There’s no question that the ADA has improved life for
people with disabilities. There’s also no question that we still have a long
way to go, perhaps especially when dealing with poorly understood disabilities
such as chemical illness. There’s no exhaustive list of disabilities covered
under the ADA. Instead, it applies to conditions that substantially limit one or
more life activities. A webpage on employment law provides a list of 25 and states
that “If any of these above tasks are affected by your multiple chemical sensitivities, then you probably qualify as having a disability under the ADA.”
The Job Accommodation Network offers
suggestions for accommodating people who react to chemicals in the workplace.
Unfortunately, qualifying for accommodations and receiving
them are two very different things. On a regular basis I read the accounts
of people with chemical illness fighting hard to stay in work situations which
are making them sicker by the day. Although public buildings such as schools, doctor’s
offices, restaurants, hotels, theaters, grocery stores, and shopping malls are
all directed to comply with the ADA, access for people with chemical
sensitivities tends to be limited and problematic.
It’s unfortunate that sometimes change only comes when forced,
but however it comes, progress is welcome. The city of Detroit was ordered
to pay an employee $100,000 for failing to address her ongoing reactions to a
co-worker’s perfume, and within a week, according to the book The Case Against Fragrance,
the city instituted a fragrance-free policy in all its workplaces. The Labor Law Center notes
that it also added this to its ADA Handbook: “Our goal is to be sensitive to employees with
perfume and chemical sensitivities. Employees who are sensitive to perfumes and
chemicals may suffer potentially serious health consequences. In order to
accommodate employees who are medically sensitive to the chemicals in scented
products, the City of Detroit requests that you refrain from wearing scented
products, including but not limited to colognes, after-shave lotions, perfumes,
deodorants, body/face lotions, hair sprays or similar products. The city of
Detroit also asks you to refrain the use of scented candles, perfume samples
from magazines, spray or solid air fresheners, room deodorizers, plug-in wall
air fresheners, cleaning compounds or similar products. Our employees with
medical chemical sensitivities thank you for your cooperation.”
Churches must comply with portions of the ADA, but are
exempt from other provisions unless their buildings are used by covered
organizations. If your church isn’t forced to comply, should it do so anyway? A
Christianity Today posting argues in the affirmative for two basic reasons: all people are of equal worth
and deserve inclusion, and the church is stronger when it welcomes and respects
everyone. The president of the nonprofit organization RespectAbility
notes that if people with disabilities aren’t welcomed in a church, their
family members may also be unlikely to attend. She notes that one in five
Americans has a disability and that 52% of Americans have a loved one who is
disabled. She states, “It is a massive loss for churches if they
don’t have people with disabilities in their congregation.”
I’m grateful for the work that President Bush did to advance
the cause of the disabled and I look forward to seeing accessibility increase. As Bush said
when he signed the ADA into law, “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.”
