.

It seems to me that the current routine of testing bs many times per day seems NOT to acknowledge that diabetes is a big gamble that we need to hedge one way or another during the day. None of us will ever manage diabetes like a fully operational pancreas would, period. Plan for high bs when you know you will need it, i.e. at work where you cannot be snacking. You may be a bit dull in the brain for a bit with higher than desirable bs - but the other choice may be to be flat on your back with low bs.

Vulnerable26 is in a tough situation as his job cannot really accomodate his new diabetes, it sounds like - best to you vulnerable26.

[Alice]

What I'm not understanding is how the "rest" of the employees are able to work under such long periods without breaks?

There are many reasons I need to use a restroom other than taking care of diabetes...that would be the least of my problems.

I still feel this is a problem with the immediate supervisor...someone upwards in the organization know full well about the laws...finding that person is the issue.

[pegasus]

However, my gut feeling is that I would be in a worse situation if I were to ever tell someone that I have diabetes. I would probably be out of a job, out of the insurance needed to support this habit, etc. I would rather suffer a bit high blood sugar level than lose the livelihood.

That is actually the point--they're not allowed to fire you for being diabetic. Yes, sometimes employers do find other excuses, but why make it easy for them?

So, thank you EEOC -

It was actually the work of an incredible number of activists who got Congress to pass the law, finally--and Bush I to sign it!

Another related issue is management of bs at work. Think back 20 years ago when meters were just coming to market - and testape was the norm - what did we know about blood sugar levels back then? This forum just had a guy that provided 10 wonderful segments of his 60 years of diabetes - the vast majority of those years with blood sugar levels nobody knew (probably) - because the meters were not available and lab testings were done infrequently, etc. He is still here after doing insulin for 60 years - I like that history. Application?: I can afford to know my bs is a bit high during a few hours of the day if I need to make sure that I do not go low during work hours.

It seems to me that the current routine of testing bs many times per day seems NOT to acknowledge that diabetes is a big gamble that we need to hedge one way or another during the day. None of us will ever manage diabetes like a fully operational pancreas would, period. Plan for high bs when you know you will need it, i.e. at work where you cannot be snacking. You may be a bit dull in the brain for a bit with higher than desirable bs - but the other choice may be to be flat on your back with low bs. [

No, we will not be able to manage diabetes like a fully operational pancreas, but as someone who's had it for *40* years, I can tell you that having access to the meters, and now a pump, has made a tremendous difference to my health, to my quality of life, possibly--even probably--the length of my life. What's the point of progress and innovation if we permit others to force us back into the Dark Ages?

I don't know who you're referring to when you refer to people who won't "acknowledge that diabetes is a big gamble that we need to hedge one way or another," or what exactly that even means. Part of my body doesn't work well, and I have over the years acquired many tools to minimize the impact of that malfunction. My testing isn't a gamble--it's a diagnostic tool that I want to use in the best way I can. That will be different for everyone, and if, Dan, you decide not to test for a few months or years or whatever, and "gamble" that the affect of your highs and lows won't cause you harm, that's certainly your choice. Seems to me it's the *not* testing that's a gamble, not the testing.

Vulnerable26 is in a tough situation as his job cannot really accomodate his new diabetes, it sounds like - best to you vulnerable26.

Of course his job can accommodate his diabetes. Taking 5 minutes in between calls to test and eat sugar would not diminish his ability to respond to the calls he does take. His employer just believes that he can squeeze greater "productivity" out of someone who doesn't feel well than out of someone who does. Bizarre reasoning, seems to me.

Or else, his employer wants to force him to quit rather than pay his health insurance, which seems more likely to me.

[vulnerable26]

Originally Posted by pegasus

Or else, his employer wants to force him to quit rather than pay his health insurance, which seems more likely to me.

Well it is defiantly not that because I pay for private insurance..

However, with all the links and the info provided, I will be printing that out and sharing it with my managers. I am also going to be starting the pump within a month so I am sure that will level things out a lot.

I want to thank everyone for taking the time, for all the info and advice they provided, it is greatly appreciated.

One more thing I am a female and not male, lol. Just wanted to point that out as well

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by ****

However, my gut feeling is that I would be in a worse situation if I were to ever tell someone that I have diabetes. I would probably be out of a job, out of the insurance needed to support this habit, etc.

...and into a lawsuit. Perhaps you should read the relevant sections of U.S.C., and the links that Jazzbo provided.

