I’m in Philadelphia right now live blogging at a town hall meeting run by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The main item on the agenda is making life better for workers with disabilities.

EEOC officials are going around the country in an effort to explain how new rules will impact the Americans With Disabilities Act. There will be a broadening of what the word disabled means and it could impact many of you.

Here’s a Q&A on the changes.

Take a moment to read it and then, if you have any question, especially if you have questions for the bigwigs over at the EEOC, email me ASAP and I’ll try to ask those questions of officials now. (My email is telleve@gmail.com)

LIVE BLOGGING NOW:

I’m listening to testimony now from lawyers who represent employers, disabled advocates, and employers about their reservations, questions and hopes for the new ADA rules.

Some interesting points thusfar:

An attorney who represents employers brought up a key concern: If an employee is fired or disciplined because of insubordination will the employer potentially face a disability claim under the ADA?

Why I find this interesting is this could be a safety issue for employees over all. I have heard many times that workers are fired, or a reprimanded for doing things like acting out, threatening other employees, or becoming physical with other workers. That’s a good thing. Everyone wants to be safe at work. But if employers suddenly feel timid about getting rid of workers who pose a threat, that’s not a good thing for anyone.

The EEOC officials did not comment on this concern, and won’t be commenting on things like this during the testimonies. They are here mainly to listen and ask questions, all in an effort to have as much public input before they put the final regulations on the amendment out there.

Many of the disabled advocates are looking to ensure that employees with a host of disabilities are covered.

An official from the Epilepsy Foundation wanted to make clear that all seizures that result from the disorder “substantially limit bodily functions.”

The key here is disabilities covered under the new rules and how those disabilities impact the things you do everyday. If a disability limits key bodily functions, one or more, employees with an expanded list of disabilities could be covered.

The changes largely emphasize “that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.”

Under the Americans With Disabilities Act the law is pretty clear on those easy to spot disabilities. You can’t fire someone because they’re blind or unable to walk.

For all those other disabled employees out there who have what seems like less constraining physical issues or for those who are able to deal with their ailments through the use of medicines or prosthetics, for example, they are not typically covered under the ADA.

This will change under the new rules.

* An impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, performance of a major life activity to be “substantially limiting.”
* Disability “shall be construed in favor of broad coverage” and “should not require extensive analysis.”
* An individual’s ability to perform a major life activity is compared to “most people in the general population,” often using a common-sense analysis without scientific or medical evidence.
* An impairment need not substantially limit more than one major life activity.

So potentially, people who take medicine to control epilepsy, diabetes or cancer or use prosthetic limbs or hearing aids, for example, could now use the ADA to fight discrimination they face in the workplace.

There’s a cordial mood among the attendees and it’s a great thing to see. Everyone seems to have the best interest of workers in mind when it comes to helping disabled workers maintain a secure, good working life.

But on the ground, at the nation’s workplaces is where the disconnect seems to happen.

New rules to beef of the ADA is a good idea, but the complaints filed with the EEOC concerning disability discrimination have jumped considerable from 2007 to 2008. (And the jobless rate among the disabled is horribly high.) It makes me wonder whether adding new rules at a time when many employers don’t adhere to the old rules makes sense.

Maybe beefing up enforcement right now is the thing to do. I’ll ask the acting EEOC commissioner this question in a bit.

I got a one on one with EEOC Acting Commissioner Stuart Ishimaru in between speakers.

*On the issue of adding enhancing enforcement: While he agreed enforcement was important, and he pointed out his agency has added 250 employees to its 2,500 total workforce, he believed the amendments to the ADA would go a long way in helping individuals who feel they’ve been discriminated against for being disabled. When the ADA was passed there was a broader focus on whether discrimination was happening, but the focus turned to whether a person was disabled or not, he said. The amendments, he added, “shift the focus back to ‘has there been discrimination here.’”

*Many legal experts on the employer side predict a flood of litigation as a result of the new rules: “I don’t buy that,” he said. “What we’re trying to do here is get better and bigger cases brought in to address systemic issues.”

* On claims that employer will not be able to fire workers for insubordination, or they’ll have to keep employees that could not perform: Ishimaru scoffed at that. “The laws aren’t intended to protect workers who can’t do that job,” he said. The issues is, “can the person get reasonable accommodations.”

* What are the biggest issues among employers and employees? “The biggest concern from people is clarity,” he said, adding that employers and employees want to know exactly how the changes will work and what they’ll mean. And that’s why he and his staff are traveling around the country, so they can get feedback and craft the regulations accordingly.

There are many areas the EEOC is trying to figure out as we speak. An individual from an autism organization asked about personality tests given to job candidates today. Many of these exams may be biased against people with autism. Another attorney brought up the issue of whether an employee who was bipolar but refused to take medications would still be protected under the new rules.

Both these issues, among many more, Ishimaru said, need to be reviewed and addressed in the ultimate framework his agency comes up with.

That means there is lots of room for input from people like you. The EEOC continues town hall meetings in other towns. Here’s a link to the schedule if you want to attend. You can also email your thoughts to the EEOC, or write a comment here and I’ll try and bring it up in my future discussion with officials at the commission.

Bottom line, your voices need to be heard.

The most eloquent thought came form Phyllis Feiner Johnson from the Epilepsy Foundation regarding the coming changes and how they will impact disabled workers:

“The true test is getting people on the job and staying on the job.”