The U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles appears to be proceeding on the theory that city and redevelopment officers committed potential “fraud” by accepting federal money for housing projects but omitting to run the projects in compliance with laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requiring that accommodations be offered for disabled patrons. At Cato at Liberty, I wonder whether we’re in for another venture into criminalization of an area best left to civil law.
Posts Tagged ‘disabled rights’
Detroit hospital will pay $70K for not providing sign interpreters
“Henry Ford Health System will pay $70,000 to a family who alleges the system failed to provide sign language interpreters to a patient and family members in 2004, and must train staff on the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to a settlement announced … by the U.S. Justice Department.” [Detroit News]
“Redbox sued over access for visually impaired”
“[T]he kiosks of the video rental giant Redbox are difficult, if not impossible, to use for those who are blind and visually impaired. The lawsuit says Redbox needs to change the technology in their kiosks so the visually impaired can rent movies too.” [KTRK]
Defining who’s disabled
Lawmakers seem intent on depriving employers of any clear definition: “It is ironic that we have a much clearer means of identifying who is entitled to utilize parking spaces reserved for the disabled, you either have a government or company issued permit or you don’t, than we do making the potentially costly determination of whether an individual is disabled under the ADA or one of the state versions.” [Michael Fox]
Judge: new Gotham cabs must have wheelchair access
Agreeing with the Obama Department of Justice, a federal judge has ruled that New York City cannot create more taxicab medallions unless they are for wheelchair-accessible vehicles [AP]. The administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg says full wheelchair conversion of the taxicab fleet, as demanded by litigants, would cost on the order of $900 million over five years. It would prefer to serve wheelchair patrons through a network that could summon specialized cabs on demand, but some of its adversaries dismiss that alternative as smacking of separate-but-equal.
Lawyer and author Philip K. Howard points out in a NYDN op-ed that the relief demanded
would require, over the next five years, that all 13,000 New York City medallion cabs be replaced by cabs that cost about $15,000 more – basically to have their frames cut and then stretched to accommodate a ramp and room inside for a person in a wheelchair. …
The larger taxis are generally about 800 pounds heavier and use about 20% more fuel – raising costs and polluting the air. Stretched taxis have harsher suspensions, and are therefore less comfortable for most users, as well as more dangerous (because they are less maneuverable and harder to stop).
See also NY1, WSJ, NYDN (DoJ weighs in on plaintiffs’ side); Matthew Daus/NYT; NYDN (editorial backing mandate), NY Post (opposing mandate); Capital New York (city files notice of appeal). More: Bader. Update Mar. 21: stayed pending appeal.
Diploma requirements may violate ADA: EEOC
Requiring a high school diploma of applicants for a given job may improperly screen out those with learning disability, according to the federal agency. I’ve got more at Cato at Liberty. Update: more from EEOC; Hans Bader, CEI.
January 5 roundup
- Big business vs. free markets again: light bulb makers “fuming” over GOP effort to restore consumer choice [Sullum] Large grocery chains like DC’s bag tax [Tim Carney]
- Eeeuw! Bystander can sue train fatality victim whose body part flew through air and hit her [Chicago Tribune]
- “Recommended Cell-Phone Ban Comes as ‘Shocking,’ ‘Heavy-Handed’ To Some” [Josh Long, V2M]
- “Exploding churros are newspaper’s fault, Chilean court rules” [AP]
- In New Jersey and North Carolina, GOP friends of trial bar block legal reform bills [Armstrong Williams, Washington Times]
- Kozinski vs. ill-prepared lawyer in case of Sheriff Arpaio vs. newspaper that covered him [The Recorder; Phoenix New Times case]
- Federal judges block cuts to in-home personal care services in California, Washington [Disability Law, San Francisco Chronicle, KQED]
Overdiagnosing mental disorders
My new podcast at Cato discusses the American Psychiatric Association’s ongoing project of redefining and often loosening the criteria for diagnosing mental illness, and some of its legal implications in fields like disability law (earlier).
Labor law roundup
- But don’t call it quotas: “New Proposal May Force Federal Contractors to Hire More People with Disabilities” [Diversity Journal]
- Wow: SEIU local advertises job described as “Train/lead members in … occupying state buildings and banks” [Instapundit]
- $174K/year annual pension, collected for several decades? “Public retirement ages come under greater scrutiny” [AP] “Report makes ‘progressive’ pension-reform case” [Steven Greenhut, Public Sector Inc.] “Retired Cops and Firefighters in RI Town Accept Pension Cuts in Bankruptcy Deal” [Debra Cassens Weiss/ABA Journal, earlier] New York officials move to cut off public access to information about who’s getting what [NY Post]
- In end run around Congress: “Obama instating labor rules for home-care aides” [LAT]
- Artificial “take home pay” rule helped some highly paid Connecticut public workers qualify for emergency food stamps [Hartford Courant, more]
- Lawyers, business groups alarmed at Department of Labor’s proposed “labor persuader” regulations [ABA Journal, earlier]
EEOC sues construction company for not hiring applicant with epilepsy to run heavy equipment
The EEOC’s press release is not entirely clear about the events giving rise to the dispute, but it appears that Georgia Power through its subcontractor requires that heavy equipment operators on a certain project be qualified to pass the federal Department of Transportation’s physical exam for truckers; that applicant Bryan Mimmovich cannot pass that exam because of his controlled epilepsy; and that the EEOC is now arguing that it is discriminatory for the employer to adopt the DOT physical requirements for the equipment operation job.