| Author | Message | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 135 Registered: 9-2008 |
Oh My! This could apply to all of us! | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 350 Registered: 11-2008 |
Oh! To me, too? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 138 Registered: 9-2008 |
Alhucema Oh! To me, too? I don't know, your profile page is lacking the necessary information. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 352 Registered: 11-2008 |
Would I have to be from the U.S.? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 146 Registered: 9-2008 |
Would I have to be from the U.S.? Change the word "from" to "in" and I will say: yes. | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 150 Registered: 9-2008 |
I am going to add to my puzzle statement to open other areas of questions. Sorry for the confusion! RESTATED: Oh my! Wait until they get their hands on it. This could apply to all of us. | ||
| Doctapeppa (Doctapeppa)
New member Username: Doctapeppa Post Number: 1771 Registered: 12-2004 |
OH EM GEE! Even me? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 151 Registered: 9-2008 |
Even me? yes, you DP. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 366 Registered: 11-2008 |
Am I safe if I am not in the U.S. right now? | ||
| Arek_fu (Arek_fu)
New member Username: Arek_fu Post Number: 597 Registered: 12-2007 |
They = H? A? M? Are they [insert LTPF list of natural numbers]? Do they work in the same field? Do they share a common profession? Age? Gender? It = a tangible object? A concept? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 154 Registered: 9-2008 |
Alhucema Am I safe if I am not in the U.S. right now? FA Arek_fu They = H? A? M? Yes, Yes, Yope Are they [insert LTPF list of natural numbers]? Too many to count. Do they work in the same field? yes Do they share a common profession? yes Age? Gender? no to rest It = a tangible object?no A concept? This is closest. | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 158 Registered: 9-2008 |
Are they [insert LTPF list of natural numbers]? To be fair, I did some internet research. It is possible that there are between 800 to 1300 people in this group. However, the exact number is not relevant. | ||
| Lynne (Lynne)
New member Username: Lynne Post Number: 3877 Registered: 12-2000 |
Would they get their hands on some personal information about us? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 161 Registered: 9-2008 |
Lynne Would they get their hands on some personal information about us? yes, but... | ||
| Qwike (Qwike)
New member Username: Qwike Post Number: 22 Registered: 1-2009 |
television? Flourescent lighting? | ||
| Lynne (Lynne)
New member Username: Lynne Post Number: 3878 Registered: 12-2000 |
Google Earth relevant? Would the information be out of date? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 162 Registered: 9-2008 |
Qwike television? No Flourescent lighting?No Lynne Google Earth relevant? No Would the information be out of date? nope | ||
| Qwike (Qwike)
New member Username: Qwike Post Number: 33 Registered: 1-2009 |
some type of accident? fatal? will this cause them to lose their jobs? make more money? independent filmmakers? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 165 Registered: 9-2008 |
Qwike some type of accident? in some cases, but not always. fatal? no, this would be too late. will this cause them to lose their jobs? No, quite the contrary... make more money? not "more"... independent filmmakers? Not part of the "they" group - but could be part of "us". | ||
| Peter365 (Peter365)
New member Username: Peter365 Post Number: 1739 Registered: 1-2007 |
Is the "They" group some sort of government agency? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 177 Registered: 9-2008 |
Peter365 Is the "They" group some sort of government agency? Yes-ish. (I'm not sure I would use the word "agency".) | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 644 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is the "they" group paid for by the taxpayers? Will they regulate "it" in some way? Will we have to pay for "it?" Or do we pay for "it" now and will have to pay more? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 183 Registered: 9-2008 |
Jenburdoo Is the "they" group paid for by the taxpayers? yes Will they regulate "it" in some way? Oh yeah! Will we have to pay for "it?" Well, not in the way you mean. Or do we pay for "it" now and will have to pay more? no | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 649 Registered: 5-2003 |
