#basically none of them hire disabled people and i have disabilities that REQUIRE accommodations

[chitin-crusader]

kindof losing my mind bc uhhhh. how am i supposed to like. afford to live.

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

Good morning Ralph! I’m an attorney in the US and I saw your anon asking about the legality of vaccine requirements set by artists. I can shed some light, though probably not much and I’m going to do that annoying thing that lawyers do where we say “well it depends!” and refuse to give anyone any solid answers. But that’s really, truly, honestly, cross my heart hope to die, because in the case of the legality of vaccine requirements it does depend on a lot of different factors and we don’t have very many solid answers. This is not something anyone has ever really had to deal with before, the legal system looks to past precedent when deciding how to handle current issues, and there just isn’t much of that here. As a kind of general rule, though, the baseline we start from is the idea that private entities are free to require basically whatever they want as a prerequisite to service, and consumers are free to choose not to patronize those entities if they don’t like the requirements. An important thing to remember, that I think a lot of people tend to forget - all those handy rights the US constitution affords its citizens only apply to the government. There are limited exceptions - the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are two of the biggest examples. But, so long as they’re complying with the guidelines provided by those limited exceptions, private entities can and always have been able to do pretty much whatever they want.

Now, vaccines are an interesting question because you start to get cross over into other issues - the right to privacy, bodily autonomy, “compulsory” disclosure of personal medical information, etc. If the question was “can an artist require me to wear a mask at his concert even though wearing a mask wasn’t required at the time I bought my ticket” the answer would unequivocally be yes. Artists and venues can (and do!) require all sorts of things for entry - you have to have a ticket, you have to submit to a bag search and go through a metal detector, you’re generally required to be wearing shoes and pants and a shirt. Masks absolutely can be added as a requirement, at any time, and whether or not it was a requirement that you reasonably could have anticipated when you bought the ticket doesn’t matter. But vaccines feel a little different, and admittedly they are. A mask is, in essence, a piece of clothing for your face. You wear it for a few hours, you take it off, you go about your life. It’s a temporary measure. Vaccines are not. A vaccine is a medical treatment, once you’ve gotten it you can’t “take it off” or decide you don’t want it anymore. It just feels like there should be a higher level of scrutiny than just “if you don’t like the requirement don’t support the entity.” But there really isn’t. That old idea that a private entity can set pretty much whatever rules and restrictions for access to and use of their private property stands. That tenant is arguably strengthened when the issue involves public health risks, because an employer has a duty to protect their employees and customers.

The EEOC ruled in May that companies can legally require their employees to be vaccinated. There are no federal laws preventing an employer from requiring employees to provide proof of vaccination, that information just has to be kept confidential. If there is a disability or sincerely held religious belief preventing an employee from being vaccinated they are entitled to a “reasonable accommodation” that does not pose an “undue burden” on the business. This isn’t a 1:1 comparison to your anon’s question about whether or not artists can require vaccination of concert attendees, but it is really useful guidance, because it’s a statement about what is and isn’t appropriate re: vaccine requirements straight from the mouth of one of the biggest federal players in the game. If, for example, a bunch of maroon five fans decided to sue the ban for their vaccine requirements, the EEOC decision is something judges and lawyers would look at in evaluating the suit.

HIPAA is the big one that a lot of people like to cite as protecting them from being asked about vaccination status by businesses or employers, but that’s just entirely untrue. HIPAA prevents a specific list of entities - doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc. - from disclosing medical data about a patient in their care. Event venues, artists, employers - none of them fall into the category of a “covered entity” that has to abide by HIPAA requirements. And even then, there’s an argument to be made that HIPAA still wouldn’t prevent them from asking if you’re vaccinated and refusing you entry if you’re not, just that they can’t turn around and tell someone else what your vaccination status is.

So on a high level the answer is yes, artists can absolutely require vaccination of concert attendees. Full stop.

