Skip to comments.Are you able to obey this law?(ADA)
Posted on 06/07/2006 5:24:38 AM PDT by devane617
click here to read article
My kids get darn tired of hearing me caution them to "beware of unintended consequences" - Oh, how I wish some of the lawmakers had that drilled into them, and maybe tattooed on their hands...
Once laws start trying to make stupidity mandatory, forget whatever they were trying to accomplish in the first place.
"Once you hire them, you can never fire them. They are lawsuit bombs,"
This also sounds like federal government employees
It was a very bad law from the get-go.
ADA is a nightmare and it is getting worse. More old and fat people are getting hauled around by scooters so access is becoming more of a problem. We are doubling and tripling the number of people needing access.
When asked during his campaign for president what he considered his greatest achievement in congress, Bob Dole cited getting the ADA passed.
i thought the ADA specifically exempted substance abuse from protection. when did this change?
First, I love your handle. I've had that little pun rolling round in my head for a few years now. Second, how long will it be before high school coaches will be barred from kicking smokers and drug users off their teams? After all, they have an "addiction," a "disability."
Well, that's what government is for.
1) They are created to carry out vague, often well-intentioned projects;
2) They are populated by grifters, incompetents, and careerists;
3) They protect incompetence by encouraging anonymity and dilution of blame;
4) If they are accountable at all, it is usually only to another bureaucracy, which is usually as incompetent as they are;
5) They end up existing to serve themselves, not the purpose to which they were intended.
Bureaucracy in government is the greatest peril to liberty this country faces.
MORE MOONBAT JUSTICE....
(ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BY ANDREW MC CARTHY>>>
NRO the CORNER BLOG)
.....Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Jackpot Justice in Oakland [Andy McCarthy]
You can bet our troops are not the only ones who will have to endure hours of sensitivity training. A state jury in Alameda County has awarded $61 MILLION in damages to two Americans of Lebanese descent (Edgar Rizkallah and Kamil Issa) after they won their harassment suit against FedEx.
The plaintiffs were FedEx drivers who were called "terrorists," "camel jockeys," and worse by their manager, one Stacey Shoun. Somehow the jury decided this was worth not only $11 million in compensatory damages for the plaintiffs' "emotional distress," but an additional $50 million in punitive damages because Fed Ex and Shoun had acted with "oppression and malice."
What did FedEx do to rate this whopping penalty? Not only did it fail to take adequate corrective action after the drivers complained; the company is also reported to have "failed to provide managers with anti-discrimination training." Without such training, you see, human beings with an IQ of 11 or above would have no idea that it's inappropriate to call someone a "camel jockey" in the workplace.
This is what rule-by-lawyers gets you. "FedEx," of course, will not pay a penny of this award (if it holds up on appeal, which, in California, it probably will). All of us who use FedEx (which is pretty much all of us) will have our pockets picked. Does that make ANY sense? And, while not arguing in favor of asinine boorishness, I must say, if Rizkallah and Issa were truly "emotionally distressed" over this, they would not have lasted long in The Bronx.
Beam me up, Scotty.
It'd do no good to have it tatooed on their hands, they'd never see it with their hands in our pockets all the damn time... :-)
"Oh, how I wish some of the lawmakers had that drilled into them, and maybe tattooed on their hands..."
How about having it carved onto their foreheads, backwards with a pen knife so they can see it everytime they go to the head and look in a mirror.
So true, so funny, so sad, so maddening...
works for me!
I worked for the State of California and it was made very clear to me that under no circumstances was I to hire a disabled person because you can never get rid of them.
The legal relationship at interview time is much more tenuous than once a job offer is made. And we were VERY careful to not talk about the disability at all during the interview process. If the interviewee brought it up, we asked them to discuss it with the HR department.
I know we weren't alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.