[devane617]

Once Drug abuse and alcohol got included in the ADA is became very bad law.

[Hegemony Cricket]

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...

[Publius6961]

Once laws start trying to make stupidity mandatory, forget whatever they were trying to accomplish in the first place.

[ebersole]

"Once you hire them, you can never fire them. They are lawsuit bombs,"

This also sounds like federal government employees

[DB]

No.

It was a very bad law from the get-go.

[AppyPappy]

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.

[Bahbah]

When asked during his campaign for president what he considered his greatest achievement in congress, Bob Dole cited getting the ADA passed.

[camle]

i thought the ADA specifically exempted substance abuse from protection. when did this change?

[atomicpossum]

what really happened is that lawyers got richer,

Well, that's what government is for.

Apparently.

[IronJack]

On a larger scale, this demonstrates the nature of bureaucracies.

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.

[IrishMike]

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.

[socialismisinsidious]

My husband owns a small business and a woman was caught stealing from him and others in the office ....it turns out that she had a history of stealing from employees but none of her past references were able to tell anyone about it b/c of discrimination laws....so you can call references up but they can't tell you anything bad about the person that you want to hire. What is the point!

Makes you wonder what the unintended consequences would be with this:
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644156/posts
A safer society? Legalize drugs

[chaosagent]

Bookmarked

[freedumb2003]

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.

[conservative physics]

ADA needs to be repealed.

I recently renovated a commercial building, you wouldn't believe how many nit picky regulations I had to abide by in order to meet ADA requirements. There is tons of things I left out like water fountains and public phones, because if I put one in... I also have to have an ADA one too... since I couldn't afford two of everything... I didn't put in any, that's nuts!

[JimRed]

Every employer is in a specific situation, and lawyers are ready to pounce if they don't do everything according to the law. And the laws are now so complex, it's impossible to obey all of them.

Which is one reason to NEVER vote for a lawyer for any legislative office! They only "serve" to butter their profession's bread!

[MACVSOG68]

The tough part about this law is that if you fit into the definition of the law, and you applied for a position but did not get it, you can file a complaint either with EEOC or in district court and you have already established a prima facie case. The employer must now prove he did not discriminate against you and had only job related reasons for rejecting you. Makes it difficult to defend and easy to file.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

"He said the ADA is a wonderful law, and had the nerve to say it isn't complicated."

This statement shows just how broken the EEO process has become. I work in this field and the disability discrimination area is so complex that it is beyond belief.

The landmark Supreme Court case of Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, articulated a high standard for establishing a disability pursuant to The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). The Court was guided by the ADA's disability definition: "Substantially" in the phrase "substantially limits" suggests "considerable" or "to a large degree," and thus clearly precludes impairments that interfere in only a minor way with performing manual tasks. Further, because "major" means important, "major life activities" refers to those activities that are of central importance to daily life.

The Toyota case has kept the ADA from becoming a complete disaster. However, determining if an employee is disabled under the ADA is frequently a lengthy and consuming process. It is probably a great idea to have protections for disabled persons, but the EEO system now provides a huge avenue for individuals to intimidate and manipulate management. The drug abuse problem is just one of the areas that deny reason.