Does it involve safety? A safety regulation? An improvement? Is the regulation positive or negative ("Thou must" or "Thou shalt not")? Does it apply all over the 50 states, or just to part of the country (if so, LPTF list of states)? Does it involve transportation, housing, animals? Has it been actually instituted yet, or is it still "in process"/being discussed? Is it political in nature? Can it be voted on? Has it been voted on? Is it supported by a particular segment of the population? But not another? Is it relevant specifically to urban, suburban or rural areas? Does it involve a flag? (Gotta check if the title's relevant!) | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 185 Registered: 9-2008 |
Jenburdoo Does it involve safety? A safety regulation? No to these. An improvement? Is the regulation positive or negative Yes, it is intended to be positive improvement, however, some worry that it will become a negative liability. ("Thou must" or "Thou shalt not")? Maybe if it were re-written into the King James version? Does it apply all over the 50 states, or just to part of the country (if so, LPTF list of states)? All states. Does it involve transportation, housing, animals? no Has it been actually instituted yet, or is it still "in process"/being discussed? Done deal. Is it political in nature? Isn't everything? :-] Can it be voted on? Has it been voted on? Already voted. Is it supported by a particular segment of the population? But not another? Well, I suspect that most of the general population is unaware of it-or it's impact. Is it relevant specifically to urban, suburban or rural areas? no Does it involve a flag? no (Gotta check if the title's relevant!) Good idea: the title was chosen to give two clues. One was to indicate the country. (Alhucema got that early on.) The other has not yet been discovered... | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 652 Registered: 5-2003 |
Yes, it is intended to be positive improvement, however, some worry that it will become a negative liability. ("Thou must" or "Thou shalt not")? Maybe if it were re-written into the King James version? By the above, I meant to ask whether the regulation itself was written in the form of "Such and such is not permitted" (negative) or "Such and such is mandatory" (positive). Is weather relevant? What about time (is this done or seen at a particular time of day/week/month/year)? Is the item in question an object, or an action? Can it be seen? Would you have to travel to see it or participate in it? Does it affect children, the elderly, the disabled? Does this affect anyone besides Americans? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 193 Registered: 9-2008 |
Jenburdoo ("Thou must" or "Thou shalt not")? Maybe if it were re-written into the King James version? By the above, I meant to ask whether the regulation itself was written in the form of "Such and such is not permitted" (negative) or "Such and such is mandatory" (positive). Ah! I see! Well, actually - both! Is weather relevant? no What about time (is this done or seen at a particular time of day/week/month/year)? no Is the item in question an object, yes-ish or an action? yes-ish Can it be seen? yes Would you have to travel to see it or participate in it? Travel - as in leave your home town? No. Does it affect children,Nope the elderly, maybe the disabled? yes Does this affect anyone besides Americans? (Debate raging in brain. I'm going with...) yope! | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 340 Registered: 6-2008 |
Does the regulation have anything to do with flags? banners (as in signs)? stars, in the sense of movie or rock stars? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 196 Registered: 9-2008 |
Biograd Does the regulation have anything to do with flags? banners (as in signs)? stars, in the sense of movie or rock stars? no to all | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 420 Registered: 11-2008 |
Euthanasia relevant? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 213 Registered: 9-2008 |
Alhucema Euthanasia relevant? no | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 427 Registered: 11-2008 |
Internet relevant? Does the negative impact affect our bodies? Or rather our minds? Would it be: lethal? detrimental to health? just annoying? Would you consider the impact to be a severe one? | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 428 Registered: 11-2008 |
Oh, and please feel free to finish off with my Trinity puzzle if you feel like it :-)) | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 218 Registered: 9-2008 |
Alhucema Internet relevant? no Does the negative impact affect our bodies? Or rather our minds? neither. FA! Would it be: lethal? no detrimental to health? No. Too late for that. just annoying? well...not technically Would you consider the impact to be a severe one? no Oh, and please feel free to finish off with my Trinity puzzle if you feel like it :-)) You had quite a bit of activity earlier. I thought I would let the others keep working on it for a little while. But don't worry - I won't let it go too long. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 431 Registered: 11-2008 |
