Posts Tagged ‘disabled rights’

Constitutionalize the ADA? No thanks

A dreadful idea, but sure to keep lawyers busy: American Bar Association president proposes constitutionalizing the principles of the Americans with Disabilities Act by getting the Supreme Court to reverse City of Cleburne (1985), in which it declined to pronounce the mentally disabled a suspect or quasi-suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause [ABA Journal]

Meanwhile, where we are now: Mark Pulliam surveys the landscape of the actual ADA and finds that it “has spawned senseless mandates, abusive lawsuits, and stratospheric costs.” [Mark Pulliam, City Journal, and related; thanks for kind mentions]

“Deaf man claims lawyer’s bad sign language cost him millions”

“A deaf former IBM worker claims he wrongly accepted a lowball discrimination settlement of $200,000 because his lawyer exaggerated his knowledge of sign language and confused the sign for ‘million’ with that for ‘thousand’ while negotiating the deal.” Software engineer James Wang, who had blamed his firing on his deafness, got $200,000 but says he expected $200 million. [New York Post]

How expansively should courts define an ADA “place of public accommodation”?

In Magee v. Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., the Supreme Court is being asked to resolve what might be a relatively narrow question under the Americans with Disabilities Act: whether a soft drink vending machine (which happens to be web-enabled) counts as a “place of public accommodation.” Plaintiffs in the case argue that it is a “sales establishment,” but the Fifth Circuit found that term more appropriately to cover business establishments that a customer might enter. Lurking in the background, for possible guidance if not resolution by the Court, is the much bigger question of whether virtual-only elements of commerce, such as websites, are “establishments” of “public accommodation.” The high court has not resolved that question, which has allowed for the growth of the fantastically expensive and onerous theories of web accessibility under which lawyers are now rolling out a large volume of lawsuits, such as one challenging as inaccessible the order-taking website of the Five Guys hamburger chain. Perhaps aware of these major if not necessarily immediate implications, the Supreme Court has invited the U.S. Department of Justice to offer comments on whether it should grant certiorari in the case. [Daniel Fisher]

ADA: “Needle-Phobic Pharmacist Loses $1.8 Million on Appeal”

“Reversing and remanding a $1.8 million jury verdict, the Second Circuit found Tuesday that Rite Aid was justified in firing a needle-phobic pharmacist who refused to administer immunizations.” [Courthouse News] The man’s trypanophobia — fear of needles — gave him a discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but the Second Circuit ruled the evidence “compels a finding that immunization injections were an essential job requirement.” [Dan Schwartz]

“NJ public works employee with phobia of public places gets $400K in lawsuit”

“A borough public works employee who claimed a hostile work environment while struggling with an anxiety disorder has settled his lawsuit against the borough [of Tenafly]. Aaron Perelli will receive $400,000 and will be on paid leave until his retirement date of June 30, according to the settlement agreement reached Jan. 24. In his lawsuit, Perelli said he suffered from agoraphobia, which he said did not allow him to drive long distances to unfamiliar towns or to drive by himself.” Perelli said the borough accommodated him at first, but then the relationship went downhill. [Adam Hochron, WKXW]

The ADA takes Berkeley courses offline

Andrew Ferguson on the ADA-inflicted loss of one university’s public treasury of online course materials: “UC Berkeley, needless to say, is deeply involved in the disability rights movement and has gone to great lengths to keep it satisfied.” None of which did it any good facing off against activist groups and the U.S. Justice Department, so now thousands of free lectures and other materials are set to come down. And some historical perspective: “After the ADA the country was much less free but its rulers were much more pleased with themselves.” [Andrew Ferguson, Weekly Standard] More: Hans Bader/CEI, earlier.

Workplace roundup

  • Bad idea keeps spreading: “Philadelphia to Prohibit Asking Job Applicants About Their Prior Wage History” [Ford Harrison] Bill introduced in Maryland legislature [Danielle Gaines, Frederick News-Post on HB 398]
  • “New York (State and City) Imposes New Rules for Freelancers, State Contracts” [Daniel Schwartz]
  • On the minimum wage, lame reporting and motivated reasoning make war on Econ 101 [David Boaz and Ryan Bourne, Cato]
  • In final Obama days, EEOC finalizes rules toughening affirmative action requirements for federal agency employers regarding workers with disabilities [Joe Seiner, Workplace Prof]
  • Study: Indictments of union officials correlate with close election outcomes [Mitch Downey via Tyler Cowen]
  • “Ohio again tries to restore sanity to its bonkers employment discrimination law” [Jon Hyman]

“‘Hamilton’ Sued Over Show’s Lack of Services for Blind Patrons”

A Denver resident has sued the theater, producer, and general manager of the hit show “Hamilton,” saying it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act for them not to offer audio description services annotating the action of the play for blind audience members. Under new federal rules movie theater chains will need to offer such services by next year; a few Broadway shows do so, including “The Lion King” and “The Book of Mormon,” but their practice is still an exception. [Sara Randazzo, WSJ]