But that’s only taking into account federal laws. There are state laws at play too, and those are absolute mess. It feels like each state is handling their approach to vaccine requirements differently, and a lot of them conflict with the federal laws at play. While in theory federal laws should trump state laws, that’s not really true in practice, and a lot of people who are much smarter than me are still struggling with how to navigate that maze, so I’m not going to bother adding my two cents about how I think it should go. From a fact based standpoint, though, know that state laws are an issue and add even more “it depends on ____” factors to our already uncertain analysis. Texas, Arkansas, and Florida, for example, all have laws prohibiting businesses and governmental entities from requiring digital proof of vaccination. Whether or not these laws will withstand judicial scrutiny in the places they conflict with federal law remains tbd, but as it stands now an artist playing a show in Texas couldn’t require vaccines for entry to that show. But if their tour stop is, say, Indiana, they could require vaccines there, because Indiana state law only prevents governmental and quasi-governmental entities (schools) from requiring vaccines. Private entities can do whatever they want.

The final thing I want to touch on is your anon’s concern that the vaccine requirement wasn’t in place when the tickets were originally bought. It doesn’t matter. If the question is “can an artist require vaccines” the answer is “yes” and whether or not that requirement was in place when you bought your ticket doesn’t matter. BUT! As with everything else, there are exceptions. There might be an argument that adding a vaccine requirement is a contractual violation, if we were to imagine the exchange of ticket purchase for entertainment a contract between the buyer and the artist. There’s maybe an argument that you paid for a service you’re no longer getting because the circumstances under which the service will be provided has changed so drastically. These are issues that if someone wanted answers to they’d have to hire an attorney to file a civil suit against the artist, and then see the litigation through to get a ruling from a judge. To the best of my knowledge that hasn’t been done. But even if it is is done in the future, the answer to the overarching question “can an artist require vaccines” won’t change. All that will change is the artist will be required to come up with some sort of refund scheme for those who choose not to be vaccinated.

Anyway! I didn’t mean to write an entire treatise in your inbox. I saw the anon’s question and immediately went “oh interesting! I know a little bit about that” and, as per usual, a little bit has turned into a rambling lecture that I’m not actually sure anyone will even learn anything from. At the very least it might entertain you.

Xoxo, a US attorney who really needs to go do work someone will pay her for and stop theorizing about the interplay of federal vs state laws.

Thanks anon! That's all very interesting and relevant information. It gives a really good sense of how complex the situation is and the relevant dynamics in play. And also a good sense of what the law does and doesn't cover - because there's a whole practical side of this that is largely

I'll throw in one more thought. One of my concerns about vaccine passports are the equity issues. Existing issues of access to healthcare have played out in vaccine rates and that's true of both race and class everywhere that I have looked at. I don't think vaccines can be considered meaningfullly accessible if poor people and black people aren't accessing them. In general, the best answers to that will be resourcing to take vaccines to where people are and (and the situation for native americans really undscores this) and paid sick leave. But while vaccination rates are lowest for those who face most marginalisation, restricting access to society on the basis of a vaccination is discriminatory in a serious way.

[hislittleflower-throughconcrete]

I’m gonna rant about disability services at private Catholic schools for a second

I will preface this by saying that this is my experience at both of the Catholic schools I attended growing up. If I am generalizing please correct me, let me know, but I believe this problem is pervasive in most private Catholic schools (probably not just Catholic private schools, but all private schools, but I’m not touching on that right now.)

My brother’s kindergarten teacher was the first person to identify that he had ADHD. My parents took him to the necessary doctors/professionals so see what they could do. However, the school that he (and I, as well as all of my siblings) went to only had one lady who acted as a “resource” for kids who were struggling. She was a mom, I don’t know if she had any training at all to deal with learning disabilities - I honestly think she just took kids out of class to give them extra time to practice certain reading and math skills. Because none of the teachers were trained in dealing with kids who had ADHD (let alone learning disabilities or special needs, which my brother didn’t have) there was a point where I, a 5th grader, got called out of my math class to come into his 2nd grade classroom to comfort my crying brother as the teacher said impatiently, “you deal with him.” That was when my parents decided to put him in public school because they had the resources to actually accommodate my brother.

