IT Employment

Would you disclose a non-visible disability during an interview?

The Americans with Disabilities Act protects people with known disabilities. However, a subset of non-visible disabilities make disclosure something of a dilemma. Would you disclose a disability in the interview, or try to hide it? How do hiring managers react?

If I asked you to guess the largest minority and the fastest growing subgroup of the population in the U.S. what would you say?

According to the U.S. Census, the answer is people with disabilities. This group runs the gamut from visible disabilities to non-visible disabilities such as chronic health issues like asthma or diabetes; partial sensory impairment like poor vision or hearing loss; learning disabilities; and mental health conditions like depression. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, if you don't currently have a disability, you have a one-in-five chance of developing one before retirement age.

I don't argue with those statistics-I think we'll even discover some new disabilities now that we have a generation of people who have grown up using computers and cell phones their whole lives. (My guess is that in about 40 years, zillions of people will be seeking early retirement due to Chronic Texting Thumbs Syndrome or Headset-Induced Giant Ear Disease.)

What worries me is how the workforce will treat those who have disabilities. Will their increasing numbers mean they'll be more readily accepted by employers or will the four-in-five people who are not disabled end up landing all the jobs?

The Americans with Disabilities Act protects people with known disabilities and ensures reasonable accommodations within the workplace. But what about when you're just interviewing for a job? And what if you have one of those "non-visible" disabilities? When do you disclose this, if at all?

For the record, the three categories of non-visible disabilities are:

  • Chronic health conditions (e.g., diabetes, cancer)
  • Sensory impairments (e.g., hearing loss, mobility limitations, vision problems)
  • Mental health and learning disabilities (e.g., depression, bi-polar disease, ADHD)

I just can't imagine if I suffered from bi-polar disease or depression that I could mention this in an interview and not have it be a detriment in an interviewer's mind. I'm sorry but I've heard from too many disabled folks frustrated with the job hunt to believe otherwise.

Now, let's be brutally honest here. If the average corporate manager has it drilled into him to avoid situations that might cost the company money, how likely would he be to hire a person that would require office modifications, work rescheduling, etc., from the get-go? To be fair, if you're hiring for a support position that calls for a person to be able to lift 50 pounds of expensive equipment, it would be fair to rule a job candidate out if he says he has a herniated disk and can't do that.

My concern is with the person who would count out a candidate with a disability because accommodating that person would be laborious or expensive. Do you think hiring managers would take advantage of such disclosures to eliminate job candidates?

I'm going to cover some specifics about non-visual disabilities in future blogs, but I'd like to get a sampling of your thoughts on this topic. Let's be totally honest here-no one is going to out you on Oprah or anything. If you had to choose between two job candidates, equally qualified, but one has a disability, how would it affect your decision? Or does it depend on the type of disability?

About

Toni Bowers is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and is the award-winning blogger of the Career Management blog. She has edited newsletters, books, and web sites pertaining to software, IT career, and IT management issues.

97 comments
yetanotherhirarchicaloracle
yetanotherhirarchicaloracle

To be open-minded, I would like to, but am afraid to, as it may probably ruin my chance or chances of getting my desired career.

JoseSaramago
JoseSaramago

I think I would say YES. When I interview, I bring to the table what I can do. There will always be things that I cannot do. For example, I cannot climb Mt Everest. I have been living with tinnitus, an "invisible" disability for the past year and a half now. I think it has become part of me now and I am not ashamed of it. I am what I am. Take it or leave it.

alistair.k
alistair.k

In the UK we have a law which means that any person who has, or considers themselves to have, a disability and who meets your stated criteria must be given an interview. So application forms always have a disabilities section. If you have a disability it is really in your interest to mention it at this point as it helps you get to interview. You will be expected to discuss this at interview as the interviewer will want to know what "adjustments" if any would be required if you were hired to fill the role. I seriously had to interview a blind guy for a field service role a while back. HR said he could probably travel by taxi and public transport. So in the UK the point is somewhat moot....

F.DIMICHELE
F.DIMICHELE

I am reporting my sleep apnea to my employer, b/c of the increase in hours recently (scheduled to work 36 hrs in 72 hr period). My employer thinks it is for the best. I am going to discuss this more with HR. We will see if they will work with me here.

