Sexually Disabled

July 23, 2008 / 3:02 pm • By Dr. Melissa Clouthier

You cannot be discriminated against when looking for a job if you’re sexually disabled (via Rorschach):

A South Carolina breast-cancer survivor has beaten the State Department and convinced judges in Washington that the inability to have sex is a disability protected under federal anti-discrimination laws.

I’m not exactly sure how being “sexually disabled” would interfere with a job at the State Department. Actually, this is how:

Adams was a candidate for the Foreign Service and was well on her way to placement, having passed the exams and the medical clearance requirements. Following the medical clearance that qualified her for placement anywhere in the service, Adams was diagnosed with and apparently successfully treated for breast cancer. She did not tell the agency about this development until it had pretty much finished processing her application and was about to place her. When finally told, the agency expressed concern, requested information from Adams’ treating physician, reviewed her medical situation, and eventually concluded that she was no longer medically qualified for the Foreign Service.

Adams’ doctor reported that she was “cancer-free” with no medical restrictions on her activities, and that all she needed by way of treatment was a daily dose of medication and a twice a year exam. The agency was concerned that it did not have the facilities or personnel at its overseas posts qualified to treat Adams’ disease should she have a recurrence. Denial of the medical clearance meant that she could not be posted.

But that’s not really the point of the woman’s Disabilities complaint and the Justice who dissents notes this:

The dissent filed by Justice Karen LeCraft Henderson takes strong issue with the notion that the government is to be held accountable for disability discrimination under these circumstances. How can the government be held accountable for discrimination, she argues, when the major life activity that is supposedly impaired is sexual activity—something the government has no business inquiring into or knowing? Besides, Adams did not mention this impairment until long after the alleged acts of discrimination by the government. Justice Henderson points out that the statute defines an “individual with a disability” as someone with an “impairment” that “substantially limits” a “major life function” or “is regarded as having such an impairment.” (Dissent p. 2) How, she asks, can the government have regarded Adams as having a sexual activity impairment when it had no way to legally inquire into such matters and Adams had not mentioned such an impairment “until long after the fact” of the alleged discrimination? Justice Henderson states that Adams first mentioned her sexual activity impairment in her amended complaint in district court, some 15 months after the alleged discriminatory acts. And, when she mentioned it she referred to it as a “current impairment only.” (Dissent p. 3)

Good grief, I’m no lawyer, but this seems to be opening a serious can of worms. How exactly is an employer going to know about sexual impairment when it can’t be asked about? So how can someone be discriminated against in these circumstances? Shall an interviewer have sex with a candidate and then not hire him or her because of sexual performance? And now, that would be discrimination.

Sexual disability: they’re the most discriminated against minority in America–no one knew they existed.

Posted in Uncategorized

  • Ken

    That’s because these days the only allowed sexual behavior is horndog indulgence. “Virgin” is a cussword, and Virginity and Abstinence are horrible perversions that must be stamped out at all costs. Given that, would anyone admit to being “sexually disabled”?

    Ever seen a virgin get outed?

    P.S. What does your sexual abilities (or proclivities) have to do with job discrimination? What type of job requires THAT as a job skill? (Wait a minute; I have an answer…)

  • wayne

    So, where does being dead fall in this “ruling”. Suppose I suffer a 100% “major life activity” disability. Can I still be placed by the Foreign Service. I know I could still vote !

  • http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/ Rorschach

    I could see someone inquiring as to sexual performance ability if one were say hiring for a brothel in Nevada. That WOULD be a job duty for a whore after all. And I could see the court ruling that failing to hire her in that basis to be suspect since she CAN have sex, she merely does not enjoy it or derives any pleasure from it. but that is fundamentally different from being physiologically incapable of the act. after all, most whores derive no pleasure from it either and merely act as if they do. So a “reasonable accommodation” could be made (supplying plenty of KY for instance) by the employer in order to employ her in that capacity.

    But an FSO? You gotta be kidding me. I’ve heard the phrase that “international relations” consists of one country screwing another, but I don’t think they meant literally.

  • Rignerd

    What a lawyer!!!
    I think that just this one misdirect is worth the whole fee.
    She has cancer that might come back and she is trying to get into the foreign service where they cannot guarantee treatment facilities. So she will most likely be reassigned stateside where they can keep her from dying. Low probability of living through foreign duty should mean no job for you. If she had cancer of the pancreas it would have been the same. But since it is on the breasts (not a sex organ, maybe sex toys) then they can claim sexual discrimination.

    Not to allow the misdirection to perpetuate. I thought that sexual discrimination was sexual orientation, not performance. Otherwise we would have had ambassador John Holmes at the UN and Linda Lovelace holding down the embassy in Paris.

    As far as being disabled, I don’t think that missing breasts is a disability unless she is applying to the performance based ambassadorship program (where?). But failing to keep your employer aware of your changing health status is grounds for dismissal. Many professions have health requirements (pilots get flight physicals, even hair dressers have to get tested for TB)

    I guess the worst part is that at least one Federal Judge bought into it hook line and sinker.

  • http://redinktexas.blogspot.com Rorschach

    Rignerd, it went beyond merely mastectomy as I understand it. I understand she lost both ovaries and possibly her uterus as well from the radiation treatment. Apparently it had metastasized fairly widely. And that sort of cancer is generally sensitive to estrogen which makes it grow like mad, so she can’t undergo HRT either. She is essentially postmenopausal. So I can see where she would not be interested in sex. but again, so what?