Fast forward to high school, this time concerning myself. I was in and out of high school due to depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and an eating disorder. After the first hospitalization, I get back to school and discover that I am required to make up all of my work. All of it. At the same time as trying to complete the current work being assigned. I was so stressed and already a perfectionist that I went back tot he hospital for anxiety-induced suicidal urges directly related to being so overwhelmed with my life. This happened at least three other times - where I was hospitalized due to my inability to cope with my own deteriorating mental health on top of all of that work. My mom and I repeatedly explained this to my high school’s “school counselor” (again, not sure if this lady had any training at all, my school was notorious for hiring unqualified people just because they were good-hearted and faith-filled individuals). She and all of my teachers maintained that I must make up all of my work, months and months of tests, papers, projects, and even busywork. When we asked why this was so even though it posed a serious risk to my, ya’know, life, they said that at that present moment, too or three other students had been out “sick” for months at a time (one had mono and one had had a concussion) and if I got an exception it wasn’t fair to them. In other words: Justice, not Mercy. The fact that I could die from “some stress” never seemed to penetrate their consciousness. I distinctly remember my “guidance counselor” (as I sat in her office weeks into my summer break catching up on work from the previous year) saying off-hand when I mentioned the stress, “well, we can’t all take a vacation every time life gets too hard.”

Fast forward to college. We heard about this “disability services” thing during orientation. I looked closely at whatever pamphlet I had been handed, and it listed mental health issues as disabilities. What? My mom and I decided to check it out, saying “it would be really cool if I could have someone at this big college to talk to and goto if I am struggling with work,” thinking that that was all she could offer me - things like tutors and advice. After providing the hospital and doctor records to disability services, I find out that I qualify for extension for assignments, excused absences, extended time on tests, modified or completely excused assignments, and more, because of my mental health issues, without any professor allowed to ask me why other than “a disability-related reason.” They also appointed a disability services advocate whose job was to go to bat with my professors for me if they did not comply.

To say that we were floored would have been incorrect. I wasn’t floored. I just didn’t understand. I felt I was cheating. I didn’t even know this was allowed. How was this fair to the other students? “You have a disability, this is to allow you to do as well as someone who doesn’t have this disability.” You mean I just don’t have to suck it up and deal with my problems on my own time? I have a disability? What?

Okay. There are two points to this post. One is the obvious: Catholic schools, you are losing the opportunity for children with disabilities to be formed in the faith. Like it or not, the majority of parents and families aren’t the ones who teach the faith to their kids - either they learn it at Catholic school, or just don’t learn it at all.  I am aware this issue is heavily tied to funding, HOWEVER: disability services shouldn’t be this nifty add-on to a school, a novelty or a selling point. They should be a fundamental, integrated part of allowing students of all abilities to have the opportunity to be educated in their faith and a faith-filled environment. Parents should not have to choose, as my parents had to, between having their child grow up educated in the faith or actually being able to learn and be treated appropriately by teachers who understood him. (Yes, he still did CCD, but no, the CCD classes did not have disability-educated individuals teaching it - shocker. How much did he retain from it? A few weeks ago, he asked me what Pentecost was.) 

The second issue is more tied to my experience. You are damaging people’s perception of God and His Love. You are saying that those of disabilities - those same people Jesus healed and released from their pain and struggles in the Gospels - aren’t important enough to be accommodated using a basic section of the school’s budget. This may be controversial, but part of me thinks that a school shouldn’t exist at all if it doesn’t have the ability to accommodate children with physical, intellectual, psychological, or developmental disabilities - yes, even and especially Catholic schools. I had a severely damaged faith as a result of the attitude of my school - yaknow, the ones who taught me about God and Jesus. I graduated high school hearing about “mercy,” and hating the whole concept. I seethed every time I heard the prodigal son bible reading, because I hated the fact that the wayward son was allowed to do that without any punishment. I didn’t understand mercy and it made me angry. Everyone deserves justice, I thought, and mercy is the opposite - a hall pass for the weak and undeserving. I punished myself through self harm every time I got less than an A on a test, every time I said something stupid and felt embarrassed. The self-harming and perfectionistic inclinations were mine, but the importance of justice was fed to me by them. Self harm and suicidal ideation were listed as sins against the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” without any mention about exceptions, or what to do if you felt that way. A teacher told us that the worst sin of all - above rape and murder of children - was desecration of the Eucharist by receiving it unfaithfully. I abstained from the Eucharist for years because I couldn’t stop cutting or disordered eating behaviors, and I was in a constant state of mortal sin (I thought) so I couldn’t receive. No one on staff was educated enough on mental health disabilities to point out that saying things like eating disorders, cutting, and suicidal ideation were sins could result from an illness, a disability, that was not being addressed. I told priest after priest that those were my sins, and to be fair, most asked if I was in therapy, but only one mentioned to me that he didn’t think that my cutting was “completely” a sin, that the guilt was reduced due to “addiction.” But I quickly disregarded that comment, because I was not giving myself a free pass. God deserves Justice - the least sin in His eyes breaks the whole Law. If an action hurts someone else or hurts God, the offended party deserves justice. Not excuses for weak people. Justice, not Mercy. 

