5 ms·

You'll recognize the same rage that there was against the mcdonald's coffee lady. These cases get stoked by tort-reform interests to show "what's wrong with the

You'll recognize the same rage that there was against the mcdonald's coffee lady. These cases get stoked by tort-reform interests to show "what's wrong with the legal system." It took several decades and a documentary for people to understand they were misled about that personal injury case, it will take a while for them to understand disability law.

hedora 4y ago
Those cases are completely different from each other. If McDonalds coffee lady was buying coffees everywhere, checking them with a thermometer, suing because she could have burnt herself, and then used the proceeds to hire more people to do the same in a profit sharing scheme then her case would be comparable to the current ADA abusers in California. Instead, the McDonald's in question had been repeatedly warned by health inspectors, was in violation of corporate policy, and the woman was an actual customer that was hospitalized as a result of the business violating the law.
- drc500free 4y ago
  1. Refuse to fund enforcement of disability protections, and require citizens to crowdsource it via a bounty program. 2. Label anyone who tries to enforce it an “ADA abuser” and claim they are misusing the system to make money. 3. Disability protections are successfully ignored, corporations make more profit. Usually there’s a “???” in the middle, but this one is pretty straightforward.
  - hedora 4y ago
    I think this a good summary of why civil suits usually can only be brought by a party that actually suffered some sort of harm. (The ADA works that way in 48 states, avoiding abusive suits.)
    - drc500free 4y ago
      Can you define for me what makes the suit abusive? Is the defendant following the law and being wrongfully sued? Or are they breaking the law but should only be held accountable if a disabled person has the energy, time, and money to go through the court system? It’s sounding like “it’s annoying to serve disabled people, businesses should be able to get away with not doing that.” In my mind we are literally dealing with people who are abusing (ignoring) ADA to make a profit, but you are calling the OTHER side profit-seeking abusers.

hedora 4y ago

Those cases are completely different from each other. If McDonalds coffee lady was buying coffees everywhere, checking them with a thermometer, suing because she could have burnt herself, and then used the proceeds to hire more people to do the same in a profit sharing scheme then her case would be comparable to the current ADA abusers in California. Instead, the McDonald's in question had been repeatedly warned by health inspectors, was in violation of corporate policy, and the woman was an actual customer that was hospitalized as a result of the business violating the law.

drc500free 4y ago
1. Refuse to fund enforcement of disability protections, and require citizens to crowdsource it via a bounty program. 2. Label anyone who tries to enforce it an “ADA abuser” and claim they are misusing the system to make money. 3. Disability protections are successfully ignored, corporations make more profit. Usually there’s a “???” in the middle, but this one is pretty straightforward.
- hedora 4y ago
  I think this a good summary of why civil suits usually can only be brought by a party that actually suffered some sort of harm. (The ADA works that way in 48 states, avoiding abusive suits.)
  - drc500free 4y ago
    Can you define for me what makes the suit abusive? Is the defendant following the law and being wrongfully sued? Or are they breaking the law but should only be held accountable if a disabled person has the energy, time, and money to go through the court system? It’s sounding like “it’s annoying to serve disabled people, businesses should be able to get away with not doing that.” In my mind we are literally dealing with people who are abusing (ignoring) ADA to make a profit, but you are calling the OTHER side profit-seeking abusers.