READERS respond: July 2009
NO QUOTA IN ADA AND AMENDMENTS
In response to Theodore A. Olsen’s guest column regarding the ADA Amendments Act (“Redefining Disability,” April), we at the DBTAC Rocky Mountain ADA Center offer the following points as pulled directly from the language of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the ADA Amendments Act:
* The ADA and the Amendments Act seek to ensure access to equal employment opportunities based on merit. They do not guarantee equal results, establish quotas or require preferences favoring individuals with disabilities over those without disabilities.
* While the ADA and the Amendments Act focus on eradicating barriers, they do not relieve an employee or applicant with a disability from the obligation to perform the essential functions of the job. To the contrary, the intention is to enable people with disabilities to compete in the workplace based on the same performance standards that employers expect of persons who are not disabled.
* The only time a reasonable accommodation is required is if an employee is having difficulty performing an essential function of their job due to their disability. A reasonable accommodation does not eliminate the essential function of the job. Instead, it is a tool to allow an employee with a disability to perform the essential function. Examples of reasonable accommodations include things such as a screen magnifier for a person with a visual impairment, a regularly scheduled lunch hour for a person with diabetes, or flex time for a person who needs to attend required medical appointments.
* An employer is not required to provide an accommodation if it will impose an undue hardship on the operation of its business. Undue hardship is defined as “excessively costly, extensive, substantial, or disruptive, or that would fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the business.”
Please call us for additional discussion at 1-800-949-4232.
— SANDY LAHMANN, DBTAC
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ADA CENTER
(DISABILITY AND BUSINESS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER)
COYOTES NEED NOT BE UGLY
A big thank you for saying something positive about coyotes! (“Redemption for Wile E. Coyote,” Mike Taylor, June).
There is so much negativity in the press about coyotes, your article was a breath of fresh air.
I had been volunteering with WildEarth Guardians since February (which is breeding season when the coyotes become more protective of their cubs), hazing the coyotes in the parks. I have been baffled over the apparent overreaction the city seems to be perpetuating.
During all my walks, at various times of the day, I never even encountered a coyote. Other volunteers who have encountered them said they never showed any unusual signs of aggression. It really makes me wonder if the city is exaggerating its “problem” to appease a very vocal and influential minority who either don’t understand this clever animal or who are simply afraid of coyotes.
I also question the recent actions of the city of Greenwood Village using firearms in city parks. Recently, they shot and maimed three coyotes that ran off, so we not only have “Limpy” (who was probably shot by the city a few years ago), we now have three more injured coyotes running around Greenwood Village. An injured animal is often more aggressive than one that is not.
During this time, I also noticed many individuals with dogs off leash in the parks, along the canal and other nature areas, and interestingly, many of these dogs I saw were very small ones such as poodles and Chihuahuas. To a coyote, this is a very enticing snack. No one wants their dog attacked, but coyotes cannot and should not be punished for doing as nature intended. The coyote has no idea if they are going after a wild prairie dog or a domestic animal. People need to be more responsible and watch their pets.
Unless a coyote is overtly or unusually aggressive or rabid, killing is an ineffective way to deal with them. Most experts agree that hazing (making them fear humans) is the most effective way of dealing with urban coyotes.
— BARB ADAMS, PARKER