Is Sex a "Major Life Activity"?

[Michael]

Is Sex a "Major Life Activity"? Why a Claim of Disability Discrimination Turns on the Answer to this Question.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held, in Adams v. Rice, that for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act, sex constitutes a “major life activity.” One of the issues that this ruling highlights is the odd relationship between the part of the law that prohibits disability discrimination and the part that defines plaintiffs’ membership in the category of disabled individuals.

Read More (http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/colb/20080806.html)

I find these kinds of issues very interesting as they seem to depend upon our definition of 'rights' and particular definitions of 'normal'.

[Michael]

Some recovered posts to this thread...

Is sex a "major life activity"?
Well I'd like it to be. Does that count?

Is sex a "major life activity"?
Well, it depends for whom of course ...

I voted Yes though ... It seems quite obvious.

All humor aside, I think the question is more specific to the legal issues here.

For example, losing one's penis in a 'botched' medical operation is certainly different than losing one's finger in a similar situation. Loss of the former clearly would constitute a significant 'diminishment' of life activity, while the loss of a single finger might be somewhat less of a 'diminishment' in comparison.

This would affect the amount of 'compensation' that might be due from insurance or lawsuits. Now this example might sound rather 'obvious', but I'm thinking that this whole idea is potentially quite likely to be a 'slippery slope' kind of a thing with vibrators, inflatable dolls and viagra prescriptions (or X prescriptions!) all being covered by health insurance plans, not to mention potential 'disability' status.

Oh man....I sense a lot of money getting dolled out to basement dwellers surrounded by gooey misused socks and role-playing game parephenillia, with cries of "My cheese puff grease-induced acne and 'heriditary' obesity are hindering my rights!!"

Ooh, there's your slippery slope That's why I'd be against this, I don't think there's many things to stop the slide down. How do you draw the line there, of what makes it physically impossible for you to have sex, and how do you prove it? I.e. Athsma(sp?), Someone who's 500 pounds. (I'm imagining some scarring court demonstrations) When it comes to this, there is another rather ambigious partner involved (the rest of the sexually active or potentially sexually active population of the world.) Their willingness or unwilingness is a factor, and impossible to determine.

[Multiplum]

Procreation being essential for all species, it's hard to say no.

It's unnatural to abstain from sex in general. Throughout evolution, we have evolved to receive pleasure from sex, and we've been given strong urges for the sake of procreation. If it's good, get on with it.

[The Aussie]

Next step for all the forum members is to graduate to women.
This is what they look like in Australia.

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn101/Pictures77_2008/Gasp.jpg

[Americano]

.....Bimbos?

[The Aussie]

.....Bimbos?

No, this is a living creature that takes the place of a hand. They are very expensive but worth every cent. Members here are advised to begin saving immediately.

[drgoodtrips]

You're saying that Australian women are prostitutes whose purpose is to prevent Australian men from having to jack off? I'm sure some of them might take offense, though your attitude toward your country-women is certainly amusing to me.

[Americano]

No, this is a living creature that takes the place of a hand. They are very expensive but worth every cent. Members here are advised to begin saving immediately.

You pay for that in Australia? It's free here.

[The Aussie]

As I have been welcomed here to the forum by everyone I feel that I want to do something in return for everyone.
And I have it. As you all spend so much time here and it must be a nuisance to leave your keyboard and reach for a copy of Playboy or something, I propose that we have pics here for you to look at where you can all jack off without leaving the forum.
Here is one to get started. Remember no porn or nudity.


http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn101/Pictures77_2008/Example.jpg

[partofme]

As I have been welcomed here to the forum by everyone I feel that I want to do something in return for everyone.
And I have it. As you all spend so much time here and it must be a nuisance to leave your keyboard and reach for a copy of Playboy or something, I propose that we have pics here for you to look at where you can all jack off without leaving the forum.
Here is one to get started. Remember no porn or nudity.


http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn101/Pictures77_2008/Example.jpg

That should make welcoming new female members to the forum easy knowing that they use the place to jerk off like a teenager that just discovered the internet.

[Sucre]

You pay for that in Australia? It's free here.
L:rofl:OL (good answer ;-))

[Sucre]

I am truely astounded that some posters may have answered No or may have Hesitated to what appeares to me to be a very straightforward question.

Sorry to be such a bore by interrupting the posting of such beautiful girls, but I would be very interested to read from the posters here why Sex would not constitute a major life activity...

[Donkey]

I am truely astounded that some posters may have answered No or may have Hesitated to what appeares to me to be a very straightforward question.

Sorry to be such a bore by interrupting the posting of such beautiful girls, but I would be very interested to read from the posters here why Sex would not constitute a major life activity...
Depends on if you're getting any...

[Americano]

I am truely astounded that some posters may have answered No or may have Hesitated to what appeares to me to be a very straightforward question.

Sorry to be such a bore by interrupting the posting of such beautiful girls, but I would be very interested to read from the posters here why Sex would not constitute a major life activity...