Dr_Zinj
Dr_Zinj

Only if it didn't get entered into the employment application, resume, or other hard-copy forms. Once that information is disclosed in hard copy, you've got a trail of evidence to refer to if the hiring goes to an equally, or lesser qualified person rather than the partially disabled one. Casual conversation disclosure, tight budget constraints, yeah, you're going to get dropped in a heartbeat. May be a very soft no thank you , but there's the door anyway.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

It's not fair to ask if a candidate has a disability. It's fair to ask if a candidate is able to do what the job requires. It may also be fair to ask if a candidate has a specific disability if that disability has been shown in studies to make a person succeptible to physical or mental risk in carrying out specific tasks. Like, if epilepsia can be caused by a strobing light (?) then a welder with epilepsia might be at a severe risk, falling into a seizure with a live arc in your hands isn't probably healthy, but Santeewelding can probably educate us on the specifics of that. But that's the only reason I can think of when it's fair to ask. Otherwise, don't ask, don't tell. Don't set yourself up for discrimination.

TandC
TandC

No I would not disclose a non-visible disability during an interview

Foggier
Foggier

How about pregnancy? No, not a "disability" per se, but one can see that it may, and likely will, require some accomodation. A friend was doing some hiring, and the woman being interviewed stated she was "trying to become pregnant". The question was NOT asked, but the statement made without prompting in the interview. My friend could not beleive her ears! Who would volunteer in a job interview that she wanted (or expected) to become, in a sense of the word, disabled? She (my friend) could not keep that consideration out of her mind when considering job applicants. LUCKILY, a clearly more qualified person applied and got the job--but if it came down to two equally qualified people...?

LCH-IT
LCH-IT

No I would not. Most of the jobs I have applied for required me to sign a statement that I am able to do the job I was interviewing/being hired for. If I thought I was unable becasue of a disability I would NOT have applied for the job and thus I can answer the question honestly with a yes. If something comes up during the interview that I was unaware of before I would have to withdraw my application. I participated in a prehire physical ability test (lifting) that was required by the employer and passed it, though I did have some difficulty with it, I passed and was hired. Because I passed I never had any inability to do the job, as the test was appropriate for the requirements.

kev.gould
kev.gould

Good luck disclosing upfront that you require dialysis three times a week. Try handling that in a real world situation. I would love to hear your fairytale response.

zentross
zentross

If the disability provides a legitimate barrier to a critical job function that individual is not going to get the job. It would be a difficult task to require someone with monochrome vision to be a graphic artist with photoshop and has been a significant issue for me getting into the web market as programming and graphics are now bundled into the description at most places. One aspect that I believe employers should look at is what skills or particular strengths such an individual must possess at this point in their life. Every time one ability is lost, others are strengthened to compensate. During my time with cancer, I learned to manage stress, schedule my time carefully, and maintain discipline in order to meet the needs of my family while working through the treatments. Chronic illnesses can be controlled. Knowing what the individual has to do to control them provides an insight into hidden strengths that could prove an advantage to overcome the perceived negatives. (It's likely illegal to ask such questions though.) While I do feel that these items have caused me to be viewed negatively, I am proud to be a cancer survivor and of other achievements that have been accomplished in managing my health.

cutting
cutting

If what a person has to offer in their experience is what the company is looking for and the disclosed disability can be accommodated, such as the need for a telephone with tone/volume controls, the experience would outweigh the cost of that special telephone or maybe a wheelchair accessible desk or whatever else. The older population with the life experiences is growing in numbers with disabilities but still have lots to offer.

masonm
masonm

Maybe I am a jackass, but am I the only person who has an issue with the entitlement attitude demonstrated by "advocates" of people with disabilities? (And for the record I find that most truly disabled people are MUCH easier to work with than the ADA "police" who want you to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just in case you have someone with a disability who wants to work for you) Why does a company "owe" a prospective employee special benefits just because they are disabled? Don't get me wrong, I have worked with many disabled people, none of whom had any issues performing their job duties, BUT they worked in jobs where their disability didn't impact the work they did. I worked in the IT department for a call center for a few years and we had a several paraplegic people who worked for us. They didn't have issues doing their job, because they sat in front of a computer talking on the phone. The fact that they couldn't use their legs did not impact their job at all. I guess my problem is with the attitude that an employer should have to accommodate people in a special way because they are disabled. Isn't it more logical for those people to just work in fields that don't require special accommodations? After all, if I am not very good at math, I probably won't be able to get a job as an EE. That's not discrimination, I just don't have the capabilities to do the job. It doesn't make me a bad person, but it also doesn't make the company bad for not hiring me. I just need to work somewhere else where my skills and abilities fit the job. How is a disability any different than a lack of ability? I am not talking about a lack of knowledge which is the employees fault, I am talking about a lack of natural ability. If I am not very good at math should companies have to accommodate my lack of ability so that I can do the same job that someone else could do without special accommodations?

