Quote:
Originally Posted by HorridRedDog
If I were addicted to alcohol I would have a disability. I would be an American with a Disability. The ADA must apply to anyone with a disability.
|
At least as of 2006, your assertion is incorrect. Alcoholism may be recognized as a professional "impairment" (and separately, it may be difficult to fire someone who is an alcoholic without generating a lawsuit), but courts rarely regard alcoholism as protected by the ADA. You're also not going to have much luck excusing misbehavior or establishing that your "disability" is permanent.
http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/ma...mar/labor.html
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HorridRedDog
Should I sue because curbs and steps can make me fall and hurt myself? Who are you to say no. Bar stools are too high and unstable. What next? The list could go on and on.
|
If you fall on the sidewalk or curb, you can sue the city for failure to maintain it or other forms of negligence. Of course, if you can't prove fault or negligence, you may lose or have your case thrown out of court. That doesn't really have much to do with the ADA.
I.e. it's the job of the legislators and the judges to draw the line and determine whether the claim is meritorious.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HorridRedDog
"The NFB and ACB alleged that the Kindle DX was inaccessible to blind students and thus violated federal law." And paper books are not?
|
You are missing the point of the lawsuit.
Accommodations are already pretty much complete in the "paper" space. E.g. you need to make the course materials available in such a way that a disabled student can access them. If you have a professor or school that refuses to make those accommodations, then they will also be in violation of the ADA.
The claim is that without a few minor changes to make it more accessible, the Kindle provides sighted students with an advantage, namely electronic receipt of materials in a faster time frame, more portable access to course materials, etc. A counter-claim could be valid if it was demonstrated that the disabled students were not put at a disadvantage.
But again, I believe the problem is less that the application of the law is fundamentally wrong; rather, that it's politically ineffective and probably counter-productive, despite the short-term success.
"Common sense" is, at best, an ambiguous concept. A more rational person, and someone who is familiar with the basic concepts of the law, will likely recognize that no legislation can be drafted perfectly, and thus the application of the law will not be perfect either. In this case, you also have competing interests and varying interpretations of what is truly "fair" and the proper extent of the law. Rather than duke it out and have a court make a determination, the parties settled.
It's too bad this will result in an early termination of the pilot programs and has generated some ill will. Hopefully though it may encourage any ebook device manufacturers who are interested in the education market to add TTS and other accessibility features, or design models specifically for the disabled.