In article >,
Steve Wertz > wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:24:49 -0500, Emma Thackery wrote:
>
> > In order to qualify as a person with a disability under the ADA regs,
> > the person must have an impairment that substantially limits at least
> > one *major* life activity (ie - employment, education). So, first of
> > all, I doubt that an impaired sense of smell would qualify since it's
> > unlikely to interfere with a major life activity.

> You mean like ... eating?

Like I said before, your idea of making an ADA claim because your
ex-wife has an impaired sense of smell, and cannot sniff grocery store
meat, likely has no legs because there is no discrimination. You are
not alone in having mistaken (even ridiculous) notions about the ADA,
though most people don't betray as much insecurity or emotionality in
response to plain facts.

> > Second, even if such a person was qualified pursuant to statute
> > (extremely unlikely), you would still need to show that the person
> > with an impaired sense of smell was unable to determine meat
> > freshness in the same manner as persons without disabilities. In
> > other words, you'd have to show that the store's method of noting
> > meat freshness was discriminatory. And since persons w/o
> > disabilities do not typically rely upon their sense of smell when
> > purchasing meat, you'd have no case.

> [rest snipped unread] You're rants are just too long and boring.