kjmartin
kjmartin

Is an irrational exuberance for a particular operating system a disability? If so, I think at least one of your contributors has something to disclose.

jsaubert
jsaubert

I tend to err on the side of caution and honesty. If it's something that could impact your work I think that it's the right thing to let your potential employers know. You are always going to have a slight disadvantage if you have an impairment visible or not, it's the unfortunate way of things, but I think being honest up front opens a dialog that will improve your work experience later on. Not having a "severe" or "noticeable" disability myself I couldn't realty imagine what it's like to have that kind of pre-judgement. I do have reduced hearing, ringing in the ears and some balance issues with the random migraine. All symptoms of Meniere?s according to my doctor, which can become pretty serious over time. But I told my interviewer all those things on the very first meeting. None of them prevent me from my job, but can change how I do it from day to day. I also have low blood pressure, which I did not disclose because it does not have any bearing on my job because I control it very closely. The other issue to consider also is should your direct co-workers know. Is a bit of a safety issue. I really think anyone you work closely with should know about any medical issues so they know what to do if something happens. Especially things like allergies or symptoms that can come on suddenly or without warning. From the hiring point of view I'll be brutally honest as well: the cost of changing things to accommodate a person with a disability is far less than the cost of the lawsuit later. If two equal candidates apply for a job the one that is "perfectly normal" (whatever that means to the person doing the hiring) probably won't be able to sue you so it's ultimately less of a liability to dismiss them.

sboverie
sboverie

I have a problem with severe hearing loss in one ear. I don't think of it as a disability and people are usually surprised to find out about the hearing loss. If no one can detect a problem with my hearing in normal conversation then it is not a disability. The only accomodation I need is for people to repeat what they say a bit louder and clearer. I am fortunate that the hearing loss I have is outside of the range of human vocal range and that I have one really good ear that compensates well enough for the bad ear. I do have problems locating sounds and also picking out the sounds I want to hear in a noisy background.

MikeZane
MikeZane

I would keep any disabilities to myself until they became an issue. Reviewing the ADA, they tell you that disclosure does give you protection, but it may also subject you to discrimination. I made my disclosure a few years back and have been subjected to much in the way of threats, humiliation, and the like. I am highly skilled and very good at what I do, but they fact that they have to accomodate ME makes me a liability. Companies do not want to accomodate disabled individuals, and they will mock you for anything they do not consider a disability, regardless of the laws. As I have learned, there are ways to do this that go under the radar. I will be pursuing my phD soon, and my thesis is going to be discrimination against mental disabilities in the workplace. I think this is an area companies need to stop ignoring.

mirgrok
mirgrok

As a tech type who does have to lift 50 lbs of expensive equipment and carry it from time to time I find I cannot mention any limitations when in an interview. I need the interviewer to believe not only do I have all my physical & mental abilities but a full range of their use. It is totally impractical to even hint at a disability unless you're going to work for an organization that features their workers with disabilities.

david.mihalcoe
david.mihalcoe

I am a disabled American and have worked for many companies and govt. agencies without any problems. But want-to-be-managers are the most in factoring. Some just don't want disabled persons working for them. I disclose it because it is very visable. I am in a wheelchair.

monevent
monevent

not if i wanted the job!

