This is me being pretty pro-disability employment and pro-accommodations, and whose knowledge and understanding of attractiveness comes from books and articles and what other people tell me. So I am probably not the best person to try to tackle any piece of this one, but here goes.
I think it would be hard to argue that uncontrollable attraction to one particular person truly reaches the level of a disability. Part of the definition of disability under the ADA that relates to employment is that the disability prevents one from holding not just one specific job but whole classes of jobs. In other words, being unable to be a concert pianest is not a disability, but lack of manual dexterity that precludes efficient typing, filing, playing the piano and packaging would be. This clause can (and has been) interpreted pretty narrowly by courts in terms of how classes of jobs are defined, but it seems a reasonable starting point.
I think that uncontrollable attraction to multiple people could potentially be impairing in such a way and to such an extent as to be considered a disability. Which brings one to the next step of asking if said person is otherwise qualified to do their job and if any reasonable accomodations can be made. And. . . I don't know. What if an attractive patient comes in and the dentist is unable to focus on her teeth or her cavities or diagnosing her oral cancer because of the irresistible nature of her clevage? Or am I catastrophizing here, which I hate when people do about disability, playing the "what if" game without looking for actual accommodations. Can the employer wear tinted glasses? Can they arrange for a third employee in the room when they have to interact? Can they put tools and charts on a tray between them to avoid having to hand things back and forth?
And another disability-related thought. This is all based on what someone (several someones?) were afraid might happen. While avoiding having an affair is certainly something to encourage, it all seems a bit theoretical. It's sort of like how people try to refuse to hire someone with a disability because they might need too many sick days, or might be too hard for customers to understand or might increase safety risks on the factory floor. And you aren't allowed to do that. At least, you aren't allowed to do that without credible evidence that the person's disability really does mean those things.
I'm not sure I have answers. And I agree that "just deal with it" is problematic. But I don't think the disability piece holds water under the current US legal realities.
no subject
I think it would be hard to argue that uncontrollable attraction to one particular person truly reaches the level of a disability. Part of the definition of disability under the ADA that relates to employment is that the disability prevents one from holding not just one specific job but whole classes of jobs. In other words, being unable to be a concert pianest is not a disability, but lack of manual dexterity that precludes efficient typing, filing, playing the piano and packaging would be. This clause can (and has been) interpreted pretty narrowly by courts in terms of how classes of jobs are defined, but it seems a reasonable starting point.
I think that uncontrollable attraction to multiple people could potentially be impairing in such a way and to such an extent as to be considered a disability. Which brings one to the next step of asking if said person is otherwise qualified to do their job and if any reasonable accomodations can be made. And. . . I don't know. What if an attractive patient comes in and the dentist is unable to focus on her teeth or her cavities or diagnosing her oral cancer because of the irresistible nature of her clevage? Or am I catastrophizing here, which I hate when people do about disability, playing the "what if" game without looking for actual accommodations. Can the employer wear tinted glasses? Can they arrange for a third employee in the room when they have to interact? Can they put tools and charts on a tray between them to avoid having to hand things back and forth?
And another disability-related thought. This is all based on what someone (several someones?) were afraid might happen. While avoiding having an affair is certainly something to encourage, it all seems a bit theoretical. It's sort of like how people try to refuse to hire someone with a disability because they might need too many sick days, or might be too hard for customers to understand or might increase safety risks on the factory floor. And you aren't allowed to do that. At least, you aren't allowed to do that without credible evidence that the person's disability really does mean those things.
I'm not sure I have answers. And I agree that "just deal with it" is problematic. But I don't think the disability piece holds water under the current US legal realities.