Even if you buy into the Americans With Disabilities Act requirement that employers make "reasonable accommodations" for those with disabilities, shouldn't the definition of reasonable be, well, reasonable? If a job requires vision, for example, should companies have to find a way to hire the blind? If a job requires a certain level of physical stamina, should companies have to keep the infirm on the payroll? Apparently so:
Kircher was with the Jeffersonville Fire Department from 1971 until March 23, 2009, when he was informed his employment was being terminated. He alleged he was wrongfully forced into retirement because of his disability.
Kircher had a lung removed in 2002 and suffered a heart attack July 20, 2008. His cardiologist approved him to return to work with restrictions in November 2008 and he was given administrative duties.
I don't mind somebody with one lung and a damaged heart sitting next to me at the office -- heck, he's probably healthier than I am. But I think I might want someone in a little better shape if my house catches on fire. The federal Equal Opportunity Commission sees it differently -- it reviewed the firefighter's complaint and issued a right-to-sue letter, and the city actually settled with him.
Comments
So what's the problem with him continuing to do administrative work? It has to be done by somebody and he's been with the fire department long enough that he surely knows what's what.
I don't know why he had a lung removed in 2002, but it's not unreasonable to assume it has something to do with walking around in burning buildings.
There are a lot of jobs that have their own flavor of disability associated with it. Before Michelin bought the Goodrich plant in Woodburn, I saw lots of men become tire builders at 20, who had to quit with bad backs after less than a decade. Michelin changed how the plant works, and now women can build tires - and men can do it for more than a decade without being useless hulks. Similarly, I saw a lot of people who died in the 50s of cancer after working at Grizzley, making brake linings.
Employees are renting themselves to employers, not selling themselves as slaves, and if employers use up an employee, turning him into a worthless husk, it's not unreasonable for that employer to continue paying that employee through a normal retirement age of 65. That's the whole reason unions started "seniority" rules. If employers know they need to keep paying their most senior employees, they have a good reason to take better care of them.
What if the firefighter suffered from pyromania?
I'm sorry. Not everyone can do everything.
I, for example, cannot expect anyone to hire me as a jockey.
Is there any indication that he was fired because he was setting fires?
It's legal to commit suicide in all 50 states, but it's illegal to hire someone to commit suicide in those same 50 states, even if he's willing to do it.
If an employer is destroying the bodies of his employees so that they can no longer perform the job for which they were hired, the employer owes the employee the wages he'd have earned if the employer had not done it.
This isn't really an "Americans With Disabilities Act" issue. The ADA simply says that you can't be hard-assed about requirements that don't really matter. This is really a matter of employers paying for damages they are inflicting upon their workers.
That being said, somebody has to do the paper-shuffling. Why don't they want this guy doing it?
"That being said, somebody has to do the paper-shuffling. Why don