Originally Posted by ****

I would rather suffer a bit high blood sugar level than lose the livelihood.

The mentality that one must choose between those two is incorrect.

Originally Posted by ****

I do not have much faith in people, as I are a people myself, and I know how mean and nasty I can be sometimes. Now, if I were a business owner - I can imagine I might become even more mean and nasty - the bottom line and all needs management moreso than a few workers with a special problem. So, thank you EEOC - but no thanks for me.

You incorrectly assume that any accommodations would present undue hardships. Furthermore, if you read the law, you will note that the burden of proof lies with the one claiming undue hardship.

Originally Posted by ****

Another related issue is management of bs at work. Think back 20 years ago when meters were just coming to market - and testape was the norm - what did we know about blood sugar levels back then?

I'm sorry, but this isn't twenty years ago. This isn't about the norm back then. This is about now.

Let's think back fifty years ago. Segregation was the norm. Must be okay for now, then, eh?

Originally Posted by ****

This forum just had a guy that provided 10 wonderful segments of his 60 years of diabetes - the vast majority of those years with blood sugar levels nobody knew (probably) - because the meters were not available and lab testings were done infrequently, etc. He is still here after doing insulin for 60 years - I like that history.

I'm glad for him, too. The thing is: One example does not prove any overall trend. Some people live past 100, too. Does that mean everyone can expect to?

In another thread, people were tossing about the figure "life expectancy of diabetics 15 years shorter than non-diabetics". That's what we call a trend instead of an isolated data point.

Originally Posted by ****

Application?: I can afford to know my bs is a bit high during a few hours of the day if I need to make sure that I do not go low during work hours.

Some of us can't run high. And documented medical facts demonstrate the hazards of high blood sugar. Ergo, "just run high to avoid going low" increases one's exposure to irreversible and severe long-term health risks as a direct result of failure to accommodate.

Guess what? If I hear about this going to court, there might just be an amicus curiae brief including information from the above paragraph... and then some!

Originally Posted by ****

It seems to me that the current routine of testing bs many times per day seems NOT to acknowledge that diabetes is a big gamble that we need to hedge one way or another during the day.

Would you also argue that frequent balancing of checkbook, examination of credit card records for fraud, and checking one's credit history is frivolous? i.e., do you suggest that one "just keep a little extra money handy"?

Originally Posted by ****

None of us will ever manage diabetes like a fully operational pancreas would, period.

And none of us will ever be the world's richest person. Therefore, should we not strive to make as much money as we can? Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your brand of logic.

Originally Posted by ****

Plan for high bs when you know you will need it, i.e. at work where you cannot be snacking. You may be a bit dull in the brain for a bit with higher than desirable bs - but the other choice may be to be flat on your back with low bs.

Again, you're creating a false bifurcation.

Originally Posted by ****

Vulnerable26 is in a tough situation as his job cannot really accomodate his new diabetes, it sounds like - best to you vulnerable26.

IANAL, but that's not the way I'm reading things:

Sec. 12112. Discrimination

(a) General rule

No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

(b) Construction

As used in subsection (a) of this section, the term "discriminate" includes

(1) limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of such applicant or employee because of the disability of such applicant or employee;

(2) participating in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting a covered entity's qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by this subchapter (such relationship includes a relationship with an employment or referral agency, labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs);

(3) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration

(A) that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability;

(B) that perpetuates the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control;

(4) excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association;

(5)

(A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity; or

(B) denying employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant;

(6) using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity; and

(7) failing to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when such test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, such test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor of such applicant or employee that such test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills of such employee or applicant (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).

As I've alluded to above: Please explain to me how allowing snacks would pose an undue hardship.

Moreover, I argue that a ruling in favor of vulnerable26's employer's policy would set a dangerous precedent, creating a chilling effect against exercising the very protections that the ADA is intended to provide.

[Lizzie G]

Originally Posted by ****

I don't like all the lawsuit talk - lawsuits rarely accomplish what you desire. Lawsuits usually end up doing harm in many other ways. Take this attitude - it is your health, you gotta manage it, don't expect the employer to make special rules for anyone, or else they will need to make special rules for everyone.

I would just abide the rules of the company - in appearance (you gotta do whatcha gotta do - just don't broadcast it). If/when you need something, don't be blatant about your "fix" of the low that occurs. Just manage it like anyone else. I never let anyone know anything - not in 33 years. It is my problem and I don't expect anyone else to handle it for me. If/when I am gone to a very low hypo - well, then it may become someone else's problem. That has only happened at home, at night, so far... except for this incident...