Osiyo53
Osiyo53

Depends upon if I think my non-visible disability might affect my ability to do the job adequately. I wouldn't lie to an employer (by an act of omission) if I thought my invisible disability would prevent me from earning the pay being offered. But I might well fail to mention something if I thought it'd result in my being dismissed from consideration off hand due to some possibly unreasonable bias on the part of a prospective employer. For instance, I am color blind ... as might be defined by some folks. More accurately, I have deficient color perception as compared to the norm. I was tested quite thoroughly and in depth for this many years ago. A specialist told me that in a standardized test he gave me I scored about 70% of "Normal" for reds and greens. That is, I was NOT color blind to reds and greens (the most common sort of color perception deficiency), but I was deficient in that area compared to the average person. In any event, at one time I applied for a job in the Navy that REQUIRED normal color perception, with no exception. A reasonable requirement since in that job a lack of full normal color perception could easily result in things going "BOOOOMMMMM" when that was undesired. Later on in life, however, after the Navy, I applied for a job where in the job description they specified "normal color perception" to be required. It was a job where one would be doing electrical and electronic wiring. I was well familiar with wiring color codes and the colors used, as well as with electrical and electronic circuits in general. And knew from experience that my defective color perception was not really an issue in that sort of job. The deficiency isn't that bad. I can distinguish most shades and variations of red and green used in that sort of work. And when not sure, I certainly know how to trace a circuit or perform tests to verify that the component or wire is what I think it is. So I just failed to mention my deficient color perception. It would have been an automatic disqualification for that job. I'd never have gotten past the human resources type doing that initial screening. Later, when I was talking to the real person who hired me and for whom I'd been working. I mentioned it, and he shrugged and said evidently it did not matter since I was doing the job more than adequately. Besides, as most men know who have to work with color coded wiring and components, nearly everyone comes across a color or series of color bands they are unsure of sooner or later. Speaking about men simply because deficient color perception of one sort or another, to one degree or another, is FAR more common among men than women. Likewise, I am mildly asthmatic. Have been since a child. When I was joining the Navy the recruiter I was talking to asked me about that. When I said I was a trifle asthmatic, he informed me that ANY admission to being asthmatic to any degree was an automatic disqualification. Then he said, "Now that I've made that clear, we're going to pretend we did not have the previous discussion. It never happened. I am now asking you for the FIRST time, have you ever had asthma ... that you know of?" My answer? "No !" Of course. I already knew to what degree I had it, and that I could cope with it without prescription meds. And knew I could do all the physical requirements that they expected of me in boot camp. I was already in a physical condition that exceeded their expectations of a graduate from basic training. As I said, the asthma was not that bad. Likewise I knew, still know, a guy who has a bad knee. Bad because he got shot in it back in Nam. They repaired it as best they could, but it gives him fits time to time. Retiring from the Navy he applied for a job for which he'd almost certainly have been disqualified if the employer knew about that knee ... but nothing else about that person. He didn't mention the knee. And as he worked that job, on those occasions where the type of work he was doing caused that knee to act up, he just lived with it. And/or popped lots of Tylenol and gritted his teeth and kept doing what was necessary. Fortunately that sort of activity is infrequent in the job he took. Occasionally necessary, most of the time not. Just my thoughts and observations.

jsbeam
jsbeam

I worked in a tech department with a guy (peer) who was a real problem. Inappropriate with females, did not have the training he claimed etc. It was determined to fire him. He saw the writing on the wall and went to HR just before his "meeting" to tell them that he had depression and was protected under ADA. Created a real mess despite good documentation. Then I worked for a guy (sales) who was bi-polar and as is sadly common, would not stay on his medication. So for 3 months we had more work than we could handle then for 6 months nothing, then three months of super busy then 6 months of nothing. That was a visible disability as far as I was concerned. Now that I hire, I am not sure what I would do if I knew.

dawgit
dawgit

Pertinent, indeed. I am disabled, at least 60%, set by law. Heart problems. As well as other minor difficulties, such as Hearing Loss, Back and Leg problems (far too many breaks), Extreme Low Blood Pressure (Hypotonie), and others... But... I still can't really give an answer to this problem. It's far too situational. Do I inform any prospective employer? Yes. But then how much of it do I revile? Again it depends on the conditions of the actual employment. I will not lie about any of it, and at the same time, I will not endanger myself or others. Tough one here. Good that you've brought it up. -d

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

It's "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam" Memories.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

So, they chose someone else. How are you going to prove that it's on account of the hard-copy disclosure of a disability? Usually there's no way to prove such a thing.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Than with disability of language, logic, and anger management. Of course, soon as you open your mouth, they'll know.

touchdown_twc
touchdown_twc

If you tell them, they will not hire you! If you don't, when they find out they will fire you, and they don't even have to tell you why!

