Comment on Work from home

• systemglitch@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  In Canada that would be labelled a legit disability without blinking an eye.

  source

  • kboy101222@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Yeah, but here in the US, if you can work even the simplest job you shouldn’t qualify for disability! That just encourages people to enjoy communism! These literally half blind mfers need to get off their ass and get to work, the lazy sons of bitches! Don’t they love freedom?

    source

    • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      This is wrong, because you’re talking about disability insurance in a comment thread about disability discrimination.

      Disability is very broadly defined for the purpose of disability discrimination laws, which is the context of this comment chain.

      Disability is defined specific to a person’s work skills for the purpose of long term disability insurance (like the US’s federally administered Social Security disability insurance). Depending on the program/insurance type, it might require that you can’t hold down any meaningful job, caused by a medical condition that lasts longer than a year.

      For things like short term disability, the disability is defined specific to that person’s preexisting job. Someone who gets an Achilles surgery that prevents them from operating the pedals of a motor vehicle for a few weeks would be “disabled” for the purpose of short term disability insurance if they’re a truck driver, and might not even be disabled if their day job is something like being a telemarketer who sits at a desk for their job.

      source

      • toomanypancakes@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Just wanted to expand on this

        Depending on the program/insurance type, it might require that you can’t hold down any meaningful job, caused by a medical condition that lasts longer than a year.

        For SSI or SSDI, you basically have to be bed bound (“less than sedentary”), have a condition severe enough it meets the strict requirements in SSA’s listings of impairments, or have a mental condition that prevents you from being at all able to fulfill the demands of unskilled work. The rules get more lenient after age 50 the older you get though.

        source
      • kboy101222@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Nah man, freedom.

        source
  • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Offsides, bud!

    source

    • systemglitch@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Off-side!

      source
  • Zink@programming.dev ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Iirc for the US government to consider you disabled due to vision, your GOOD eye has to be 20/200 or worse.

    So yeah if you only have one eye and you can barely read the giant E at the top of the vision chart, sorry!

    source

    • dohpaz42@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Not true. Look up the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by the EEOC. Here, I’ll do it for you. But if I am mistaken, I’d love to know where it defines the vision criteria for exclusion.

      Actually, when I was looking it up, it sounds like you’re talking about being considered legally blind and qualifying for Social Security disability benefits, which is not the same as being protected under the ADA.

      source

      • Zink@programming.dev ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        The latter. The government considering you disabled therefore you qualify for disability benefits.

        source
  • 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Pun intended, I’m assuming?

    source

    • systemglitch@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Not really, it was a figure of speech, which I realized would be taken as a pun and decided to leave it. It unintentionally fit the theme.

      source

      • 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Nice! Makes it even better.

        source
• dohpaz42@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  According to the EEOC, it’s a disability:

  A vision impairment does not need to “prevent, or significantly or severely restrict,” an individual’s ability to see in order to be a disability, as long as the individual’s vision is substantially limited when compared to the vision of most people in the general population.

  And it sounds like her employer is doing the right thing. But if ever she feels she is not being treated fairly, she should talk to a lawyer to be sure. Don’t just let it slide because she has one good eye. Hell it might be good to talk to a lawyer anyway, so she knows what to look out for in the future if things happen to change.

  source

  • EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    How do you know the EEOC applies where she is?

    source

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Because the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) is enforced by the EEOC.

      source

      • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I think what they’re getting at is not every person on the Internet lives in the United States.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • dohpaz42@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      You’re right. I made an assumption about where she lives. I shouldn’t have, but I did. The advice about talking to a lawyer to know her rights, though, is universal regardless of where she lives. So I still stand by my statements.

      source
  • MonkRome@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Thank you, I think she believes she is not protected. I’ll look into this.

    source

    • jqubed@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      It might not qualify her for disability insurance, as in she no longer needs to work any jobs, but should absolutely entitle her to disability protections, as in job requirements should be modified to permit her to continue to work. If her employer is not making accommodations to permit her to continue to work then she might have a legal case.

      source