- Window office, transfer over more qualified candidates: “5 reasonable accommodations an employer never dreamed it would have to make” [Robin Shea]
- Rep. Lungren [R-CA] introduces ADA notification bill [Elk Grove Citizen, House Judiciary hearing]
- 2nd Circuit: NYC doesn’t have to make taxis disabled-accessible [NY Mag, NYDN, William Goren, earlier]
- More on the Netflix captioning ruling from Julian Sanchez and Doug Mataconis [earlier]. “I am so sick and tired of hearing people like Olson … the Walter Olsons of the world” writes Ellen Seidman [Parents mag] Don’t let her hear what Eric Goldman said.
- Report: 86 California Burger King outlets to pay $19 million to settle complaints on ADA accessibility [Sam Bagenstos]
- Service animals on planes: when pigs fly [Amy Alkon via James Taranto] S.D. Fla.: “Fair Housing Act Requires Allowing Emotional Support Animals as a Reasonable Accommodation” [Bagenstos]
- Cuttino Mobley loses doc-wouldn’t-let-me-play disability suit against New York Knicks [Alex Raskin, NJ.com, earlier]
Author Archive
Litigation, humility, and character: join me at Big Questions Online
What does the pursuit of litigation do to litigants’ characters? What does it do to the character of organizations and whole societies? Does it undermine the humility that some (though not all) of us deem an important virtue in persons and institutions?
This week I’m leading a discussion on that subject at the John Templeton Foundation’s Big Questions Online. It starts with a brief essay in which I note the older view, held by many religions and philosophical schools but now out of favor in much of academia, that litigiousness is a kind of vice, to which people are perhaps peculiarly susceptible if they take to an extreme what is otherwise the virtuous impulse to pursue justice. I cite familiar sources (Abraham Lincoln, Bleak House) as well as those perhaps less familiar (Kleist’s Michael Kohlhaas) that shed light on how pride in one’s own quarrels, even (especially?) those that are rightful, can distort perceptions and harden sympathies.
My observations, however, do no more than scratch the surface of a big subject on which there is much to say. It’s a moderated discussion and your comments are welcome through the week. And please pass on word to others who might be interested.
Cameras and contradictions
The other day we relayed a report from CBS Baltimore about the town of Westminster’s having disconnected most of its traffic cameras on the ground that they were causing more accidents than they were preventing. However, a Baltimore Sun report contradicts that assertion and quotes town officials saying the cameras had reduced speeding and accidents; it also contradicts assertions in the earlier article on the cameras’ cost.
“Lose one child … then lose them all.”
“Parents who transport a youngster without a car seat and lose the child in a fatal traffic accident may have their surviving children removed by social welfare authorities, the California Supreme Court decided unanimously.” [Maura Dolan, L.A. Times via Ann Althouse, whose commentary is borrowed for the headline]
July 17 roundup
- Prediction: Homeland Security to emerge as major regulatory agency prescribing security rules to private sector [Stewart Baker] Regulators fret: air travel’s gotten so safe it’s hard for us to justify new authority [Taranto via Instapundit] “Romney’s regulatory plan” [Penn RegBlog]
- Claim: frequent expert witness in Dallas court proceedings is “imposter” [PoliceMisconduct.net]
- “‘Temporary’ Takings That Cause Permanent Damage Still Require Just Compensation” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato]
- On the ObamaCare decision’s wild card, the ruling on “coercive” conditions on Medicaid grants under the Spending Clause [Mike McConnell, Ilya Somin] Ramesh Ponnuru argues that ruling is no victory for supporters of limited government [Bloomberg]
- D.C.’s historic Shaw neighborhood near Cato Institute narrowly escaped planners’ bulldozer [Greater Greater Washington, WaPo]
- Michelle Obama on the right track with an idea on occupational licensure but should take it farther [Mark Perry]
- Everyone’s a judicial critic: Auto-Correct proposes replacing “Posner” with “Poisoner.”
Product warnings in English only
Should a product manufacturer be held liable for not warning in other languages that are foreseeably spoken/read by some of its end users? How about if it marketed its product in some of those languages? [Nick Farr, Abnormal Use]
“Little League teams lose court battle to play championship game”
“Rain delays kept postponing the game” — this was Seattle — and eventually authorities disqualified both teams. Court action resulted: “‘I asked my daughter, she asked us to fight, so we fought,’ said Patrick Jones, one player’s father.” Because of course parents are supposed to be guided by their kids’ wishes as to whether to set loose the lawyers in such matters. [KING 5]
“Rasmussen poll: only 7 percent of public supports principle of Wickard v. Filburn”
“Rasmussen has a poll out today that shows that only 7 percent of Americans support Wickard v. Filburn, the 1942 Supreme Court case upholding the use of the Commerce Clause to regulate a farmer’s wheat growing for personal consumption.” [Ammon Simon, NRO “Bench Memos”] David M. Wagner: “Too bad nine of ’em are on the Supreme Court.”
Maryland town de-activates cameras after crashes increase
“Westminster is putting a stop to most of their red light cameras. Police say they may have been causing more accidents than they were preventing.” [CBS Baltimore]
But see: a report in the Baltimore Sun (h/t reader Gitarcarver) directly contradicts the CBS Baltimore account on the town’s reasons for removing the cameras: it quotes a town official as “saying the cameras had, by and large, done their job in helping reduce accidents and red light runners.” It also describes the town’s cost of running three of the cameras as “$137,831 from spring 2011 to spring 2012,” far lower than the number cited in the CBS Baltimore account.
Labor and employment roundup
- Despite misconception that the NLRB goes after employers only over union-related issues, its reach includes “concerted activity” by workers whether unionized or not, and it intends to make that power felt [Jon Hyman]
- EEOC cracks down on Marylou’s, Massachusetts coffee shop chain said to hire “pretty” staff. Tougher scrutiny of “looksism” ahead? [James McDonald/Fisher & Phillips, HR Morning, Boston Herald, related editorial]
- As critics warned at the time, Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowing provisions make a versatile weapon for employment plaintiffs [Daniel Schwartz]
- “Is Your Job Too Hard? File a Lawsuit!” [Philip Miles]
- Unions go to court seeking to overturn new Indiana right to work law [Asheesh Agerwal, Liberty Law] “Unions: Political By Nature” [Ivan Osorio, CEI “Open Market”] SEIU vigilant against menace of higher employer wage offers [James Sherk, NRO] Metropolitan Opera’s $516,577 electrician outearned Carnegie Hall’s $436,097 stagehand [Ira Stoll]
- Sen. Al Franken [D-Minn.] and Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D-Conn.] introduce bill to overturn SCOTUS’s Wal-Mart v. Dukes [The Hill, Paul Karlsgodt, PoL, Andrew Trask]
- Lefties: you ‘tarians slight the greater freedom of being able to force people to employ you [MR: Tyler Cowen, Alex Tabarrok]
- If you’re caught sleeping on the job, courts may not prove sympathetic to your age bias claim [Eric Meyer, Employer Handbook]
