Disabled rights roundup

  • More reactions, besides mine, to Senate’s non-ratification of U.N. disabled-rights treaty [Hans Bader, NYT Room for Debate including notably David Kopel’s, Julian Ku (“Support Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Because It Doesn’t Do Anything!”), Tyler Cowen (keep powder dry for bigger ratification battles), Peter Spiro (proposes end run around Senate)] More, Sept. 2013: Eric Voeten, Monkey Cage and more (dismissing as insignificant U.N. committee reports criticizing countries for alleged violations because “these reports can be and often are ignored,” and accusing treaty critics of being mere “conservative fantasists” because they take at their word their counterpart “liberal fantasists” who expect and welcome erosion of U.S. autonomy in domestic policy.)
  • As Department of Justice rolls out Olmstead settlements to more states, battles continue between disabled rights advocates seeking closure of large congregate facilities and family members who fear mentally disabled loved ones will fare worse in “community” settings [Philadelphia City Paper via Bagenstos, NYT on Georgia, earlier, more background] More, Sept. 2013: And here’s someone claiming that I’ve got it all wrong, Olmstead has already pre-settled whatever claims to a right-to-care might reasonably be asserted under CRPD. I don’t think so.
  • “Utilityman can’t climb utility poles, but has ADA claim against utility company” [Eric Meyer]
  • Kozinski: Disney “obviously mistaken” in arguing against use of Segway by disabled visitors [Sam Bagenstos; related, Walt Disney World, Eleventh Circuit]
  • Wendy’s franchisee agrees to pay $41,500 in EEOC settlement after turning away hearing-impaired cook applicant [EEOC]
  • California enacts compromise bill aimed at curtailing ADA filing mills [Sacramento Bee, LNL]
  • “Train your managers and supervisors never to discuss employees’ medical issues.” [Jon Hyman]

One Comment

  • Do you have any other link to the Wendy’s/EEOC story? Everything I can find with a quick Googling has pretty much the same EEOC press release as the link you provide. I sure would like to hear Wendy’s side of the story.

    I suspect part of the reluctance to hire a deaf person is the safety issue – if there is a fire or a robbery or even a spill on the floor, it is harder to warn a deaf person of the danger.

    A more important issue may be that fast food places don’t hire ‘cooks’; regardless of what position you are hired for you are trained on how to operate the cash register and are expected to be able to fill in taking customer orders in a pinch. Does the deaf guy get exempted from this? Not being required to deal with the idiot customers may seem like a ‘reasonable accomodation’ to the EEOC but I suspect the other workers would not be very happy about the deaf guy getting ‘special treatment’.