Not Able To Wear Contact Lens

[ecmst12]

Yes, OP did reply. He said that if he suddenly went from wearing his regular glasses to non prescription ones, that would be completely obvious, wouldn't fool anyone. He's been told that wearing contacts with separate protective goggles is not acceptable. And that COULD be a violation of the ADA, if the no-contacts rule is simply internal company policy and not based on federal regulations for material safety.

 

[moburkes]

Yes, OP did reply. He said that if he suddenly went from wearing his regular glasses to non prescription ones, that would be completely obvious, wouldn't fool anyone. He's been told that wearing contacts with separate protective goggles is not acceptable. And that COULD be a violation of the ADA, if the no-contacts rule is simply internal company policy and not based on federal regulations for material safety.

I still agree with you. I didn't get notice of that reply, and didn't check to see if there were other posts. So, my bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Refer to the MSDS for each chemical you work with in the workplace.

 

[cbg]

Before you all get too certain that the ADA applies here and that the OP is guaranteed ADA protection, check out this US Supreme Court case:

http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/sutton.htm

 

[funder]

Thank you all through all of the remarks. It is NO problem for me to be able to wear the contact lens with protective eyewear over them. That's what got me into trouble--I WAS wearing contact lens period. The employer does not want anyone wearing contact lens, period. Wearing glasses/protective eyewear is mandatory. I'll still check into the ADA application.

My glasses (which are actually safety eyeglasses) are extremely thick, with large lens with the side-gear on. I can wear contacts and wear non-prescription safety glasses over the contact lens and be protected just the same. It's the large, bulky eyewear with the thick eyeglass that is my problem. I am Magoo.
Funder

Funder

 

[ecmst12]

CBG - I think that case has some significant differences from the situation here. In this case, OP's vision is corrected to normal with contact lenses, but NOT with glasses, and the problem is that he's not being allowed to utilize the "mitigating measures" (contact lenses) which would allow him to have normal vision. I see that the supreme court in that case found the people to not meet the standards of having a disability, but since OP's vision while wearing glasses is still not normal, a court might find he DOES meet the standard.

It seems to me, also, that if no further cases have addressed this issue, then any person whose disability can be treated by any means (including medication) would not be covered by the law. And that's not my understanding of how it's applied.

 

[>Charlotte<]

What about wearing glasses with plain (non-Rx) lenses with your contacts? Then you look like you're wearing glasses, but you're wearing your contacts.

Ahh dammit, I was gonna say that.

 

[moburkes]

You'll need to read the rest of the thread. OP didn't like that option.

 

[funder]

OP said that was NOT an option. Someone wearing 1/2 inch thick glasses goes to a plain pair of glasses and no one notices? Uhuh. I don't think so. It would be as obvious as the thin, plain glasses on my face that I was also wearing contact lens.

You can tell when someone has coke bottle glasses (high myopia) when you look at them. You see rims of their eyes when looking at them and the eyes appear very small.
If a person has thick glasses and their eyes appear larger than they really are, they are far-sighted.

Thanks all.
Funder

 

[moburkes]

Who CARES what it looks like? Is OPs job about vanity? It should be about safety. And, as was stated before, if it is a job requirement to wear glasses, to put them on over contacts so that OP can SEE (which I thought was more important than vanity), only makes sense.

 

[ecmst12]

The problem was not that glasses were required, it was that contacts were prohibited.

 

[moburkes]

I disagree. He said that glasses were required, and then we started talking about OSHA. He didn't say that he couldn't wear safety glasses w/ contacts, just that people would notice the difference. If he is complying with the safety demands by wearing the glasses, I don't see the problem. And, OP never came back to say that glasses w/ contacts were prohibited; just contacts alone (was my impression).

 

[CJane]

I disagree. He said that glasses were required, and then we started talking about OSHA. He didn't say that he couldn't wear safety glasses w/ contacts, just that people would notice the difference. If he is complying with the safety demands by wearing the glasses, I don't see the problem. And, OP never came back to say that glasses w/ contacts were prohibited; just contacts alone (was my impression).