Beautiful? The first was pure bimbo and the second looked like she was stood up at the alter, for good reason.

[Sucre]

Depends on if you're getting any...
The question was not a personal question ...

[Sucre]

Beautiful? The first was pure bimbo and the second looked like she was stood up at the alter, for good reason.
;) This was meant ironically

[Donkey]

The question was not a personal question ...
I know, but I think the answer is.

[Dominick]

I am truely astounded that some posters may have answered No or may have Hesitated to what appeares to me to be a very straightforward question.

Sorry to be such a bore by interrupting the posting of such beautiful girls, but I would be very interested to read from the posters here why Sex would not constitute a major life activity...
If I remember correctly, the original question was asked in a specific legal context. A woman was disqualified from the Foreign Office (don't really know what that is, but passons) and to fight her dismissal had to constitute :


It is peculiar that under the federal law barring discrimination on the basis of disability, it is somehow necessary for Adams to prove not only that she had a record of cancer on the basis of which the State Department discriminated against her but also that the cancer (or its treatment) destroyed her sex life. Why should the impact of the cancer on Adams’s sexuality have any bearing on whether the State Department unlawfully discriminated against her when it disqualified her from the Foreign Service on the basis of her status as a cancer survivor?

The answer lies in the fact that the law barring disability discrimination protects only those who suffer from an existing or historical impairment (or a perceived impairment) that has a very significant impact on the individual’s major activities. It is not enough, in other words, to experience or to have experienced an impairment. The impairment must have concretely diminished the quality of the person’s life in some concrete way.
I voted Yes by the way, even if it were just in this particular legal context.

[Sucre]

So the poll is limited to a legal question ?

It does raise a more general one, although, as mentioned, I believe that the answer is quite straightforward.

[SMadsen]

So the poll is limited to a legal question ?

It does raise a more general one, although, as mentioned, I believe that the answer is quite straightforward.
Can I ask, what is the straightforward answer?

I think it's a complex question. In my opinion, having no sex life can indeed diminish the quality of a person’s life, all depending on circumstances, but it is not disability or impairment in a legal sense.

[phungus420]

I know that in emergency medicine genital injury falls under the "life limb or eyesight" catagory. Ie, medically speaking if you are at risk of loosing "life, limb, eyesight, or sexual function" it is the top tier of triage and you are rushed to the front of the line in emergency situations. So at least from a medical perspective, the answer is considered yes.

[SMadsen]

I know that in emergency medicine genital injury falls under the "life limb or eyesight" catagory. Ie, medically speaking if you are at risk of loosing "life, limb, eyesight, or sexual function" it is the top tier of triage and you are rushed to the front of the line in emergency situations. So at least from a medical perspective, the answer is considered yes.
Ouch! I would say yes to that as well. Without hesitation.

[Michael]

So the poll is limited to a legal question ?
I framed the poll question generally as a "legal question", though not necessarily limited to the precise case of the cited news article.

My reason being that to ask the question in a general sense is totally meaningless - of course sex is a major life activity given that so many people do it so often. Walking is a major activity of life, likewise is watching television. This doesn't mean anything.

I'm much more interested in the larger issue of the general legal status vis-a-vis medical disability pensions or related issues.

[Sucre]

Either in a medical or strictly legal situation, the answer should be based on real life, no ?

If sex is not a major life activity in general, why would it be one in a legal situation or in a medical situation ? :ummm:

[SMadsen]

Either in a medical or strictly legal situation, the answer should be based on real life, no ?

If sex is not a major life activity in general, why would it be one in a legal situation or in a medical situation ? :ummm:
Here's how I understand the case. A woman applies for a position within a federal agency. The agency has a policy that requires medical clearance as applicants are required to meet some fitness standards required by the nature of the jobs.

She passes the medical clearance but only before she gets diagnosed with breast cancer. This makes the agency revoke her medical clearance and that disqualifies her from the agency. Since she has already gotten successful treatment, though, she feels discriminated against. *)

However, USA doesn't have general discrimination laws to "protect against arbitrary and irrational discrimination". So the woman uses the Rehabilitation Act that says that a federal agency can't discriminate against disabled individuals. But for that to work, the plaintiff has to actually show a disability, not 'merely' a medical condition (which she didn't actually have since the treatment was succesfull, and, besides, it is the aim of the suit to show that her medical clearance shouldn't be revoked in the first place).

This little twist results in the claim that the breast cancer ruined her sex life. That's the disability she claims in order to label herself a victim of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act. Justifiable or not, she has to claim a disability in order to proceed with the suit.

I voted no in this poll because, firstly, I don't think that lacking a sex life is a disability (it could actually label catholic priests as disabled, or in the terminology of cases such as this, as victims, or, in the uttermost consequence, a pedophile a victim if he claims to only be able to have a sex life around kids) and, secondly, because it's the law that is at fault here for creating extraneous claims.


