Employers resent being told by the Federal Government they ought to run their businesses differently, and some employees resent being told they are "different." Consequently, the ADA splits the difference by requiring reasonable accommodation. Most people agree reasonable accommodation lies at the heart of the ADA, yet deciding whether there is a duty to accommodate in the first place can vex even the most well-intentioned employer because the "plain meaning" of who is an employer and what is a disability remains unclear. The ADA defines an employer as an organization with 15 or more employees and as any agent of the organization. Congress and the courts, however, have never resolved the issue of individual liability under the ADA. In addition, the ADA does not contain a clear definition of disability. Instead, it offers three separate definitions: (1) physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of an individual's major life activities; (2) record of such impairment; or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment. Courts have ruled that an impairment affecting one job is not necessarily an impairment affecting a class of jobs. Further, the ADA specifically provides that employers have the right to prohibit drug-related misconduct in the workplace. In the area of employee misconduct, courts appear more inclined to uphold employer judgments and apply common sense. The ADA is not an affirmative action statute requiring that disabled persons be given priority in hiring or reassignment over those who are not disabled. It basically prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. Even though the vocabulary of disability discrimination is evolving, the ADA strives to strike a careful balance between rights of individuals with disabilities and resources and capabilities of private businesses and government. 24 endnotes