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

The disability comes *after* the delivery!!!

gottman1
gottman1

I've recently started back to part time work per my physician's "orders". After a year of cancer treatments I will continue to take anti-cancer drugs. Chronic fatigue is one of the major side effects. When the fatigue is heavy I really can't do any work. I would not disclose this during the initail interview. I would share side effects that would affect my work as part of my acceptance of a job offer. At job offer time the company sees value in my ablilities and should know what accomodations are required.

Dukhalion
Dukhalion

I'm smart enough to decide if any of my disabilities has an effect on the work I'm supposed to do. Therefore I would not apply for a job I could not do, and I don't have to tell anything at the jobs I do apply for. (As for diabetes, there is no need to eat at definite times, there is only a need to keep the carbohydrates at a certain level. This is an issue only within the first year of getting diabetes, after that it is quite easy to maintain. In a meeting a chocolate bar or a few bisquits are sufficient to get them going. I can't think of any situation (in IT) where this would be a problem.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

If this stuff weren't required by law, it would probably be a lot cheaper...

michaellashinsky
michaellashinsky

This is not a black and white issue. You gave some good examples. Thank you for sharing them. Now lets muddy the waters a bit. The call center example: what if the call center was on the second floor? The company would not hire anyone who could not climb steps because they didn't want to put in an elevator. Or relocate the call center to the ground floor. Or even be willing to put a wheelchair bound individual at a spare desk on the ground floor because they don't like to set precedents by making exceptions for anyone for any reason? There are certainly companies that will not consider anyone not 100% able bodied for even desk jobs. To take your point of view to an extreme, what if the post office didn't want to burden the expense of putting in wheelchair ramps? Why should the tax payers have to incur a $25,000 construction bill modifying a 50 year old post office for the three people in town who are in wheel chairs? On the other hand, I know of a middle aged guy that hired on as a hand at a dude ranch. His job was to lead the horse back rides around the trail. Opening day, he walks up to the owner and says he can't work because his hemorrhoids are killing him. What a jerk! The primary responsibility of the job was horseback riding (and tending the horses.) If his 'roids are that bad, he should not have applied for the job. In my opinion, he was just stealing from the owner. It is all a matter of degree. Laws are black and white, not degrees. Anytime a good law is put in place to accommodate handicapped individuals, there will be examples where it is taken to a silly extreme, or not enforced at all. Unfortunately, common sense is a rare gift. (Frequently, so is compassion.)

father.nature
father.nature

I have a 30% hearing loss in one ear and am almost totally deaf in the other in speech frequencies. I have had this disability since I was a teenager. I had a year and a half of formal speech reading training while in college. I have never disclosed this during the hiring process despite a long, successful career in a field demanding constant interaction with others. I cannot expect or trust anyone else to understand or properly accomodate my disability, so I make my own accomodations. I long ago learned that disclosure labels me and that I'll be treated unfairly in both hiring, supervision and by my fellow employees. When my hair and beard started going grey, I dyed them because I know that the appearance of age is a disability. Of course my age is right there in my personnel package, but if I don't look or act too old I won't be treated as being too old. Right, wrong and fairness have nothing to do with it - enlightenment is never part of anybody's job description.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

I should probably say you should always be willing to hire the disabled. But--to me I shouldn't expect an employer to have to made so much accommodation for me. If my disability were to have a negative impact on the company, I would expect some resentment from co-workers and management to be only human, and nobody should be superhuman for my sake. It's not so much a matter of being able to pull your own weight, because an employee is asked to pull *more* that that. Otherwise, the company is spinning its wheels just to give me employment. The objective is to make a profit.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

Having tried it myself, I know that striking and holding an arc requires a great deal of skill and steady hands, something I just don't have. So if a guy is going to have a seizure due to a strobe effect, how could he have become a welder?

zentross
zentross

That is the responsible thing to do and, since you're looking for part time work and they already see value in bringing you to interview there a reasonable person should look past the medical issue. As an aside, I can assure you that the feeling of being able to move mountains will rear its head within about a month of ending treatments. Towards the end, it is more the drugs that are bringing you down as the mutant cells are near non-existent.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

But if you find so "easy to maintain" and "only an issue within the first year of getting diabetes" I question your original diagnosis. Many doctors will find one high bG test will declare you diabetic, and some will do a so - called "glucose tolerance test" where they check your bG an hour or so after a meal (any meal). This is bogus (been there). A real GTT is much more complicated.

ultimitloozer
ultimitloozer

should have been researched before you posted your comments. After about 10 seconds on Google (or Bing or Yahoo! or whatever) you would have had plenty of links to legitimate information about the disease to use in your remarks. That way, it would have been possible for you to at least sound somewhat intelligent...

