Discrimination Archive

Has ADA Gone Too Far with Poolmageddon?

March 16th, 2012. By AbiK

So pool operators have been given a 60-day extension to come up with an ADA-compliant plan for having public pool access for disabled individuals. The ADA pool access law was passed in 2010; the original deadline to comply with it was March 15, 2012. And somewhere in between, the new ADA pool lift regulation law has earned the moniker, “Poolmageddon”.

Even with the year+ lead time, did anyone really think that every pool affected by the ADA pool access law would a) figure out exactly what the law–the nitty gritty parts one needs to understand in order to comply—meant; and b) be able to source pool lifts, install the pool lifts, train staff, and do whatever else was needed to remain open (or avoid risking a DOJ wrist-slap or worse) by March 15?

One could argue that the public pools had plenty of time to be planning for this—but, if you’re at all familiar with public pool operation, it’s not like money is pouring in, so even a portable pool lift that doesn’t require electrical grounding or ripping up the pool deck can cost in the range of $6,000. Not pocket change for most pools. So it’s easy to see how compliance in providing disabled individuals with pool access may have been pushed to the back burner in many a pool budget meeting.

But once the public pool owners’ and operators’ backs were to the wall, and they had to figure out exactly what was required by the ADA pool accessibility law, well, who knew?

If it weren’t for the fact that ADA compliance is a serious issue—and no one wants to see the rights of a disabled individual curtailed or not honored, nor does anyone what the DOJ breathing down his neck—there would almost be a comical element to pool operators scrambling to figure out what the hell the ADA pool lift law means. There’s even an ADA Pool Lift Regulations group on LinkedIn—and the questions and comments sound in line with someone who’d been dropped into a corn maze at dusk without a flashlight and is screaming for help.

Much of the issue is the wording (ain’t it always so?) of the law. In order to comply, public pool operators must accommodate disabled individuals to the extent that it is “readily achievable” to do so. Uh, yeah. So if cash flow is not readily flowing, does that mean a pool lift is not readily achievable?

In reading a LinkedIn comment, it seems the Assistant AG for the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ responded to the “readily achievable” question posed in a letter from the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AH&LA). The response stated:

• “readily achievable [ is,] i.e., easily accomplished without significant difficulty or expense.”
• “…portable lifts can be used at existing pools if affixing the portable lift or installing a fixed lift is not readily achievable”, but must be fixed when it is readily achievable.
• The DOJ believes that the regulation as written provides the flexibility necessary for these entitles to evaluate whether and how to remove barriers to access and to take only actions that they deem are “readily achievable.”

Hmm. So you’re telling me I have to comply, but I have complete latitude to determine if—based on if I think it’s readily achievable—I will or will not comply—right?

You can see where this is heading, right?

Hello litigation!

There are other rather gray or vague areas to figure out as well—such as whether the need to comply with a pool lift is actually still an issue if you’re pool has a sloping entry. Good question. So it’s a veritable can of worms….

Let us know what you think—keeping in mind the issue is not whether or not disabled individuals should have pool access—they should. The issue is in how it’s regulated.

Tags: ADA, ADA Compliance, Americans with Disabilities Act, DOJ, Pool Lift Regulations
Posted in Discrimination, Human/Civil Rights | 2 Comments »

Are you Gay Enough to Play Ball? Prove it

November 29th, 2011. By AbiK

Sexual preference has long been a hot-button discrimination topic in the courts. Only typically, it tends to be a straight v. gay/bi/lesbian/transgender type of situation. Not a intra-LGBT thing. They’re supposed to all be on the same team, right? Which is why this latest lawsuit settlement makes you take pause.

Seems there was a lawsuit filed by three gay softballers after they were disqualified from a softball competition—the 2008 Gay Softball World Series (sidenote: the New York Times ran a priceless headline on the story: “Three Straights and You’re Out in Gay Softball League“)

Why? Because the men were thought to be too—don’t utter the word!—heterosexual. And, as the name of the Gay Softball World Series denotes, one must be gay—and gay enough—to play ball. Not hetero. Not even bi.

So the men—who claim to be varying degrees of gay—filed a discrimination lawsuit against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance and sought not only to have their team’s second place standing in the Series restored, but also each sought $75,000 in damages for emotional distress.