so there is something that IS already detrimental to health? Would the negative impact limit the liberties of those concerned? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 219 Registered: 9-2008 |
Alhucema so there is something that IS already detrimental to health? yes-ish. (careful!) Would the negative impact limit the liberties of those concerned? YES! | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 352 Registered: 6-2008 |
So a law was passed to regulate something that is yesishly detrimental to health, and a consequence of this regulation is diminished civil liberties? And that yesishly detrimental "thing" is a concept rather than a physical object, substance, or material? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 228 Registered: 9-2008 |
Biograd So a law was passed to regulate something Yes that is yesishly detrimental to health, No, FA and a consequence of this regulation is diminished civil liberties? No. Actually the opposite! And that yesishly detrimental "thing" is a concept rather than a physical object, substance, or material? Yes | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 353 Registered: 6-2008 |
So in fact the regulation is meant to protect civil liberties, but it may lead to something that is yesishly detrimental to health? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 231 Registered: 9-2008 |
Biograd So in fact the regulation is meant to protect civil liberties, Yes...ultimately. but it may lead to something that is yesishly detrimental to health? Nope. Sorry, still on the wrong track. Hint: There are two different aspects to discover here. One could be described as "detrimental". The other relates to "health". | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 232 Registered: 9-2008 |
A clarification on an earlier detail: And that yesishly detrimental "thing" is a concept rather than a physical object, substance, or material? Yes, and... Reason for change: we can't legislate one's "thoughts". However... | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 248 Registered: 9-2008 |
Note: I will be out of town for the rest of the week. But please keep working on my puzzle. I will answer all inquiries this Sunday. Things to explore: What government group is indicated as "they" in the puzzle statement? Need more definition to the "us" group. It is indeed a recent regulation in the US, however it does not regulate the "us" group; nor the "they" group. So...? Get the answers to these questions, and the rest will be easy. btw: Please use internet research if you like. But only to educate yourself. Please do not start asking me if it "this law" or "that law". Nice lateral questions, thanks. | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 261 Registered: 9-2008 |
Gee, I am asking and answering my own questions? apparently... So, Kaygee, is the government group a federal, state or local entity? federal | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 734 Registered: 5-2003 |
Are "they" Congress or some other political entity that makes laws? Does "us" apply to everyone living in the US? Including non-citizens? If it does not regulate "us," does it regulate something used by "us" (cars, houses, public health, taxes, am I on the right track)? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 269 Registered: 9-2008 |
Jenburdoo Are "they" Congress No or some other political entity that makes laws? Yes Does "us" apply to everyone living in the US? Yes-ish. Including non-citizens? Yes-ish. If it does not regulate "us," does it regulate something used by "us" (cars, houses, public health, taxes, am I on the right track)? No. You could say that it protects "us" from... | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 744 Registered: 5-2003 |
Are "They" the Supreme Court? Probably not, since they don't make laws, just interpret them. Are "they" a legislature or lower-level lawmaking group? Does this regulation prevent something? Does it have to do with illegal aliens? Destructive wildlife? Does it prevent something from getting into the US? Or supporting itself once they arrive? Does it regulate those Americans who would help them? For example, people who hire illegal immigrants? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 276 Registered: 9-2008 |
Jenburdoo Are "They" the Supreme Court? Not really, think lower. Probably not, since they don't make laws, just interpret them. Good point. However, judicial decisions become "case law", right? Are "they" a legislature or lower-level lawmaking group? You were on the right track with the first question. Does this regulation prevent something? Yes Does it have to do with illegal aliens? No - but would make a good puzzle! Destructive wildlife? No. Does it prevent something from getting into the US? Or supporting itself once they arrive? Does it regulate those Americans who would help them? For example, people who hire illegal immigrants? No to all the rest. | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 745 Registered: 5-2003 |