*) Don't know why, though, since, according to their website (http://careers.state.gov/officer/faqs.html#Med), an agency like the U.S. Foreign Service requires a 10 year plan for breast cancers survivors before being able to issue standard medical clearances.

[Sucre]

Yes, I understand that. Yet the question was not "Is lacking sex life a disability" but "Is Sex a major life activity ?"

The case as reported mixes up the two which leads to two straightforward questions ;) becomimg complicated. (What I mean by straightforward is "easy to answer".)

You can answer no the first question while you answered yes to the second. I would have done that if the poll had been conceived that way.

You need to read the case this way (in bold quoted from the article) :

1) Under the Rehabilitation Act, federal agencies may not discriminate in employment against disabled individuals.

Adam must therefore prove that she is disabled in order to claim discrimination.

2) the Rehabilitation Act defines a disabled individual as one who suffers from a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of that individual’s major life activities.

The physical impairment is her cancer.
And this physical impairment will limit this major life activity which is SEX.

The Judge has several questions to answer going backward from my short presentation.

1 question. Is Sex a major life activity ?
If the answer is No --- > Plaintiff has no basis to his claim
If the answer is Yes --- > Go to question 2.
2 question. Is cancer a physical impairment which will have an effect on Sex life (strongly limiting it or leading to a lack of sexual activity) ?
If the answer is No --- > Plaintiff has no basis to his claim
If the answer is Yes --- > Go to question 3.
3 question. Is lack of sex life a disability i.e do individuals who lack sex life qualify as disabled.

There is a nuance in the two propositions of question 3. but they are logically bound. If you answer Yes to the first proposition, it will imply the second proposition and vice versa.

[SMadsen]

Yes, I understand that. Yet the question was not "Is lacking sex life a disability" but "Is Sex a major life activity ?"

The case as reported mixes up the two which leads to two straightforward questions ;) becomimg complicated. (What I mean by straightforward is "easy to answer".)

You can answer no the first question while you answered yes to the second. I would have done that if the poll had been conceived that way.

You need to read the case this way (in bold quoted from the article) :

1) Under the Rehabilitation Act, federal agencies may not discriminate in employment against disabled individuals.

Adam must therefore prove that she is disabled in order to claim discrimination.

2) the Rehabilitation Act defines a disabled individual as one who suffers from a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of that individual’s major life activities.

The physical impairment is her cancer.
And this physical impairment will limit this major life activity which is SEX.

The Judge has several questions to answer going backward from my short presentation.

1 question. Is Sex a major life activity ?
If the answer is No --- > Plaintiff has no basis to his claim
If the answer is Yes --- > Go to question 2.
2 question. Is cancer a physical impairment which will have an effect on Sex life (strongly limiting it or leading to a lack of sexual activity) ?
If the answer is No --- > Plaintiff has no basis to his claim
If the answer is Yes --- > Go to question 3.
3 question. Is lack of sex life a disability i.e do individuals who lack sex life qualify as disabled.

There is a nuance in the two propositions of question 3. but they are logically bound. If you answer Yes to the first proposition, it will imply the second proposition and vice versa.
I don't read it that way (referring to the red text above). I read it as if the physical or mental impairment is the effects of the now succesfully treated cancer, namely loss of her sex life. Not the cancer in itself.

If the impairment is her cancer then it will justify the agency's revokation of her medical clearance.

The argument is therefore that the cancer is over and done with - thereby approving her for medical clearance, or, in other words, justifying a claim of discrimination on the basis that the medical clearance should not be revoked. But first she has to show an impairment that is not the cancer but a result of the cancer.

So the 2nd question is not valid. There is no cancer left. Only the effects. Which is a loss of her sex life. Which, again, if considered a major life activity according to the first question, is an impairment that substantially limits one or more of that individual’s major life activities. Which, again again, is a valid argument for claiming discrimination under the Rehabiliation Act.

[Sucre]

Yes, you are right. I missed this part : her cancer is done with, but she is left with a lack of sexual activity as a consequence of her illness. It is this lack of sexual activity which constitutes the "physical impairement" and so, the logic goes, it is a physical impairement because sex constitutes a major life activity ?

The question that needs to be answered is therefore (instead of 2. and 3. in my first presentation) :
"Is Sex a Major Life Activity ?"
in order to establish whether she is impaired, speak disabled, or not.

However, I see that only as a legal trick i.e a logical trick - precisely because the original question is a very straightforward question with an obvious answer, simply asked within this context it may lead to the wrong conclusion.

It now looks this way :

1 question. Is Sex a major life activity ?
If the answer is No --- > Plaintiff has no basis to his claim
If the answer is YES --- > Go to question 2.
(new) 2 question. Is lack of sex life a "physical impairement" i.e do individuals who lack sex life qualify as disabled ?
If the answer is No --- > Plaintiff has no basis to his claim although the answer to question 1. was YES.

It is possible to answer Yes to the question, following good sense, and yet rebuck the claim.