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.