One time I was hiking Long's Peak - a 14,000 ft peak in Colorado. I was thru the keyhole just below the summit and stopped and ate as much of my trail mix as I could get into me - in a hurry. Many other hikers passed by - I didn't feel like trying to make the summit, as I was feeling a bit frightened about the reality that I was in a condition that I could have fallen off the edge where I was resting and gobbled food - OOPS!!. That was 28 years ago - still here to tell the story, thankfully. I told nobody. I merely handled it as well as I could. Wonderful insulins those days - beef/pork lente... ahh... and testape.

Today - sometimes in the morning when I get to work, I see the white spots of death - low approaching. I break away from what I am doing and put some sugar in my coffee and be calm. White spots disappear, and then I can eat some more healthy food to assist in bringing the low back to where I need to be for working in an office.

Keep any "fix" needed hidden from the super. Don't push the issue - it isn't worth all the hassle you may cause yourself. If you don't like the rules - the super is correct - find a different place to earn money. Sure, the laws are on your side - you think. Test them - and you will find out, the rules are written for the people who own the money and do you no good in the end. Stay inside the rules - don't be testy with them.

I disagree with almost everything you say. Whilst lawsuits are stressful and for the most part conflict can be resolved in a more constructive way that has a positive outcome for everyone involved, there are times when individuals do need to use the law to protect their basic human rights. it is about recognising the point at which you have done everything you reasonably can to rectify the situation, and then to take the appropriate advice.

Now i do not know the intricacies of employment law in the US, but as I hinted at above I would imagine that in a civilised country such as the US that it would be considered your basic human right to have free access to what is not actually equivalent to banned candies, but in your instance a lifesaving medicine. It is very frustrating to deal with this level of ignorance, but I was thinking what might help is if you have low treatments like those nasty 'hypostop' gels rather than the candies (that is a UK thing you probably have similar) so that there is a clear distinction between it being a treat and being a drug? I know you shouldnt have to do these things but hey, life can be tough and sometimes we have to do things that annoy us. perhaps if you did this and your supervisor began to understand why you need the hypostop gel or whatever, then the next step would be to explain how candies would perform the exact same function and are a lot cheaper for you. im not condoning the actions of this supervisor at all, she/he sounds like a total idiot, but im just saving give her a chance to be educated/respect your rights, then if she doesnt accomodate your requirements you have an even stronger legal case and dont hesitate to take the advice you need.

as regards diabetes being a private battle etc etc, i really cant believe that on a forum where we are all trying to help each other deal with this debilitating disease, that someone is actually spouting this out-dated garbage. sorry Dan G but I feel quite strongly and really cannot respect your opinion on this. i am fairly private about my diabetes and dont make a big deal of it; if im having issues at work i will sit quietly and deal with it, or go home. however, my team know about my diabetes (it was hardly avoidable due to the timeframe of my illness and diagnosis!) and for safety's sake they know where the jar of honey is in my bottom drawer. and if i have a 'weird' day i will say to andrew 'andrew, having a 'weird' day having to take a lot of extra insulin' and he will just be that little bit aware. and in the pool when im training. another friend knows about my diabetes and what to do. for the past year i had no problems whatsover and a couple of weeks ago i was swimming with a kickboard with my face above water. i swum to the end of the pool and my friend asked me if i was alright (apparently the colour had drained from my face). i had no idea i was low and when he spoke to me it was like i was in a dream. i take glucose when i am swimming and i have very carefully calibrated doses which normally serve me well, yet sometimes something random happens and the science doesnt work. in this instance my friend helped me out of the pool and gave me some glucose which i was only just able to take in. i was extremely embarassed by this incident as i am hugely careful to prevent such things; but at the end of the day im relieved that i had swallowed my pride and admitted my weakness so that someone could help me when i needed it. if i HADNT have told him imagine the scenario then. i collapse, no one knows what is wrong, my life is in danger, an ambulance is called. then, think of the next person, the little old lady that maybe has to wait an extra 10 minutes for an emergency ambulance because of my incident that could have been prevented by me being open about my condition. that lady could die while she waits for the ambulance, the heart attack could kill her, she might have lived for another 10 years if i had told my friend about my diabetes. think about it that way. diabetes DOES pose us with a safety issue from time to time but the impact that has on other people is minimised by being sensible.

sorry to rant.

