affirmative aaction

This is just outrageous!* People shouldn’t say these things, such as:**

“I’m not going to change anything with respect to IEP’s. After all, appropriate progress means anything you want it to mean.”
“Since I don’t want your money, I can do what I want.”
“A cool website is more important than an accessible website. Besides, my business is entirely on the website, so no worries.”
“I hired someone to give me the down and dirty on my hotel being in compliance with the ADA. So, if it isn’t, not my problem since that person has to indemnify me anyway.”
“Just more efficient if I accommodate the same disability in the same way regardless of the individual.”
“Judges need not worry about accommodating litigants with disabilities since they have judicial immunity anyway.”
“A person on a jury with a disability, NAAAAH.”
“For real… affirmative action for persons with disabilities? What is next?
“You can’t do the essential functions of the job, hit the road.”
“You have to be at work unless of course, I-85 has been destroyed.”
“Don’t worry about reasonable accommodations unless the employee says please.”
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you are the police.”
“Addicts are addicts, and so I am going to treat drug addicts and alcoholics in the same way.”
“You have got to be kidding; athletes subject to the ADA. Good Grief.”
“Since Auer is dead anyway, I don’t need to care about what an agency says about how it would interpret its own regulations.”
Dogs!
“I love people on SSDI since I don’t have a duty to accommodate them.”
“A disability is a get out of jail free card.”

*APRIL FOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

** My thanks to Robin Shea for giving me the idea and the courage to do this April fools post. Her April fools blog entry is really cool!

Can they really do that or say that?

Relying on “appropriate progress,” to think that the old world of IEP’s can remain is very dangerous. It is clear when the Court used the term “appropriate progress,” they had something quite a bit different in mind than the old paradigm. A better way to look at it would be to think of it in terms of “progress appropriate…” See this blog entry.
If you refuse to take money, because you want to discriminate, that is not going to work as seen here.
This one is really complicated. See my friend and colleague’s, Richard Hunt, blog entry on it. It is indeed a mess. For now, the thing to keep in mind is meaningful access.
The ADA is a nondelegable duty as discussed here, but see here as well.
The ADA requires an individual analysis. Do you really need a citation for that?:-)
Judges do have to worry about accommodating litigants with disabilities even though they have judicial immunity. See here and here.
Person’s with disabilities do have a right to serve on juries. See here.
Not outrageous at all; A person opposed to affirmative action for persons with disabilities just may have a case as discussed here.
Just because a person cannot do the essential functions of the job, does not mean they can’t do the job with reasonable accommodations. See here for example. For other examples, just plug-in “essential function,” into my blog search engine, and you will see many different blog entries discussing essential functions.
This particular statement is happening all over the Atlanta area. As many of you may be aware, it appears that a group of homeless people started a fire and that caught a bunch of flammable items on fire as well as items that made the heat even worse. The result of which is that I-85 completely busted up in a very busy corridor of Atlanta. Employers are encouraging their employees to telecommute. So, I sure hope they have telecommuting policies. Also, I sure hope they have read this blog entry as well.
Magic words are not required as discussed here. See also ¶ II 2.
Not exactly. The police get some slack but not a free pass.
It is a real common misperception that drug addicts and alcoholics are treated the same way under the ADA. They aren’t. See this blog entry and its comments.
Athletes are most definitely covered by the ADA. See this blog entry and comments for example.
Auer (the doctrine that gives deference to agency interpretation of its own regulations), will shortly be dead, but that doesn’t mean a guidance can’t be great preventive law, such as here.
As everyone knows, I love dogs! See here and here for example.
Outrageous, but complicated.
A disability is not a get out of jail free card.

Hope you enjoyed this blog entry. Remember, it was written on April fools. Good luck to everyone on the upcoming baseball season. The prognosticators are saying the Cubs and the Tribe will be back, but we will see.