But college was also the same time I was actually introduced to having a personal relationship with Jesus. The first time I confessed to a priest who immediately said that I was so, so wrong in my understanding of who God was and what He wanted of me. He rejoiced in me. In me. His unconditional love did not excuse my sins, but heal them. His Mercy was not a free pass of pity at my weakness, but the bandages in which He used to bind up my wounds. If I had learned about Mercy before this, it was not in this way. I was taught through actions, if not the words themselves, that justice for others was worth more than mercy on me. And even now I am stunned every time I am “ given a break.” Because that’s what it feels like, bosses and professors who accommodate my disability - them being generous. Not my basic needs being met.

Love the least in the eyes of the world, Catholic schools. Do better. Don’t consider yourself inclusive after building some wheelchair ramps and asking a parish mom to come in on Wednesdays to help the kids who “just aren’t getting it.” Work with families. Hire trained staff members - plural - who are equipped to deal with a wide range of disabilities, including learning disabilities, mental health issues, autism, and Down syndrome. The souls of all children with disabilities whose parents want their child to grow to know Jesus through their schools hangs in the balance. 

@patron-saint-of-smart-asses @catholicamputee @alwaysabeautifullife @hissaltandlight @tinycatholicbean and @ all other tumbler Catholics who either have a physical/mental disability or are parents of a child with one.

[aspiestvmusings]

Random personal post

This is probably gonna turn into another long post, but before I return to regular TV & spoiler posts, I wanted to write about something that concerns many people, including myself. 

This post is about disability, disabled people, disability “laws” & aspies/aspergers/people with (”mild") autism: 

According to the “laws” (norms created by humans) about what is “normal” (what it means to be abled (able bodied, able minded) & what is not (what is seen as “handicap”), I am disabled. Yes, simply “seeing/understanding” the world differently than the majority makes me disabled. Which is both sad, and amusing. Because I don’t really consider myself as one, and if the definitions wouldn’t be as “rigid” as they are, and people would be more understanding of differences (because all humans are different), I wouldn’t have the paperwork that I have. 

I recently have thought about this..more..because it was my time to “renew” my paperwork, because (at least in most cases, even for people with missing limbs...everyone) it’s not something you “register for” once. Since humans love paperwork and bureaucracy, I have to go through the same process every X years (usually 5...it seems), and this spring was that time again. 

It made me think again how in my case, and in the case of most of the aspies I know personally (and most of whose experiences I’ve read about online or in books/biographies) would not say they’re disabled. I still have all my senses (yes, my sight isn’t great, but even without any aid - glasses/contacts, i can still see, so I am far from legal blindness/not seeing any light, because I can make out the colors & even...kinds-of..the blurry shapes of objects), I have all my limbs, I am able to move... so defining me (many aspies) as disabled is simply weird to me. 

When IMO if people would not consider “weird behaviour” (like ticks, like sensory issues) as outside the normalcy and tolerance range, and we would not simply keep our distance from the person who has tics, or who doesn’t look us in the eye when we talk to them, or who does things their way, or who wears headphones to cancel out the noises, or who keep to their daily strict routine in school/at work, or who talk to themselves irememberthats2ep) and consider all those things as "strange”, but instead just an example of the diversity in humans, it would make everything better. 

PS. I’ve heard many arguments that if humans become too tolerant, then how do we draw a line, and if we accept some things as normal that means we have to accept all things as normal. I can’t make those people believe that accepting peoples “disabilities” does not mean we have to also accept peoples criminal and illegal actions. There is a line, and everyone who is able to think knows where the line goes. So accepting someones tics or stimming does not mean you’re also accepting them trashing things (violence). Not at all. 