[jazzbo]

If anyone is interested, here's a link to a docket of disability discrimination cases. It's from May 2003 (I'm looking for more recent dockets).




If you scroll down through the list it shows an astonishing number of cases involving diabetes. In one case, a preemployment blood test showed elevated blood sugars and the employer withdrew its offer of employment.

Yikes!

Best wishes for EVERYONE's good health.

Jazzbo

[jazzbo]

For some reason the link didn't show up. PM me if you are interested.

[DanG]

Originally Posted by Eddy

Moreover, I argue that a ruling in favor of vulnerable26's employer's policy would set a dangerous precedent, creating a chilling effect against exercising the very protections that the ADA is intended to provide.

I take it from some of your talk - you must be in law practice?

As to a chill effect - it has happened, hasn't it - chilling effects. Look at 2nd ammendment just a week ago. For all the activity of recent years seemingly "against" ownership of firearms, we get a seeming "chill" read come from the high court. It happens.

As to your question regarding snack at the desk - I agree - a snack at the desk does not seem to provide an undue hardship to anyone - but sometimes those types of rules begin to be a rule by which some persons are weeded out from the persons that they desire. We don't want any disabled persons here, that rule is in place and does not present an undue hardship, you count it a hardship - good bye. Again, that chilling effect does happen, doesn't it. We all should be allowed choice - i.e. we don't want disabled persons here - just as we can choose chocolate of vanilla - choice is good. Nobody demands that we eat chocolate, nobody should be demanding that we employ disabled persons, if we don't want. By this EEOC information, I see I am a disabled person. I may let some people know that, but I won't be wearing the t-shirt anytime soon.

Lizzie G - thanks for the explanation - the old lady needing the ambulance - I will think on that a bit, really. I guess I am assuming most type 1 diabetes is a bit similar to my experience. I can usually guess what may happen. For me, it is not what used to be termed "brittle" in which case it is not very predictable. If something happens, I can usually trace it to an oversight or neglect on my part. In this respect, I find my experience to be quite predictable, quite sane. I can see that vulnerable26 is very new to this - and now we know vulnerable26 is a lady - so there may be some unpredictability going on - being new to this, not being a lady... I sympathize with you, vulnerable26. Do what you need to do, and thanks for letting us discuss your situation in depth - it has been interesting and informative.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by ****

In this respect, I find my experience to be quite predictable, quite sane. I can see that vulnerable26 is very new to this - and now we know vulnerable26 is a lady - so there may be some unpredictability going on - being new to this, not being a lady... I sympathize with you, vulnerable26. Do what you need to do, and thanks for letting us discuss your situation in depth - it has been interesting and informative.

"New" doesn't have to be relevant at all to hard-to-control diabetes. 15 years of a lot of daily effort and I'm only just starting to approximate "normal" control without hourly and daily swings, thanks to the radically improved basal shaping afforded by the pump. Situations where effort or the right thing for BG isn't being done aside, every diabetic will have a different experience of the "ease" that therapy works for them. This has to be very clear in any discussion of whether diabetics can just ignore it or minimize it in your life, or not.

For me, brushing it over the carpet, being embarrassed about it, or afraid of alerting my employer of my needs, (that's not fair on them, either: what if I was to go coma on them in the workplace?) would not be a safe, or particularly sensible, option. Doesn't mean I go around proclaiming at all but if I need consideration or help, I ask for it. That's what the law supports, as well. If I am in one spot for a length of time (like work) it's also very prudent that people around have some awareness that I'm diabetic and some brief detail what that entails on a practical level.

I echo the sentiment, the 19th century is gone. Doesn't mean employers now always do the right thing - at all. But the general expectation in society and reflected by the law is that it's reasonable to have sensible, within-reason considerations given for chronic conditions.

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by ****

I take it from some of your talk - you must be in law practice?

I.T. geek, actually. However, being both a consumer and partner in a small business, I also need to read up on statutes and precedents every now and again. (As previously disclaimed: IANAL.)

The funny thing is, when I was younger, many people suggested that I should be a doctor or a lawyer. I had no interest in either. Now I spend time pretending to be both of those.

