Court Ruling on Disabilities

Re “High Court Reins In Disability Law’s Scope,” June 23: As an organ transplant recipient and diabetic, the Supreme Court ruling considers me someone without a disability and able to work, given that I take my daily immunosuppressants (cost partly subsidized by the federal government for only three years) and inject twice daily insulin shots (cost also partly subsidized by the government for three years). However, without protection from discrimination, essentially the new ruling makes it harder for me to either find work or stay in an existing position.

Looking into the future, a possible scenario, not totally unrealistic, could be unemployment, no health insurance, unable to afford life-saving medications and health rapidly deteriorating. Multiply this scene by many thousands of people.

And this is a so-called civilized, enlightened country we live in? Shame.

CRAIG JOHNSTON

Marina del Rey

*

I have no employees, but I applaud the Supreme Court’s narrowing the protection of persons with disabilities. In the bad old days, an employer could reject an applicant whose disability would have been irrelevant to his or her performance. Under the 1990 act, the pendulum swung the other way, and it seemed we were headed toward survival of the unfittest--a system detrimental to consumers as much as to businesses. The decision achieves a better balance.

MIMI GERSTELL

Pasadena