Here I go writing another long post. If you don't want to read the whole thing, that's fine, but please give everyone the courtesy of reading all of it carefully, especially the ADA excerpts, if you choose to reply. Thank you.
The main question that needs to be addressed is whether this person's stature would actually be considered a "disability." If there is a disability, FIRST needs to make reasonable accommodation. Pertinent excerpts from the
Americans with Disabilities Act:
"Sec. 12102. Definition of disability...
(1) Disability
The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; ...
(2) Major Life Activities
(A) In general
For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, ...performing manual tasks, seeing, ...standing, ... and working. ...
(4) Rules of construction regarding the definition of disability
The definition of “disability” in paragraph (1) shall be construed in accordance with the following:
(A) The definition of disability in this chapter shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under this chapter, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter. ...
(C) An impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability...."
Bold type is my emphasis. Note that there is no mention of wheelchairs.
In the context of our discussion, a person's physical limitations prevent them from effectively doing their job on the team. I don't know if the person in question will some day grow to a "normal" height, but this question needs to be considered in view of present circumstances. After all, the possibility that a crippled person may one day walk, due to a divine or technological intervention, does not mean he or she can throw away the wheelchair that is needed today.
How short is too short? I don't think the ADA gives any specifics as to height, but it is worded quite broadly. According to the
CDC (Centers for Disease Control), this person is below the 5th percentile for "stature"—off the chart, in other words. In fact, a 4-foot (48-inch) tall 9-year-old would also be off the chart. (The link is for boys, but the chart for girls has similar data for 9-year-olds.) So age and maturity are really not issues in this case.
At 48 inches, the top of this person’s head would only come to eye level on an average adult who is sitting down—including many people who need a wheelchair! Can we agree that this person really is too short to use the driver station without difficulty? Consider not only sight, but how high the shoulders and elbows would be above the controls. When standing normally, a driver's elbows should be at least the height of the shelf, at a bare minimum. Is this a reasonable supposition?
Now, FIRST has supplied a wheelchair ramp for people in wheelchairs. People in wheelchairs have mobility issues, but the ramp would actually impede the ability of such a person to approach the driver station, which is on a level floor. Therefore, the only purpose for the ramp must be to compensate for height limitations.
I understand the GDC banning a team-supplied device for safety reasons, but I don't think they can prohibit use of the wheelchair ramp which is, after all, provided for people with height limitations. I don’t believe they should argue that being wheelchair-bound is a height limitation, but being too short is not. To do so would be like a white employer who hires black people but not Laotians, arguing that this is not discrimination, because nationality is not race, therefore it is OK to make hiring decisions on the basis of nationality! Under U.S. laws, this argument would never fly.
One other thing about the ADA—it apparently does not allow for an employer--or other entity that is required to comply with the ADA--to make the judgment whether a person has a disability. In other words, FIRST cannot decide whether a person does or does not have a disability. If a person has a disability, FIRST must make reasonable accommodation as regards the facility FIRST provides--in this case, the field.
Practically speaking, I don't think FIRST will be inundated with requests from short people who want assistance, because most short people will try to make do with their limitations. I believe most people, especially high school students, would almost rather die than ask for help they don't really need.
In conclusion, height appears to be a disability in this case, and Rule <T26> allows for accommodation of disability. The ramp that is provided with the field should be the best solution.
Just a couple more items--
Someone previously mentioned using a certain type of stilts. My understanding is that such devices are banned in many states for safety reasons (think OSHA), so don't expect FIRST to allow them.
A person who is too tall for the driver station would also need accommodation. If the head of such a person, when standing straight, is taller than the driver station, there is clearly a safety issue. To ban such a person would be discrimination. Perhaps FIRST should provide such a person with a safe chair or stool that he or she must sit on to make a suitable height adjustment. Of course, there would have to be a requirement that the person must remain SEATED during the entire match, like certain team members had to do last year.
