If you want to use the ADA basis, you need to utilize the fact this is for an ADA covered condition. If this is not a life limiting condition, then the ADA does not apply and as such, your arguments do not have any support.
If you go that route, you are back to:
what side effects do you experience with this medication? If dizziness is one of them or actually any side effect that may cause an unsafe condition, then that and its severity can be used to determine if you would be a safety risk.
If your condition is not covered under ADA, then you lose simply because they can refuse to hire you based on their concerns, even without proof they are valid.
Not necessarily. Have you worked as a painter since you have been on this medication? Have you done ladder or other high work since you have been on this medication? If you have not been in a similar situation where there can be a review of your safety record, then that section of the standard is not applicable. It then comes down to: what side effects do you experience from the medications and are those side effects enough to consider you to be a safety hazard on the job. It will be a subjective determination by the employer which you can attempt to contest if you disagree.^ This would be an assumption based on a perceived threat with no medical, objective evidence which is required by ADA to be legal grounds not to hire the person when this is the basis for not hiring the person. Is this right?
I agree with you on this. It just isn't enough to use as the reason not to hire someone with a disability. Is this right?