They: A US Circuit Court? A State Supreme Court? Location relevant? So neither illegal aliens or invasive species are involved. Does the regulation prevent movement? Construction? Would trade unions approve or oppose it? Would Republicans? Democrats? Is some sort of controversy involved? If so, political, moral, scientific, educational? This is quite a good puzzle, I'm intrigued. | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 277 Registered: 9-2008 |
Jenburdoo They: A US Circuit Court? Yes, this is what I was looking for! And I owe you an apology: the US Supreme Court has heard many cases of this type, too. Sorry! A State Supreme Court? no, see above. Location relevant? Yes-ish, svv of location. So neither illegal aliens or invasive species are involved. Correct:-) Does the regulation prevent movement? No. Construction? No. Would trade unions approve or oppose it? Good question. I did a quick web search and it seems that they approved of it! Would Republicans? Democrats? Approved by members from both groups. Is some sort of controversy involved? Not really. Just general feelings of apprehension. If so, political, moral, scientific, educational? This is quite a good puzzle, I'm intrigued. Thanks! :-)) | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 750 Registered: 5-2003 |
So did the court's decision at the time only apply to the specific states the circuit court was responsible for? LTPF list of circuit courts (I won't look up their decisions, just want to know which states are involved, if that's relevant to the story). Did anyone protest this decision? March in favor of it? Were there front-page headlines about the decision? Was the Circuit Court interpreting a particular regulation or law? If so, local, state or national? Did the case go on to the Supreme Court? Apprehension, huh? Would an informed voter be apprehensive, or was the apprehension due to a scrund? Or due to simply not knowing about the relevant issue? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 280 Registered: 9-2008 |
Jenburdoo So did the court's decision at the time only apply to the specific states the circuit court was responsible for? LTPF list of circuit courts (I won't look up their decisions, just want to know which states are involved, if that's relevant to the story). FA. See next answer. Did anyone protest this decision? March in favor of it? Were there front-page headlines about the decision? FA No court decisions yet..Still waiting for them to "get their hands on it." Was the Circuit Court interpreting a particular regulation or law? Not in the past, but I am certain they will soon. If so, local, state or national? national Did the case go on to the Supreme Court? No. Maybe one will in the future. Apprehension, huh? Yes. Only a general feeling-nothing major. (And most may not agree with me.) Would an informed voter be apprehensive, No-ish. Voters didn't vote on it. or was the apprehension due to a scrund? Or due to simply not knowing about the relevant issue? no to the rest. | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 761 Registered: 5-2003 |
Ah. I meant it in the sense of an informed citizen who could be considered to have a stake in the outcome. Should we be apprehensive, then? And is this an ongoing decision, that has not been finally decided yet? Are most Americans informed about the issue? Aware of it? Will it increase taxes? Start a new government agency? If not, would it help to find out which, if any agency would be involved in implementing the policy? The stem cell issue? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 283 Registered: 9-2008 |
Ah. I meant it in the sense of an informed citizen who could be considered to have a stake in the outcome. Should we be apprehensive, then?Yope - only if, like me, one worries that it could turn into a detriment. And is this an ongoing decision, that has not been finally decided yet? No Are most Americans informed about the issue? No. Aware of it? Yope. Will it increase taxes? No. Start a new government agency? No. If not, would it help to find out which, if any agency would be involved in implementing the policy? Yes, indeed it could help. btw: Great lateral move! The stem cell issue? No. Nothing that controversial. | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 763 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is the agency under the Department of: State? Treasury? Defense? Justice? Interior? Agriculture? Commerce? Labor? Health and Human Services? HUD? Transportation? Energy? Transportation? Education? Vet's Affairs? Homeland Security? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 285 Registered: 9-2008 |