Basically... the state sees me as a disabled person. (example: I’m just as able to work and live as the characters on the tv show “Scorpion”), and I do “apply”, because it does give me security on the job market. Because it gives me the option to ask certain accommodations in work place. Having the paperwork gives me the “right” to ask these things (if I really need something...like the quiet corner office space...) if it becomes too hard for me to work in the “standard” conditions. When otherwise it could be seen as “diva” behaviour and asking for special treatment just because I “want” it, then the paperwork means that while the bosses might still think so (if they’re not understanding), they’re required to accommodate me, because I actually “need” these things. Having that “right” is good, but it’s a shame that I need some paperwork to get this, and that workplaces (and classrooms) are not adapted based on individual needs, and more suitable for different people. Be they disabled or abled.

It should be so that everyone can ask for small accommodations (within reasonable range) and no-one, not “normals”, not “aspies” should need any “proof” that they need these things to do their jobs (the best). Things that don’t require companies to spend lots of funds...(like my friends small request - her work table in an open office has to be in the corner or near window, and set so that no one can approach her from behind aka table not against the wall...so she’d see when people are approaching + that she’s allowed to wear headphones...listen to music - she enters data into a computer all day long so none of that’s a problem. It only requires small rearranging of furniture, and that’s it. That is how small the elementary needs of aspie workers can be, but they can be essential to the aspie)

Basically: I don’t feel “disabled”, I just see myself as different than most of the people around me, that’s all. So to be seen by the “majority” as not fully able is both funny and sad. I wish the human species, who are supposed to be all about empathy, and acceptance and understanding would in reality, too, be not “afraid” of little differences. That a child who doesn’t show their love for their parent by smiling at & hugging their parents, or a class mate who doesn’t look you in the eye when you speak to them, or a co-worker who prefers not to take part in cooler-talk is not “cast out”, and seen as rude or weird or not behaving as a human should be, but just different... showing their love differently, ding things differently...

On another note: In the recent weeks I’ve come very very close to “yelling” at some people at work, because at first this co-worker commented on someone’s work speed (he is disabled, and “slow”, and it is none of the co-workers business, cause she didn’t hire him, and he is working on his ability level. Or actually above it... unlike her..), and I almost stepped in between, when I happened to hear this, but this guy is great, he put her in place himself. But this week I hear her gossip about him to some other co-workers, and if I wasn’t so busy going places, I’d stopped and told them to stop that. The next time she/they comment on his great work or gossip about him, I will probably be rude and tell them what I think of them...which probably ends in them disliking me, because I’ve learned that people like her don’t like to be told their behaviour is not ok). #Ikeepenteringtheroomattherightwrongmomentrecentlyitseems #causeIkeepwalkinginonconversations

END OF RANT

[deniscollins]

How to Disclose a Disability to Your Employer (and Whether You Should)

The Americans with Disabilities Act forbids employers from discriminating against applicants or employees on the basis of disability. But sometimes you are never sure what the real reason is why you get rejected for a job. What would you do if you were applying for a job and had a disability due to severe back pain that required some work accommodation: (1) mention it during the job interview, (2) wait until immediately after obtaining the job and then tell your employer, or (3) wait longer, until after you have proven your value to the company as a hard and talented worker, and then make the accommodation request? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

The invisible nature of my chronic illness protects me from a whole universe of discrimination and microaggressions, but it also insulates me from potential support.

Of course, I acknowledge that my position is a privileged one. Some disabilities announce themselves as soon as a job candidate enters an interview room, along with all of the misconceptions society places on anyone with any degree of difference. I wondered what we’d have to do to help people come out of it empowered and employed.

The issue is as complicated as people are. As with all forms of discrimination, there’s a world between what the law says and how we relate to one another that’s murky and difficult to navigate, even for legal professionals, disability-rights advocates and those long-practiced in explaining themselves to a world not built for them. But there are ways to make it easier, and difficult truths everyone should know.

