Yes, I do agree that some ingrates (Wayment) make it appear that we are an unduly sue-happy society, however the fact is that we are more a let’s-not-take-responsibility-and-see-how-much-we-can-shaft-the-little-guy society. To illustrate this, in September, before I could enroll my child in preschool, I was handed a release to sign. In October, prior to renewing my driver's license, the Utah DMV required me to sign a release. In November, I volunteered to host an Olympic couple and was obligated to sign a release. Then, after about a hundred hours of training and committing to shut down my law practice, within minutes of proudly obtaining my Olympic volunteer uniform and ID, SLOC shoved yet another release before me to sign or be sent straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Big deal, quit whining, it’s necessary you say. But here's the rub. I'm piqued and I want to burn the SLOC Olympic flag. Why? Although most Olympic volunteers didn’t read it or didn't understand it, the releases they so dutifully signed, as well as the releases mentioned above, all had language that in essence means, "If SLOC, the Olympic sponsors or their agents, pals, relatives, hit men, goons kill, maim, injure, burn, run over, suffocate, shoot, molest or in any manner harm you, whether acting negligently or otherwise, you release them from any liability and if you try to sue anyway, you agree to forfeit your left kidney."
Granted, the releases at issue here were more diplomatically stated. Nonetheless, take the SLOC release you volunteers signed to any attorney and you will find that my tongue and cheek interpretation is dead on. But what really gets my goat is the element of force. I didn't sign the release to enroll my child because I could go elsewhere. However, I had to get my license from the DMV and what choice did I have with SLOC's coercive timing? We volunteers had already signed a relatively palatable release before we started so why the last minute ambush? Because it was a con.
Contrarily, would SLOC agree if we asked it to release us volunteers from any similar liability? No. SLOC wouldn't blink an eye about suing any volunteer if he or she negligently, or otherwise, caused it or the Olympic sponsors harm. So why did we Olympic volunteers sign SLOC's release? Answer: Baaaa.
To end, I challenge Mitt Romney and anyone who thinks I am a whiner to sign this editorial and return it to me. By so doing you agree that, "If I or my agents, pals, relatives, hit men, goons kill, maim, injure, bum, run over, suffocate, shoot, molest or in any manner harm you, whether acting negligently or otherwise, you release me from any liability and if you try to sue anyway, you agree to forfeit your left kidney." Fair enough?
Loren M. Lambert
Proud To Be an Olympic Volunteer
January 22, 2002 ©
Tuesday, January 22, 2002
Wednesday, January 2, 2002
Supreme Court Strips The American with Disabilities Act
While many may quiver in awe at the Supreme Court's latest edicts on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it must be said: The highest Court has stripped the ADA of its clothes, kicked it into an open sewer where it now huddles in its filth, with its arms desperately crossed before its chest, its hands cupped over its genitals, shivering like the bastard child the Judiciary took it to be when it first laid eyes on it, fresh faced, dressed in new clothes and full of youthful idealism.
The sad thing is that was probably the plan all along. And how was this done? The good old tried and true method that all anal, out-of-touch and technically constipated minds use--twisting simple, universal principles into mind-numbing, irrational, complex idiocies.
The ADA’s simple universal principle was that otherwise able minded and bodied workers, who had mental and physical infirmities, should not be denied employment because of bigotry and ignorance. So, just as a person who is qualified for a job should not be denied employment opportunities because of his skin color, no matter its shade, that same person should not bedenied employment opportunities because of a real or perceived mental or physical infirmity.
Instead of advancing this universal principle, the Courts have spent their mental capital trying to determine who, in their lofty opinion, is "sufficiently disabled" to deserve protection under the ADA as a "protected person." In so doing, they have created a "protected" class of phantoms.
If the Supreme Court's reasoning under the ADA was used to determine who could be protected against discrimination because of the darkness of their skin, it would have decided the following: Only persons with the perfect hue of skin, somewhere between completely black and completely white will be deserving of protection under the law. Consequently, persons to either side of this "perfect hue, " too dark-skinned or too light-skinned, could be summarily denied employment opportunities without any legal recourse.
Sounds ridiculous? This is exactly what the Supreme Court has decided under the ADA. To be a "protected person" under the ADA with legal recourse against bias, the Supreme Court has stated that one must be "severely" disabled. Of course one must not be too "severely" disabled (or dark-skinned) because then one is incapable of working. This is why, even though you may see a few in management, you won't see too many comatose employees on the company pay roll. And of course, one must not be too "slightly" disabled (or light-skinned) because, according to the Supreme Court, such persons are undeserving of protection under the ADA. This is why, under the Supreme Court's ruling, it is perfectly legal for some comatose manager to deny employment opportunities to otherwise qualified persons because in his ignorance he thinks someone with a "lazy eye" is casting spells, he perceives all redheads to be devilish hemophiliacs, he fears anyone who has been treated for mental illness is dangerously evil, and he believes anyone wearing glasses are aliens, etc., etc.
