February 15 roundup


  • RE: Tourettes and Starbucks: Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the ADA can clarify for me – but doesn’t the ADA require “reasonable” efforts to accommodate disabilities? If this man was, as the story indicates, cursing loudly and punching the wall, what sort of reasonable accommodations could Starbucks have provided, that would also provide protections and a decent customer experience for the other customers present?

  • Accommodate me, Accommodate me, whaaaa whaaaa.
    … Mocha please… [redacted]…. That’s about as appealing as someone with a tuberculitic cough at the salad bar.

    Here’s the part I don’t get: how can a gene encode for vulgarity? Are we all just one neural impulse away from uttering a string of profanity? Why is there never a Tourette’s patient who is effusively polite? or prone to fits of quoting Shakespear?

  • It is one thing to ask for understanding and tolerance and even reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. It is another thing to pass a law than gives people with disabilities a hammer in which to beat the rest of us over the head with. No one is responsible for this individual having Tourette’s Syndrone. It is unfortunate that he has to live with such a condition. However, if his behavior is disruptive then we should not be forced to grin and bear it. In other words, every one else should not have to suffer because of his disability.

  • I think there is a deeper irony to the Tourette’s Syndrome story.

    It seems that the man and his attorney sued after the man “apologized” as if the apology should have ended the incident and the man still be allowed to shop in the store. Contrast that with the idea of someone who installs a mirror in a bathroom too high and gets sued under the ADA. The store owner may say, “I’m sorry, but a mirror was broken and a slightly different sized one was installed,” but that won’t get him off the hook for the violation or the monetary damages.

    Maybe Starbucks could have worked out a different settlement of this, but the idea that an apology offered by a disabled person must be accepted but an apology from a business owner is not is clearly part of what is wrong with the ADA.