The cost of staying silent

Perhaps you’ve seen the little self-disclosure boxes on job application forms. Employers are prohibited from directly asking anything about your disability; that puts the onus on the employee or applicant to educate the employer, said Eve Hill, a disability rights attorney. You can request the accommodations you may need and explain how you can best perform the job, but that can be as much a burden as an opportunity, she said.

“In the best outcomes, you become the guide on how to do this well,” Ms. Hill said. “That’s an extra burden that people with disabilities bear.”

Disclosure during the interview process can open up a world of support. Or, worst case, it can reveal an atmosphere in which you wouldn’t feel comfortable working, anyway. And hiding a major part of yourself — assuming you have that ability — takes its own toll.

“Disclosing a disability to an employer enables a person to live one’s life authentically and be able to bring one’s whole self to work,” said Kathy Flaherty, executive director of the Connecticut Legal Rights Project. “Hiding a disability takes emotional energy that could be better spent elsewhere, like doing one’s job.”

That bore out for Katie Rose Guest Pryal, a former academic who said keeping her mental illness a secret from her colleagues meant she could be only about 70 percent herself at work. “Keeping a major aspect of your identity a secret because you fear for the ramifications is not good for you,” she said. “But every time I sat down and weighed the positive and the negative, the negative of sharing outweighed the negative of keeping the secret.”

After seven years, Ms. Guest Pryal left her position as a nontenure-track professor to become a full-time freelance writer and novelist, documenting her decision in a book, “Life of the Mind Interrupted: Essays on Mental Health and Disability in Higher Education.”

Legal requirements vs. reality

The Americans with Disabilities Act forbids employers from discriminating against applicants or employees on the basis of disability, but the gap between the letter and application of the law can swallow people whole.

Emily Johnson was denied a handicapped parking spot at work because her boss wanted to leave it open for visitors who might need it. Holly Nelson, who has a hearing impairment, was terminated from a new position during her probation period because she didn’t hear a supervisor’s instructions. Jocelyn Mondragon called to reschedule a job interview when her motorized wheelchair broke down. Instead, the hiring manager canceled entirely. Roz Tolliver’s supervisor told her she was “broken” and would never get promoted. Allyson DuPont started her own company after getting fed up with access barriers related to her wheelchair. All of these stories are horrifying. Many are technically illegal. None are particularly unique.

“It’s difficult to disclose at work because most of us know about cases of overt or covert discrimination in employment, whether it’s around disability or age, gender, sexual orientation, race, class or another category,” said Sonya Huber, an associate professor at Fairfield University who has written extensively about living with rheumatoid arthritis. “People are frightened for good reason.”

Caren Goldberg, a human resource management professor and a consultant on discrimination issues, said she often sees people grappling with the decision. “I wish I could say everyone should disclose, but depending on the nature of the organization, reactions can be very subtle,” Dr. Goldberg said. “Often, it’s something that’s not done with nefarious intention.”

Negotiations for accommodations can be arduous, even when they are conducted in good faith. When Charis Hill asked for a yoga ball chair to alleviate pain related to their ankylosing spondylitis, a type of arthritis that affects the spine, a simple request stretched into weeks of public self-advocacy. “I felt a little humiliated by the lack of confidentiality when the time came to complete the formal request,” they said. “The experience certainly made me have second thoughts about requesting any other assistance in order to do my job.”

For Jed Findley, who works in education, his reluctance to disclose stemmed from his desire for privacy, as well as fear of losing a position he loved. “I knew they couldn’t fire me, but that didn’t mean they couldn’t discriminate in other ways,” he said. “People’s attitudes could change toward me. Oftentimes an accommodation is viewed as an excuse.”

Eve Hill acknowledged that deciding whether and when to disclose a disability can be challenging. “You don’t want them to be thinking things that aren’t true, especially things that may be worse than the reality,” she said. “When given a choice, you probably want to go with the one that gives you civil rights protections.”

How to have the conversation

Under the A.D.A., companies with more than 15 employees are required to provide reasonable accommodations to people who disclose a disability, which the law defines as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” Those with invisible disabilities may be asked to provide medical documentation to support their need for requested accommodations, and to suggest adaptations that will enable them to perform to their full potential.

“The accommodation changes how you do the work. It doesn’t change whether you do the work,” Ms. Hill said. “You still have to meet the basic productivity requirements, the basic outcomes of the job, just in different ways or in a different location or using different equipment.”