No, he stated in a previous post that he WAS wearing contacts/safety glasses, and when that was discovered, he was told that he could no longer do that and needed to wear glasses ONLY. There is apparently a specific rule against contacts in the workplace due to the chemicals being handled.

I would again suggest to OP that he examine the MSDS sheets for each and every chemical present in the plant and determine what specific hazards are associated with eye exposure. Frequently, the prohibition against contacts is related to the difficulty in using an 'eye wash station' if exposure does occur, and the delay in removing the contacts prior to washing the eyes potentially causing further damage to the eye.

It's very likely that it IS an OSHA regulation that contacts not be worn where one may come into contact with certain chemicals, and again, OP needs to find this out before pursuing ANY course of action legally.

 

[moburkes]

I guess this is why its confusing:

Upon hire 5 years ago, somehow it got ignored that I wore contact lens and employees are required to wear glasses while at work. No contact lens.

The above makes it appear that OP was only wearing contacts.

I said something without thinking one day and, of course, was taken to task and told I'd have to wear glasses.

This also makes it seem like OP was only wearing contacts.

The glasses are brand new, being paid for by the company as required by OSHA.

This makes it appear that, after he was reprimanded, the company paid for the glasses that he was wearing when he made the series of mistakes.

Wearing plain protective eyewear was what I WAS doing before the contact lens confession. I may have to check with the ADA on this.

But, then, you are correct in that THIS statement is different from the other 3.

It is NO problem for me to be able to wear the contact lens with protective eyewear over them. That's what got me into trouble--I WAS wearing contact lens period. The employer does not want anyone wearing contact lens, period. Wearing glasses/protective eyewear is mandatory. I'll still check into the ADA application.

Then OP writes this, which doesn't exactly clear up the confusion. However, I think I see what he is trying to say. He was wearing BOTH contacts AND protective eyewear, and was told he could not wear the contacts at all.

However, I still agree that he should look into MSDS. The employer may be mistaken, as the doctor suggests, in regards to the contacts. The employer may think that they bear some liability if the OP wears contacts and gets an eye injury. I think that OP should follow up on WHY it is a requirement, and, get an opinion from an eye doctor. OP should speak to HR, and see if a eye doctor's note in regards to the contacts, with some type of proof to back it up, would be acceptable.

 

[mitousmom]

CBG - I think that case has some significant differences from the situation here. In this case, OP's vision is corrected to normal with contact lenses, but NOT with glasses, and the problem is that he's not being allowed to utilize the "mitigating measures" (contact lenses) which would allow him to have normal vision. I see that the supreme court in that case found the people to not meet the standards of having a disability, but since OP's vision while wearing glasses is still not normal, a court might find he DOES meet the standard.

It seems to me, also, that if no further cases have addressed this issue, then any person whose disability can be treated by any means (including medication) would not be covered by the law. And that's not my understanding of how it's applied.

My initial comment that "if the lenses correct your vision to the level that allows you to see within normal limits, your condition isn't covered by the ADA and your employer doesn't have to accommodate it" was not sufficiently precise and thereby, misleading.

It's not a question of whether the mitigating measures render the individual normal. If the mitigating measure reduces the effect of the impairment so that it no longer substantially limits a major life activity, the individual no longer meets the standard for coverage under the ADA and is not a qualified individual with a disability. Under the Supreme Court's decision a medical condition whose substantial limitation impact has been successfully reduced by mitigating measures is not a qualified disability. There are plenty of disabiling conditions that aren't considered qualified disabilities under the ADA.

It doesn't appear that the OP is a qualified individual with a disability (QUID) because his vision is "corrected" with contact lenses or glasses, even though the glasses may be less effective. If he's not a QUID, his employer doesn't have to attempt to accommodate him.