Rick S._z
Rick S._z

"Quite easy to maintain"? First of all, if you think that a chocolate bar raises bG quickly, then you're an idiot. Second: if you think that "keeping carbohydrates at a certain level" is the same thing as keeping bG at a certain level, then you're an idiot. Third: If you think that there's no need for insulin-dependent persons to eat specific amounts of foods within critical time limits, then you're an idiot. And finally, if you think that Diabetes becomes "easy" to manage after one year, you're an idiot. (As the years go by, it usually becomes more difficult.) Every single thing which you said is WRONG. You may be "smart enough" for some things, but on this subject, you have the brains of a rock. You have written as a complete idiot.

masonm
masonm

I agree that it's not "black and white" to a certain degree. In the case of stairs vs. ramps, I actually think it isn't really an issue. Ramps don't inherently cost more than stairs, and even in an existing building, you will need to replace/repair the stars eventually. So building a ramp isn't REALLY an expense. You are just replacing ONE form of navigating an incline with another. Another real world example. I have helped numerous employees (and now students) with vision problems by installing magnification software for them to use. (SourceForge has some really good free apps for this) I didn't mind installing the software, and it didn't really "cost" the company (or school) anything (other than a small amount of my time). The point I am making is that I was happy to do that because I am a nice guy and it wasn't a major expense. I did it voluntarily because it was not an extreme need. My concern is that once you make this a legal "right" where do you stop? We have already seen the effect this has had on most government funded institutions. I work for a school now, and we are legally REQUIRED to have at least 2 computers per classroom with special (read expensive) hardware and software for students with vision problems and/or fine motor skill problems. The problem I have with this is NOT helping students with special needs, my problem is that we have to buy this crap regardless of whether or not we HAVE special needs students. It is a typical example of foolish government regulations that cost the taxpayers money just so some bleeding hearts can feel good about themselves. This is especially frustrating when we have ALWAYS accommodated students with disabilities anyway. The difference is we didn't buy a bunch of stuff we didn't need, we bought minimal equipment and then deployed it to the classes with the students who needed it.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

But astounding what disabilities should be known, but aren't. The Navy tested my hearing five ways from Sunday and sent me to sonar school. I made STG2 before I was mustered out in Johnson's "reduction in authorized strength". I pinged for submarines on a rescue vessel with ancient equipment most of my hitch as the only sonarman aboard. Nobody knew I had had bad tinnitus since I was eight years old.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Does HAL. He recently mentioned "space welding" in one of his posts. I'm sure he was referring to a phenomenon experienced in orbit. That's when metallic items, with suitable surfaces, "stick" together upon touching. They literally "weld". There is little or no intervening atmosphere between the items to interfere with inter-atomic attraction. That's all welding is: atomic and molecular intermixing. Some methods are gross, like stick welding, and others are sublime, like space welding.

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

to realize how far out of touch I am with it, Especially considering my dad taught industrial electronics at the same school I went to. He didn't weld, either, but he stayed up on the processes.

santeewelding
santeewelding

As, as, I'm, I'm aware of, of, of. (There are dozens of welding processes in which no arc is employed, [b]becabill[/b]. The manual process you are referring to, SMAW -- Shielded Metal Arc Welding, or, "stick welding", has been steadily falling by the wayside in favor of automated arc initiation, motherboards in the power unit and all.)

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

He often steps on the backs of the innocent. The problem is, for everyone who wants to do the right thing there is at least one who will only do it at gunpoint. Therefore we all wind up doing the right thing for the wrong reason--to comply with the law.

kevin.bowie
kevin.bowie

You have valid points, but you seem to be a nice reasonable guy and not everyone is. There are those bad apples out there that don't want to be bothered with the extra time and or expense required to make accommodations for those needing it. The government regulations are there to force the issue. Unfortunately the regulations are not always as smart as they could be. You just have to take the good with the bad.

Editor's Picks