Originally Posted by ****

As to your question regarding snack at the desk - I agree - a snack at the desk does not seem to provide an undue hardship to anyone - but sometimes those types of rules begin to be a rule by which some persons are weeded out from the persons that they desire. We don't want any disabled persons here, that rule is in place and does not present an undue hardship, you count it a hardship - good bye. Again, that chilling effect does happen, doesn't it.

It certainly does happen. That's part of why the ADA was passed. That's why it specifically discusses the exact behavior you describe.

Originally Posted by ****

We all should be allowed choice - i.e. we don't want disabled persons here -

It depends whether the disability has an effect on job performance. Again, the ADA specifically addresses that.

Should we also be allowed choice of gender, racial, and religious preferences? If you say "no", how is non-job affecting disability any different than those criteria? If you say "yes"... good luck defending that position.

Originally Posted by ****

just as we can choose chocolate of vanilla - choice is good. Nobody demands that we eat chocolate, nobody should be demanding that we employ disabled persons, if we don't want.

Invalid analogy. One scenario does not involve others' rights. The other does. Your rights end where my rights begin.

Similarly:

If you want to smoke, drink, or use illegal drugs, so be it. Just don't endanger my health, life, or property -- or that of any other third party.

Originally Posted by ****

By this EEOC information, I see I am a disabled person. I may let some people know that, but I won't be wearing the t-shirt anytime soon.

There's a difference between waving a big "I'm diabetic" flag, and refusing to get trampled on because of that fact.

Analogy:

No matter what your religion, I'll not be pleased if you try to bang into my head how superior it is. If you try to "convert" me, I'll be unhappy. ("Wearing the t-shirt.")

No matter what your religion is, I'm more than happy to talk with you and discuss our respective beliefs, provided that we both respect each other. As long as yours is one that honors what I consider to be basic human rights, I'll vehemently support your right to practice -- regardless of conflicts against my own beliefs. And I expect vice-versa. ("Neither of us is trampling on the other.")

Originally Posted by ****

so there may be some unpredictability going on - being new to this, not being a lady...

Actually, both might be the case. I've heard several females on DF state that hormonal variations (not only restricted to menses) are a significant source of unpredictability.

--[ edit ]--

In other threads, Jenn (vulnerable26) has mentioned having PCOS. I certainly can't understand it like someone who has it, but I've heard several "interesting" stories from those who do. Those who have both diabetes and PCOS seem to have a tougher time predicting insulin needs.

[pegasus]

Originally Posted by ****

As to a chill effect - it has happened, hasn't it - chilling effects. Look at 2nd ammendment just a week ago. For all the activity of recent years seemingly "against" ownership of firearms, we get a seeming "chill" read come from the high court. It happens.

And Congress has just passed legislation spelling out the traditional, broad readings of the ADA that some recent, constricting rulings of the court have denied. That's the way democracy is supposed to work. And the only way we establish norms that help keep individual and community rights in place, and both balanced and supportive of societal progress, is by creating and refining rules by which we *all* can live.

Originally Posted by ****

As to your question regarding snack at the desk - I agree - a snack at the desk does not seem to provide an undue hardship to anyone - but sometimes those types of rules begin to be a rule by which some persons are weeded out from the persons that they desire. We don't want any disabled persons here, that rule is in place and does not present an undue hardship, you count it a hardship - good bye. Again, that chilling effect does happen, doesn't it. We all should be allowed choice - i.e. we don't want disabled persons here -

Whose "undue hardship" do you refer to? The employer's? Employers get tremendous benefits out of being part of a society. They get employees trained by public schools, they have roads, bridges, tunnels built by public tax dollars, they often have tax breaks/abatements to "encourage" them to stay in a specific locale (or move to one). In return for benefiting from--being part of, and integrated into--society, they also have responsibilities and obligations to society. And one of those is to treat that society's residents with dignity and respect, in particular with concern for their health and well-being. Allowing a break to test blood sugar and eat sugar (among other "reasonable accommodations" required by the ADA) is very little to require of employer--or anyone or -thing else--who is part of society.

If they don't want disabled people, or black people, or short or tall people in their homes, that's their decision (and their loss). But while they're acting in, and as part of, a societal community, there are requirements and norms. Heaven forbid they should follow basic morality.

Originally Posted by ****

By this EEOC information, I see I am a disabled person. I may let some people know that, but I won't be wearing the t-shirt anytime soon.