Is the agency under the Department of: State? Treasury? Defense? Justice? Interior? Agriculture? Commerce? Labor? Health and Human Services? HUD? Transportation? Energy? Transportation? Education? Vet's Affairs? Homeland Security? None of these, actually. (I had to double-check myself.) | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 766 Registered: 5-2003 |
Well, according to Wikipedia, that's all the departments. There are a few defunct ones, like War and Navy. Is it not technically under a department? Is it an independent agency (perhaps reporting directly to the President)? (If it's an agency, unfortunately, the pool of possibilities will increase by a factor of ten!) It IS a US government agency, correct? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 289 Registered: 9-2008 |
Well, according to Wikipedia, that's all the departments. There are a few defunct ones, like War and Navy. Is it not technically under a department? Is it an independent agency (perhaps reporting directly to the President)? (If it's an agency, unfortunately, the pool of possibilities will increase by a factor of ten!) Ah, perhaps I was wrong and this was not such a good idea. So, to make up for it, a hint... It IS a US government agency, correct? Yes. And according to the DOL website, it is an independent agency. | ||
| Noobdogg (Noobdogg)
Moderator Username: Noobdogg Post Number: 26 Registered: 3-2009 |
Are any of the following relevant? Medical Records? Pharmaceuticals? Mental Health? | ||
| Noobdogg (Noobdogg)
Moderator Username: Noobdogg Post Number: 27 Registered: 3-2009 |
About the additional relevance of the title: Would it help to examine the lyrics of the US national anthem more closely? | ||
| Kalira (Kalira)
New member Username: Kalira Post Number: 67 Registered: 2-2009 |
I'm trying to think of a group of people that numbers only 800 to 1300 in the United States... Anything to do with NASA? Astronauts? CIA? Selective Service? the FCC? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 292 Registered: 9-2008 |
Noobdogg Are any of the following relevant? Medical Records? no-ish Pharmaceuticals? no-ish Mental Health? possibly About the additional relevance of the title: Would it help to examine the lyrics of the US national anthem more closely? no. different song... Kalira I'm trying to think of a group of people that numbers only 800 to 1300 in the United States... Anything to do with NASA? Astronauts? CIA? Selective Service? the FCC? no to all. | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 791 Registered: 5-2003 |
Statistics relevant? The Census? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 306 Registered: 9-2008 |
Statistics relevant? The Census? No to all. | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 307 Registered: 9-2008 |
RECAP: *** Oh my! (general concern on my part.) Wait until the US Federal Courts get their hands on this regulation; This law could be applied to all American "someones". What law is it? 1. There is an independent government agency that will enforce this policy. Knowing which agency is not necessary to solve the puzzle, but may help narrow the field. 2. Still haven't determined "who" is regulated by the law - and/or - "who" will benefit from the law. | ||
| Hietek (Hietek)
New member Username: Hietek Post Number: 49 Registered: 2-2009 |
marriage? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 308 Registered: 9-2008 |
marriage? Gee thanks, but my husband would object...oops, I mean: No;-)) | ||
| Bolapara (Bolapara)
New member Username: Bolapara Post Number: 497 Registered: 12-2008 |
Are they elected politicians - of the three branches of government? To be clear, the 800-1,300 only applies to "they," and not to the disabled." Is this an Obama law? Health care reform? A change that would allow the disabled a chance to get private insurance as right now those with certain disabilities are unable to get private insurance through any company, and if you can't work full time, you have to have private insurance. Law regulating the cost of meds- like they have in every other modernized country? Patient privacy Act? The changes in the ADA? that have recently been revoked due to many of the disabled people being fired upon the changes being made (and subsequently then having to get on government aid because they were no longer able to support themselves)? Are doctors relevant? Storage of medical records? A national database? firearms purchasing? | ||
| Bolapara (Bolapara)
New member Username: Bolapara Post Number: 498 Registered: 12-2008 |
That pharmacists are allowed to give people generic drugs, when both the customer, and the prescription from the doctor, state that only namebrand drugs should be dispensed? There is currently legislation to change that. | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 310 Registered: 9-2008 |
