Favorite. Blog. Post. Ever.

November 29, 2006 at 4:27 PM (Polyandry) ()

About the peculiar forms marriage can, or should, be allowed by Deity to take. (Satire/Snark alert)

Permalink 4 Comments

Impaired who sue depicted as nuisances

November 29, 2006 at 11:53 AM (Business Owning Whiners, Lawsuits) ()

because business owners don’t like the way the ADA is written, and the lawsuits that are presently the only way of bringing a grievance against a non-compliant business.

I love this article because there’s so much subtext, the waders get lost in it.

The bathrooms in the country club were opulent, with marble floors and antique furniture. But months after buying the property, the owners gutted them. The
problem: The bathroom walls were an inch too narrow under the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act.

Meaning: Luxury is only for the able. (I refer you to my 2000 trip to Vegas for the millenium…um, no. I did not stay at the Bellagio, but neither did I hang my hat at the local Motel 6)

Only the able could possibly be members. Families of wealth get hit by impairment too, and what about the rich old lady who has been a member for 40 years and finds
out that her scooter/powerchair is an inch too wide for the restrooms…

And, how long has the ADA been in effect anyway? Sixteen years give or take. I think the captains of industry can do the math.

The problem: The bathroom walls were an inch too narrow under the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act.

“Give us an inch…”

So, the country club, as so many other businesses have been, was sued in order that it bring itself into compliance with a sixteen year old law.
The article goes on painting the impaired as bitter crabby nuisances who have nothing better to do than enrich lawyers.

Here’s the key that the businesses (and the author of the article clearly in sympathy with them?)

would like you to miss.

Some experts blame the way the law is drafted.

“Sure, someone is making money off of these lawsuits,” said Ruth Colker, a law professor at Ohio State University. “But the problem … is that there is no effective enforcement mechanism if we don’t have these kinds of lawsuits.”

The article then insinuates that unethical clients and their lawyers collude to pay the impaired claimants, which violates the way these suits should be brought. The impaired claimants cannot use these suits as money generating enterprises for themselves.

*If* that is occuring, then the law needs to be changed to stop such practice. But the number and amount of lawsuits that *are the only reason venues brought themselves into compliance* have to continue, or businesses will not comply, and continue to deny access as a civil right. If we had an OSHA-like compliance board with safeguards built in to avoid even the appearance of under the table payments to claimaints, *the number of lawsuits* would drastically decrease.

So, I say to the businesses, ask your congress critter to propose some legislation to create such a board and reduce the lawsuits so that a watchdog agency could do the job rather than having the impaired constantly sue for that which should be automatically granted: Access.

But of course the businesses won’t because what they won’t tell our intrepid journalist here is that if an OSHA-like compliance board was created, it would cost non-compliant businesses much more than these lawsuits do now.

So they whine for what they want, which is a toothless ADA with no real possibility through lawsuits or any other method, to bring them into compliance.

Quit your yapping, business owners, and go have a couple of drinks at the remodeled country club. Be sure and stop in the restrooms and think about the money you could have saved if your contractors had been instructed/measured properly in the first place.

Permalink 5 Comments