Sadly, if we all began wearing t-shirts, it might do us all a lot of good (it took me a long time to become public about being diabetic, and it's still not easy; it was felt--though not said--to be shameful when I was growing up). That's one difference between discrimination against many disabled people and racism: the disability is not visible. Kind of like homosexuality. Yet the discrimination is there, and has very real and, in some ways (health care), visible consequences.

Originally Posted by ****

I guess I am assuming most type 1 diabetes is a bit similar to my experience.

You do seem to make many assumptions (the "acknowledging" that diabetes is a gamble, Eddy being a lawyer, people being able to find new jobs easily ...)

Originally Posted by ****

If something happens, I can usually trace it to an oversight or neglect on my part. In this respect, I find my experience to be quite predictable, quite sane. I can see that vulnerable26 is very new to this - and now we know vulnerable26 is a lady - so there may be some unpredictability going on

So? We all make mistakes, whether we've had diabetes 2 hours, 2 months, or 20 years. There's no fault, blame, or justifying that needs to be done. The mistake doesn't justify or excuse an employer's preventing a worker from having to take medication they need.

Lizzie G:
Sadly, it took a long time for a supposedly "civilized" country such as the U.S. to catch up to these basic human rights. It took until 1990 for the ADA to be passed, not as labor law, which the US has been restricting since the basic laws were passed in 1934, but as a part of civil rights law, and as I said above, it's still being refined to ensure the protections disabled people need. (And I'm not a lawyer either, Dan, but an advocate.)

In 1984 I was working with an advocacy group that supported improving mass transit here in NYC. My assignment at an event was to walk with the people in wheelchairs in case they needed anything. It was the first time in my life I realized how difficult basic things are for disabled people--simple mobility, regardless of their access to wheelchairs, or crutches, or other basic supportive--personal--equipment. And some of these were folks with advanced degrees, doctorates, or years of experience in other fields; the hurdles--literal--they have to deal with are incredible. It's a true loss to society as a whole, as well as to them, that we don't acknowledge--and more readily accommodate--their presence, and instead make it so profoundly difficult, so that the wealthy can pay less in taxes.

To go back to another point, that Alice raised: The "industry" of "call centers" has grown exponentially in recent years, as mail order and tech support and all of that has grown off the charts, and these kinds of rules that vulnerable26 is describing--and worse--are commonplace. There are many reports of people wearing diapers in order to survive it. And these call centers are often set up in communities where good-paying jobs have gone overseas and they have few if any other options for work.

Otherwise, I support everything Eddy has written (thanks!).

Vulnerable26:
However, with all the links and the info provided, I will be printing that out and sharing it with my managers. I am also going to be starting the pump within a month so I am sure that will level things out a lot.

Also be sure you document the times you've been told it was against policy, and if you can, it would be good if you went with your coworker. The pump also takes a while to adjust to, and you have to test *a lot,* especially at the beginning. Given the company's policy, you should probably submit a letter from your doc stating this and give it to your managers along with the other material you bring.

And my apologies for the gender confusion--with pseudonyms I usually use "he" as a generic ...

Good luck, vulnerable26.

[DanG]

Originally Posted by pegasus

You do seem to make many assumptions (the "acknowledging" that diabetes is a gamble, Eddy being a lawyer, people being able to find new jobs easily ...)

Oh - you misunderstand, I think...
It is that exact reason - easy to find a job - that I would never ponder the actions being spoken of here. I value the continuity of a paycheck and I realize that especially in today's economy, anyone and everyone is quite dispensible - therefore, vulnerable26 needs to be quite careful against loss of a job - even given ADA - if job is valued by vulnerable26. The reasons for layoff can be wide, no mention of disability such as diabetes - just... its a poor economy, or whatever. Don't be waving ADA regulations in front of anyone - afterall, unless your company is in interstate commerce, federal regulation does not prevail, as I understand it, but I am known to assume as pegasus has shown . I work for small local firm - ADA does not rule, I suspect - not assume.

As to basic morality - I doubt there is such a thing these days. We do have federal law - that is as good as it gets - again, I presume, not assume Morality is illegal. Rather, any basis of morality that some may have is not allowed to be used for any value, i.e. we cannot use the religious books as basis anymore, I doubt - or should I say assume.

Regarding discrimination - yes. We may feel we have progressed some, but I am of the opinion - no assuming, mind you - that our days of kindness and civility are fast disappearing. I think the unquenchable quest for the bottom line and our own personal affluence is fast making us quite cretan. No assumption there, please - opinion ONLY!