Boss, I Need an Accommodation for My Sex Life

I was doing some research on the new Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA) the other day and concluded that it's really open to wide-ranging interpretation--and abuse.

Under the original Americans With Disabilities (ADA) Act of 1990, the definition of disability hinged--as it still does in the ADAAA--on the definition of "substantially limits a major life activity." The courts, however, kept whittling down these qualifying life activities to the point at which Congress felt the ADA had been gutted, so it authored the ADAAA in 2008. The law took effect Jan. 1, 2009.

The ADAAA seeks to restore the open nature of "major life activity" and lists a whole slew of such activities, including walking, sleeping, thinking, concentrating, and so on. It then adds a new category, "operation of major bodily functions," to the list. Within this category are things like digestion, respiration, bowel movements and etc. The last one, "reproductive functions," really got me thinking.

Could a guy having trouble scoring with women claim a disability under this category?

"Boss, I haven't had any in months. I think my work is interfering with my reproductive functions."

Boss: "Say what?"

"You know, I need a reasonable accommodation for my sex life."

"And what would that be?"

"Let's start with telecommuting."

"But you're a stock room handler."

"Then hire some babes to work with me and give us a long lunch break."

"Right. Tell ya what, Joe. Stop by my office later, and I'll give you a reasonable accommodation with a generous severance package."

"You'll be hearing from my lawyer."

Would Joe prevail in his lawsuit? My guess is not, but anything can happen in court these days. It would be fun to find out at any rate.

President to Sign Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Today

No doubt emblematic of his entire time in office, President Barack Obama will sign his first piece of legislation today--a labor law that overturns a Bush-era Supreme Court decision.

Lilly Ledbetter, who was the subject of that Supreme Court ruling, will be there when Obama inks the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law.

The legislation reverses the court's decision in the Ledbetter case that the 180-day statute of limitations on pay discrimination cases starts ticking when the initial decision is made to pay unfairly. The Fair Pay Act amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act and mandates that the statute starts ticking again every time a paycheck is issued to the victim.

(Pay discrimination is defined as an employee's being paid less for the substantially same job and same set of job responsibilities, figuring in length of service, etc., based on age, race, gender and factors besides experience.)

Opponents fear that this will just open up the spigot for lawyers to march an endless stream of employees into court and win two years of backwardly adjusted pay.

They're probably right.

N.B.: Catch this, the law is worded to "take effect as if enacted on May 28, 2007." This is curious for a couple of reasons. First, I believe there's a Constitutional ban on ex post facto laws (backdated laws), and this date is one day before the Supreme Court heard the Ledbetter case. Evidently, it's been so written to enable Lilly to go back to the Supreme Court and reopen her case. If so, I hope the court rules that the start date is unconstitutional.