Consequently, anyone alleging disability discrimination and filing suit has a Sisyphean task. To get his case past the Judge's nose and to a jury, he must first prove that he is so severely disabled he is worthy of protection under the ADA (not too light-skinned but that perfect dark hue), yet despite his severe disability he is still capable of doing his job (not too dark-skinned). Unfortunately, these two objectives are factually incompatible. To prove a "severe" disability is to prove one is incapable (too dark-skinned) of working. Yet to prove one is qualified to work is to prove that one is not "severely" disabled (too light-skinned) to deserve protection under the ADA.
This approach facilitates those that harbor irrational and bigoted views against anyone who has, or is perceived to have, physical or mental infirmities whether "severe" or "slight." If you are qualified and capable of doing a job, you should not be disadvantaged whether you are a quadriplegic or have a "lazy eye." To advance the universal principle expressed in the ADA, the law should only ask: (1) Do you have or are you perceived to have a mental or physical infirmity? (2) Despite your real or perceived mental or physical infirmity, with or without a reasonable accommodation, are you qualified to do a given job? and, (3) Were you disadvantaged because of your real or perceived infirmity? If the answer is yes, you should find refuge under the ADA. You should not have to go through the irrational, needlessly complex and expensive task of proving that you are "severely disabled" but yet still capable of working.
There was language in the ADA permitting this black-letter-law approach. Instead, the Judiciary ignored the universal principles expressed in the ADA’s more simple passages and exalted its more complex language. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is not a body given to repent of its mistakes and perhaps the ADA was purposely riddled with flaws by those who knew it would be emasculated by the courts. Therefore, the cry must go out to our legislators to take this child back, clean it off, re-clothe it and give it its dignity back.
Loren M. Lambert
January 2002, ©
The sad thing is that was probably the plan all along. And how was this done? The good old tried and true method that all anal, out-of-touch and technically constipated minds use--twisting simple, universal principles into mind-numbing, irrational, complex idiocies.
The ADA’s simple universal principle was that otherwise able minded and bodied workers, who had mental and physical infirmities, should not be denied employment because of bigotry and ignorance. So, just as a person who is qualified for a job should not be denied employment opportunities because of his skin color, no matter its shade, that same person should not bedenied employment opportunities because of a real or perceived mental or physical infirmity.
Instead of advancing this universal principle, the Courts have spent their mental capital trying to determine who, in their lofty opinion, is "sufficiently disabled" to deserve protection under the ADA as a "protected person." In so doing, they have created a "protected" class of phantoms.
If the Supreme Court's reasoning under the ADA was used to determine who could be protected against discrimination because of the darkness of their skin, it would have decided the following: Only persons with the perfect hue of skin, somewhere between completely black and completely white will be deserving of protection under the law. Consequently, persons to either side of this "perfect hue, " too dark-skinned or too light-skinned, could be summarily denied employment opportunities without any legal recourse.
Sounds ridiculous? This is exactly what the Supreme Court has decided under the ADA. To be a "protected person" under the ADA with legal recourse against bias, the Supreme Court has stated that one must be "severely" disabled. Of course one must not be too "severely" disabled (or dark-skinned) because then one is incapable of working. This is why, even though you may see a few in management, you won't see too many comatose employees on the company pay roll. And of course, one must not be too "slightly" disabled (or light-skinned) because, according to the Supreme Court, such persons are undeserving of protection under the ADA. This is why, under the Supreme Court's ruling, it is perfectly legal for some comatose manager to deny employment opportunities to otherwise qualified persons because in his ignorance he thinks someone with a "lazy eye" is casting spells, he perceives all redheads to be devilish hemophiliacs, he fears anyone who has been treated for mental illness is dangerously evil, and he believes anyone wearing glasses are aliens, etc., etc.
Consequently, anyone alleging disability discrimination and filing suit has a Sisyphean task. To get his case past the Judge's nose and to a jury, he must first prove that he is so severely disabled he is worthy of protection under the ADA (not too light-skinned but that perfect dark hue), yet despite his severe disability he is still capable of doing his job (not too dark-skinned). Unfortunately, these two objectives are factually incompatible. To prove a "severe" disability is to prove one is incapable (too dark-skinned) of working. Yet to prove one is qualified to work is to prove that one is not "severely" disabled (too light-skinned) to deserve protection under the ADA.
This approach facilitates those that harbor irrational and bigoted views against anyone who has, or is perceived to have, physical or mental infirmities whether "severe" or "slight." If you are qualified and capable of doing a job, you should not be disadvantaged whether you are a quadriplegic or have a "lazy eye." To advance the universal principle expressed in the ADA, the law should only ask: (1) Do you have or are you perceived to have a mental or physical infirmity? (2) Despite your real or perceived mental or physical infirmity, with or without a reasonable accommodation, are you qualified to do a given job? and, (3) Were you disadvantaged because of your real or perceived infirmity? If the answer is yes, you should find refuge under the ADA. You should not have to go through the irrational, needlessly complex and expensive task of proving that you are "severely disabled" but yet still capable of working.
There was language in the ADA permitting this black-letter-law approach. Instead, the Judiciary ignored the universal principles expressed in the ADA’s more simple passages and exalted its more complex language. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is not a body given to repent of its mistakes and perhaps the ADA was purposely riddled with flaws by those who knew it would be emasculated by the courts. Therefore, the cry must go out to our legislators to take this child back, clean it off, re-clothe it and give it its dignity back.
Loren M. Lambert
January 2002, ©
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)