Of course, what’s considered a “reasonable” accommodation can be hard to determine. “The right to a reasonable accommodation doesn’t mean a guarantee of getting the accommodation you want,” Ms. Flaherty said. “The employer is not supposed to just say no; they have to engage in a discussion about the accommodation.”

Ms. Hill and Dr. Goldberg both stressed that communication is key when requesting an accommodation. “The employee can suggest things that might be helpful, when making their case to the employer,” Dr. Goldberg said. “As long as it doesn’t pose undue hardship, there’s really no reason for them not to do it.”

Preparation is also essential. “You ultimately need to be your own advocate,” Mr. Findley said. “Before disclosing your illness or disability in the workplace, come up with a list of answers to questions, and before listing duties you don’t feel comfortable performing, come up with solutions that will allow you to keep doing your job.”

Ms. Flaherty also recommends thinking creatively to come up with solutions that will carry minimal or no cost. The Job Accommodation Network is a helpful resource that your employer can consult for ideas. And as the old saying goes, trust — but verify. “If the employee is feeling in any way concerned that the employer is not responding positively, make sure you’re taking notes and keeping records of those interactions,” Ms. Goldberg said. “If things do unfold and you have to take further action, you’ll have a written record.”

Timing is everything

For people with visible disabilities, it’s not so much a question of whether to reveal, but when. After realizing the only successful job applications she submitted were ones on which she didn’t mention that she used a wheelchair, Ms. Dupont decided to disclose only after getting an in-person interview. “In the face of stigma and misconception, disclosing on my own terms does sometimes give me the opportunity to control the dialogue,” she said. “But I have to be strategic in doing so or the consequences can be disastrous. The balance between discretion and disclosure is treacherous.”

Keah Brown, a writer with visible and invisible disabilities, noted the balance between being upfront with potential employers and risking retribution if they find out later. “Disclosing means to risk not getting the job and then, if you do so afterward, you risk the boss and company’s trust because you waited to say something,” she said.

In light of that possibility, Ms. Tolliver hid her disability until she couldn’t anymore, sometimes performing tasks that aggravated her chronic pain until she’d proven her worth. “I always hid the truth and hoped I’d stay healthy until I’d been at a job for a while,” she said. “I thought that if I made myself valuable to the organization, then management would understand and accept my accommodations and absences.”

The A.D.A. protects people from losing their position because of disability, but it doesn’t prevent microaggressions or water cooler chatter that can turn toxic. “Even though it’s prohibited by law, the law is not a guarantee that discrimination won’t happen,” Ms. Flaherty said. “Unfortunately, bias and misperceptions abound, and employers will sometimes make bad decisions based on that false information. So I totally understand why people don’t disclose and stay in the closet about it.”

If you do decide to seek accommodations, Ms. Hill suggests doing so before disciplinary action takes place, or as close to afterward as possible, so no one ends up in a defensive position. “You want to keep it out of the law as much as you possibly can,” she said. “You want to say, ‘I’m still a great employee. I’m having this barrier to doing just the best work you’re ever going to find. How can we work together to fix this barrier?’”

People who encounter discrimination do have legal recourse. That may include filing a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or a state agency that protects the right to work, or even taking the matter to court. However, there are time limits for reporting most forms of discrimination, as well as a formalized process to follow. The E.E.O.C. recommends contacting your local field office to discuss your best course of action before diving in.

Living in the light

The decision to disclose is as personal as what goes on in your body and mind. It’s often an ongoing process that evolves as we do, and as society hopefully evolves with us.

“People sometimes talk about disclosure like a single event,” Dr. Goldberg said. “But it’s not like a gender reveal party. We don’t always get along similarly with all co-workers and there may be those to whom you never disclose. But if you confided in one person and got a good reaction, maybe over time you might not think twice about telling someone else.”

Ms. Huber discovered a network of empathetic colleagues once she talked to them about her disability. By writing extensively about her life with chronic pain, she gained confidence that supported her work, as well.

“Disabled does not always mean ‘can’t work,’” she said. “I work very differently now, but I also appreciate how much I get done as I have learned to understand what daily schedule and conditions are best for my body.”