- From: Martin Sloan <martin.sloan@orange.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 00:42:15 +0100
- To: "'Hewitt, Denise'" <Denise.Hewitt@idea.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "sec508@trace.wisc.edu" <sec508@trace.wisc.edu>
Having read Yahoo!'s articlet and the original case report, I thought I'd add a UK perspective to this debate. Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (the relevant UK piece of legislation), disability is defined as where a person has a: 'physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities' (s.1(1)) This seems to roughly mirror the ADA. However, the DDA's definition is further qualified in Schedule 1 of the Act which sets out 'normal day-to-day activities' with a list of classes, one of which must be affected for a disability to be present. The second category of these is that of 'manual dexterity' which, as my dictionary tells me, is 'skill in using one's hands'. As such, I'd have thought it beyond doubt that the inability to use a keyboard as a result of RSI would be considered a disability. This is surely especially so given, as Judge Marsha Berzon said in her dissent, that the use of computers and being able to type are now *essential* skills in the modern workplace. The case makes reference to the plaintiff being able to carry out a wide range of tasks, such as cooking or shopping etc ant therefore the alleged disability was not 'substantial' as she could still do lots of things. However, had the case been in the UK, the Code of Practice, which accompanies the Act, defines substantial as being 'more than minor or trvial', rather than affecting a large number of manual tasks as suggested in the Appeal court's reading (perhaps 'quality' versus 'quantity'). Following this, I would suggest that not being able to use a keyboard, and hence work, would be considered to be more than just a minor or trivial impairment and thus a disability. Further, there is nothing in the Code of Practice to suggest that a different view would be taken. I don't know how much guidance the ADA gives in defining a disability, however, it would seem that in this respect at least the DDA and its companion Code are more helpful. martin. -- martin.sloan@orange.net University of Glasgow Glasgow Graduate School of Law
Received on Sunday, 19 August 2001 19:45:50 UTC