[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] Re: Handicapped Access

>   Kathy, thanks for going to original sources & adding something to 
>the discussion.

snip

>People have correctly referenced the fact that the ADA was
>specifically designed to be enforced through civil action rather than
>through the establishment or designation of a federal enforcement
>agency.  This was something of an experiment, based on a growing
>disatisfaction in this country with how enforcement agencies carry
out >there work.

A lot of snipping

Priest and all others,

I have gone through several days of training on the ADA and its effect
on government operations.  It was a very interesting discussion. 
Before ADA there were and still are laws requiring all public
buildings to be accessible to people with handicaps.  There were
exceptions and buildings could get waivers.  The ADA act essentially
states that if I do not make these changes then I can be sued by any
disabled individual.  No matter how ludicrous the situation the
individual can still sue.  Thus if I cannot accomodate a blind micro
-biologist in my lab that individual may sue both me and my agency. 
More than likely he will lose the case, but at what expense to us, the
taxpayer.

The problem is not the law, but the way the law is written.  It is so
brad and vague that it can readily be abused by people who have their
own agenda.  

I am happy that we have had this discussion and have aired a lot ofd
tghoughts on the matter.  My fear is that in the long run we may be
able to keep the trail as it now exists but at what cost?  Only the
future can tell.

Happy Hiking
Bob Dudley
Grey Owl

rdudley@arserrc.gov

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================