[lolinder]

> there simply isn't enough room up there for taller pilots to fit.

Under the ADA "there simply isn't a wheelchair ramp up to our building" isn't a legitimate restriction on hiring someone who uses a wheelchair—you put a wheelchair ramp in.

OP's point is that arguably the same should apply to other traits like height. The space constraints are somewhat arbitrary and could be remedied.

[genocidicbunny]

That's not correct. The ADA requires reasonable accommodation, not accommodation at all costs. So yes, "there simply isn't a wheelchair ramp up to our building" is not legitimate, but "there simply isn't a wheelchair ramp up to our building and it would be prohibitively expensive or impossible to change that" does work.

[Dylan16807]

But if you keep getting new buildings made for you where it would be straightforward to build in but prohibitively expensive after the fact...

[bluGill]

The ADA doesn't allow new buildings to not comply, unless the job itself couldn't be done. Thus the roof can be not accessable, but only maintanence goes there and job has many parts that cannot be done in a wheelchair

[genocidicbunny]

Which is irrelevant to the discussion for the most part.

[Dylan16807]

It doesn't seem irrelevant to me. It means there's a broken system and the regulations aren't hitting the right spot. Responsibility is being split in a way that allows the accomodation to never happen.

[genocidicbunny]

It's irrelevant because it has no relation to what ADA says about accommodations being made. Even if the ADA proscribed that new constructions had to have reasonable accommodations, it wouldn't really change anything about the fact that the ADA doesn't mandate accommodations in all circumstances, reasonable or not.

[Dylan16807]

Failures of the ADA model aren't relevant to the ADA??