Are they elected politicians - of the three branches of government? "They" are Federal judges. To be clear, the 800-1,300 only applies to "they," and not to the disabled." Yes Is this an Obama law? No. Surprised? Health care reform? No A change that would allow the disabled a chance to get private insurance as right now those with certain disabilities are unable to get private insurance through any company, and if you can't work full time, you have to have private insurance. No Law regulating the cost of meds- like they have in every other modernized country? Nope Patient privacy Act? No The changes in the ADA? Yes that have recently been revoked due to many of the disabled people being fired upon the changes being made (and subsequently then having to get on government aid because they were no longer able to support themselves)? No, but a wild twist. I am impressed. Are doctors relevant? no Storage of medical records? A national database? firearms purchasing? no to both That pharmacists are allowed to give people generic drugs, when both the customer, and the prescription from the doctor, state that only namebrand drugs should be dispensed? There is currently legislation to change that. No | ||
| Bolapara (Bolapara)
New member Username: Bolapara Post Number: 524 Registered: 12-2008 |
the miswording that makes it seem like needing glasses or contact lenses qualifies you for needing special accomadations? | ||
| Bolapara (Bolapara)
New member Username: Bolapara Post Number: 525 Registered: 12-2008 |
that disabled employees must not be treated as disabled by management? and how in the world can that be done while still accomadating their disability? ie Sorry the elevators down, but we can't get a board and lay it over the steps to make a ramp for your wheelchair because that would mean we were regarding you as being disabled and the ADA forbids that. | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 311 Registered: 9-2008 |
Bolapara that disabled employees must not be treated as disabled by management? and how in the world can that be done while still accomadating their disability? You are all over it, so... ************SPOILER*************** I work for a large, international employer (over 300,000 employees). Consequently, we have to pay attention to new laws that affect us in different states and certain countries. On September 25, 2008, President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). The law is designed to strengthen worker protections under the ADA by reversing the holdings of several Supreme Court decisions interpreting the original ADA law. The effect of these changes is to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability. The list of “major life activities" that can be considered as an impairment has been expanded making it easier for more people to be considered “disabled”. Here is a partial list: Seeing, Hearing, Eating, Sleeping, Walking, Standing, Lifting, Bending, Speaking, Breathing, Learning, Reading, Thinking... ...AND the operation of the major bodily functions of these systems: Immune, Digestive, Bowel, Bladder, Brain, Respiratory, Circulatory, Endocrine, and Reproductive. When I got to this part, I thought, “Oh my! This could apply to almost all of us! The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is still trying to develop and revise the employer regulations. Which means that you will not find any of this new information on that big legal poster your employer tacked up in the breakroom. And, here's the kicker, the new court cases that will surely follow can further change and alter the nuances of the law. In other words, the ADAAA is good news for lawyers, bad news for employers. Thanks to everyone for playing. Congrats Bolapara. For the researchers out there, here are a few weblinks. EEOC website. Law Blog Legal Bulletin | ||
| Bolapara (Bolapara)
New member Username: Bolapara Post Number: 528 Registered: 12-2008 |
*Just want to point out that the law you are referring to states that to be qualified under the ADA your condition must have effected your life in one of those areas for at least 6 consecutive months - even if its not currently effecting you. Of course, with reproducing...women can't typically get pregnant once they are pregnant so would have been pregnant qualify them for protection based on the fact that there were 9 months where they couldn't iniatiate a new pregnancy? | ||
| Kaygee (Kaygee)
New member Username: Kaygee Post Number: 312 Registered: 9-2008 |
The ADAAA would be applied to a person who has chronic or episodic disorders (or even normal cell growth) of the reproductive system. Legal protection for the pregnant woman's job would come thru an amendment to Title 7 Civil Rights Act. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act. |