The whole thing raises some interesting questions. For one, it puts the honor system of labelling oneself as “gay” in question. Well, is he or isn’t he? How can we be sure? In other amateur sports it’s common to self-declare your skill level—and you may indeed be challenged on that if, say, you declare yourself to be a much less-skilled player merely to boost your W-L ratio. But self-declaration in such instances is about the obvious—it’s about skill; and skill as such is fairly conspicuous.

But your level of gayness? That’s a behind-closed-doors type of thing—at least as far as proof is concerned.

It also presents a pretty ugly side of discrimination—”it’s not ok to treat me differently because I’m gay, but since you’re only half-gay (aka, “bi”), well, that’s different”. Uh-huh.

At the time of the 2008 Gay Softball World Series, there had been a “straight cap” that limited the number of heterosexual players a team could have to two—otherwise you had to be gay, as in 100% gay. (A bit odd that hetero’s were allowed at all, no?) However, the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance has since changed how it defines “gay”. Gay now includes bisexual and transgender people. How nice to be included.

The lawsuit, filed by San Francisco team members Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ, has settled according to an NYT update, with the three men receiving an undisclosed sum—and their team will recoup their second place finish.

Tags: Discrimination Lawsuit, Gay Softball World Series, LGBT, North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance, Settlement
Posted in Discrimination, lawsuits | No Comments »

Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination Class Action: Slice, Dice and Onward Ho

October 27th, 2011. By AbiK

Close to 80% of you who voted in our poll that asked, “Did the Wal-Mart women have a case?” responded in the affirmative. Clearly, you disagreed with the US Supreme Court after it determined that the original class action lacked a cohesive enough group of plaintiffs (i.e., a “class”) with similar circumstances.

Well, as the saying goes, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned—and sure as shootin’ there are still some mighty ticked off former female Wal-Mart employees who aren’t wanting to just let it ride. Their attorneys aren’t backing down either. They’re just moving on to plan B.

Plan B in this case is to slice and dice the original class action lawsuit—which was nationwide–into smaller regional sex discrimination cases. The first case has just been filed in California—so a heads up to the estimated 45,000 or so current and former California Wal-Mart workers: this is one to watch.

The new smaller lawsuits still allege Wal-Mart discriminated against female employees by paying them less than their male counterparts, and by promoting women less often.

Stay tuned.

Tags: California, Class Action, Wal-Mart Class Action, Wal-Mart Gender Discrimination, Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination
Posted in Class Action, Discrimination, Employment | No Comments »

White Castle 290 lb Craver Files Lawsuit to Sit

September 13th, 2011. By AbiK

Martin Kessman is, no doubt, a Craver—as in White Castle Craver. The type of guy for whom fast food is about the total all-in experience. So I envision his trips to White Castle completely titillate the senses—from inhaling the grease-laden air that greets him in the parking lot—sometimes with a hint of onion—to squinting at the back-lit menu behind the counter, while the blur of White Castle job agents (that’s what they’re called) provides a reassuring “we’re on it” to affirm his order will be up momentarily. Yes, it’s Martin Kessman’s zone. Or was. Until something shook the very core of his comfort at White Castle, and, he sued.

So now there’s this White Castle Lawsuit.

Here’s the deal. Martin Kessman likes White Castle burgers. In fact, it’s reported that he likes the “Sack Meal 2” (that oughta getcha salivatin’—Sliders in a Sack! That’s Sack Meal 2 shown above, coming in at over 1,000 calories.). But Kessman likes them not in a car, or a plane or a train—but INSIDE White Castle. And Kessman’s a big guy. He’s 290 pounds big. He needs a 290 pound-worthy place to sit and enjoy his Sack of a meal. And, well, the chairs at White Castle—at least the one he frequents in upstate New York—are benches that are bolted to the floor. You can’t pull them out to adjust them to your girth, which Kessman needs to do.

You can’t move the tables either—they’re also bolted down—and Kessman claims to have injured his knee by banging it into the steel support legs in an attempt to sit comfortably. See, Kessman claims the distance between the bolted down chairs and tables are discriminatory to fat people—he can’t fit in without discomfort or apparently knee injury.

