Handicapped or not

[ChrisH]

EVERY field comes equiped with a ramp designed to raise the eyelevel of a person who for whatever reason cannot see over the player station front wall. While it is called the "wheel chair ramp" I do not believe that is the official designation. I was not able to find plans for it with the field drawings, (which would include the official name) though it is considered field equipment.

Since it is field equipment it is available to anyone who needs it. I would not specify that it has to be used by a wheel chair-bound person. I will courageously omit the customary deferal to the GDC for final ruling. This one is a no-brainer to me and we shouldn't waste their time, unless somebody should think it is somehow "unfair" to use it as intended.

As an FTA who has had to keep track of these heavy beasts (and make sure it doesn't miss the truck), I'd sure like to see one used for once. I will admit to querying teams as to whether they thought they might need it and then quietly making it disappear into a hard to miss but out of the way place, when they answer in the negative. Every FTA's second-worst nightmare is leaving that beast behind during load-out. It would REALLY be a pain to ship to the next stop. So while it has most probably been at all your events, you might not have been aware of it. It is big and awkward and gets in the way, so we hide it.

My advice is to get with the FTA at your event(s) and see if the provided ramp will work. This can be done while the field is not in use, and is the sort of thing he is there for. If it works then everybody is happy, if not you'll need to work something else out anyway.

[Rizner]

I feel that the GDC should require drivers to be in high school. Limiting drivers to high schoolers would benefit the team in whole because it gives more members (in the long run) the opportunity to participate. If a team gets a great driver, they are often kept as the driver through their robotics career (their talent + their experience make it hard to top). I don't think anyone should be a driver for more than four years. This would make more variety as years pass and hopefully every middle school member would continue into high school and have the opportunity at that point.

I also feel that if a driver cannot see because he/she is young I believe no accommodations should be made but to simply wait for them to grow. Having said this, if another team had a driver on a stand to see I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Originally Posted by eagle33199

And on a personal rant... We all want every kid to be successful in everything they do. But the truth of the matter is they aren't. Sometimes things don't work out, sometimes (like this example) the situation is simply set up against them. All too much these days our society sets up scenarios where kids will be successful or win regardless of what they actually do. We want them to be successful, so we lower the bar until everyone can be successful. Sure, it makes everyone feel good, but is it really helping the kids prepare for adulthood? If a kid is legitimately too short to be able to drive a robot, could this not help serve as a life lesson on managing expectations and understanding how to be successful (say, as part of the pit crew) despite these challenges?

This I disagree with. Although you want to ready students for the real world, I think the message we want to send isn't that they are out of luck because they're short, but with inventions and innovation (ramps and platforms included) we can do anything.

[Matt H.]

I think it would be wise to re-query the GDC and ask about the "wheelchair" ramp specifically. They may be worried about a custom item being brought in (safety) and would be more than happy to allow your team member to use their alternative.

That being said if the GDC decides not to allow the wheelchair ramp]I feel that you are morally obligated to share this information as well as information relating to you other Q&A post with the head ref when you ask him about using a stool.

[Molten]

If you plan to go through with building your own elevation device, you should research the minimum height required to see the field reasonably. I say reasonably because no matter how tall, you won't see it all. Could he see at 4'1? 4'2? 4'3? I ask, because he might need to be 4'5" to see enough, and there are few drivers shorter then that that might claim he gained an advantage from it. However if you go to 5', the claim could be made by a driver that is 4'8. I think the claim would be semi-petty, but it would be a fair claim and if I were the ref would have to unfortunately side with the complaint.

I still think you should just wait a few years to have him drive, but if you insist on your path...the above would definitely help your argument. If you were able to show the math/testing that shows the minimum height needed for him to see crucial elements when requesting the use of your device, it will be much harder to go against.


Rizner: If a student drove for 4 years, there would be other students in their class that would never have the opportunity to drive. If they were to make a rule to that regard, 2 years would accomplish the goal. I personally would be against such a rule because I've been on a team where there really weren't many people that actually wanted to drive, and the only one that did was amazing.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

P.S. I do sympathize, but the question was asked to the proper ruling body and an answer was given. 'nuff said.

While I agree with Daniel that a ruling has been given, and would agree 100% with the ruling were it simply a rule of the game, in this case we are dealing with a question of how we choose to treat people who are different.

I would advocate that, where possible, we should attempt to eliminate barriers to participation.

Sometimes is takes several tries to break down a barrier to participation, but usually when we do it makes life better for everyone.

While I don't think it would be right to ignore the GDC's ruling, I do think it is appropriate to encourage them to reconsider whether there is a fair and safe way in which short people can be acommodated on the drive team and express our desire for the game to be as inclusive as possible. Discussing the matter with regional event organizers and head referees is one way to lobby for a reconsideration.

Jason

P.S. Perhaps an adjustable drafting or bar stool that could be used to raise the eye height of a seated driver to a certain minimum level that would allow them to operate their robot effectively?

[KarenH]

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.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by KarenH

(C) An impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability...."

Emphasis mine. This word is the one that kind of keeps this definition from applying. According to dictionary.com, there are many definitions for impairment, but the only one that really applies is:

impairment im·pair·ment (ĭm-pâr'mənt)
n.
Weakening, damage, or deterioration, especially as a result of injury or disease.

Given that height isn't really a form of weakening or damage or deterioration, it really isn't an impairment.

Perhaps a different definition of disability would allow for a short person to have a claim and I certainly agree that there is plenty of argument for the allowance of the ramp. I personally would let him use it, however I also think that calling a person that hasn't hit a growth spurt disabled is a bit of an insult to those that truly are.

[Chris_Elston]

Originally Posted by Molten

however I also think that calling a person that hasn't hit a growth spurt disabled is a bit of an insult to those that truly are.

I think this point sums up my opinion as well. This is the part I am struggling with. I have talked with his mother since Wayne started this thread. There are some issues which I can't discuss here, just know our student is seeing a doctor about this. Again, my heart is big and I wanted to give him the same chance as everyone else. We may just train him as is, no assistant required. Hope he makes the drive team cut.........