So none of this sits well (forgive the pun) with Kessman. And the fact that there aren’t moveable chairs at White Castle is certainly not due to any lack of effort on his part. He’s complained to White Castle. He’s written to corporate headquarters about it. And as the New York Post reported, White Castle even responded by saying that they would be changing the seating—and they even included specs for Kessman to see. Oh, and they sent him some coupons for some burgers. That was over two years ago.

But you know how these corporate-driven changes go…

So Kessman hasn’t witnessed the bolted-down benches being swapped out for four-legged slider chairs (couldn’t resist) and he’s now getting really serious about this whole thing. So the civil liberties lawsuit has been filed. Kessman’s suing for new (presumably more spacious) White Castle chairs, and unspecified damages.

I don’t know how many people out there have really taken affront to White Castle’s seating set-up, but I’m guessing most folks who frequent the fast-food chain are less concerned about comfortable seating and more concerned about downing some sliders—somewhere else. I’m not thinking—in the scheme of things—that this really warrants legal action.

Oh but wait, if this settles—or actually goes to court—I may be able to start a list of all the places I go where things just aren’t made to accommodate tall people, which I am. And guess what? My legs—my knees—slam into practically everything wherever I’m seated! So maybe thanks are in order for Martin Kessman—after all, I can’t help that I’m tall any more than Martin Kessman can help that he’s 290 pounds, right? 😉

Tags: ADA, Civil Liberties, Discrimination, Martin Kessman, White Castle
Posted in Class Action, Discrimination, Emerging Issues | 7 Comments »

Should Dwarfism Preclude Working at Starbucks?

August 23rd, 2011. By AbiK

“Dwarfism is not a disease and opinions vary within the dwarf community about whether dwarfism is a disability. Dwarfism is a recognized condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act . Short stature can make some activities of daily living harder, such as using an ATM or gas pump. But most people with dwarfism have active, healthy lives and normal life spans.”

That’s a quote from WomensHealth.gov. The bold is from me as it caught my eye…is dwarfism a disability that’s rightly covered by the ADA? WomensHealth.gov is one of the sites I clicked through in order to try to gain more insight on the recent discrimination settlement where Starbucks agreed to pay $75,000 to a woman, Elsa Sallard, who has dwarfism and was let go after only three days of training as a Starbucks barista (“barista” being the adopted from Italy and seemingly inflated on US soil moniker for someone who makes, pours and hands over coffee, espresso or that quad venti skinny with whip iced caramel macchiato).

So Sallard, whose actual height has not been reported, must be 4 feet, 10 inches tall or less—as that’s the height one needs to be in order to be considered a dwarf (according to MedlinePlus, though the Mayo Clinic defines a typical range of “2 feet 8 inches (81 centimeters) to 4 feet 8 inches (142 centimeters)”). Four feet ten inches in and of itself would not seem to be a disability so I’m going on the assumption that whatever height Sallard is, she’s shorter than one needs to be to perform barista duties.

Regardless, she requested a stool or step ladder in order to facilitate her work behind the Starbucks counter. According to Reuters, the Starbucks manager at the location (El Paso, TX) where Sallard was being trained “ignored” her request and subsequently fired her, claiming she’d pose a danger to employees and customers.

While this may not be popular with all readers, I can see the manager’s point of view. I may not totally agree with it, and it certainly doesn’t align with how the ADA is worded**, but I can see where he might have been coming from. Particularly if the El Paso Starbucks was anything like a Manhattan Starbucks.

(**btw, the ADA considers a qualified individual with a disability to be “a person who meets legitimate skill, experience, education, or other requirements of an employment position that s/he holds or seeks, and who can perform the eessential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. Requiring the ability to perform “essential” functions assures that an individual with a disability will not be
considered unqualified simply because of inability to perform marginal or incidental job functions. If the individual is qualified to perform essential job functions except for limitations caused by a disability, the employer must consider whether the individual could perform these functions with a reasonable accommodation. If a written job description has been prepared in advance of advertising or interviewing applicants for a job, this will be considered as evidence, although not conclusive evidence, of the essential functions of the job.” As such, dwarfism would be considered a disability.)

I recently had the pleasure of hitting a few Starbucks locations throughout NC, SC, GA and VA. It’s a pull up a chair and relax with some coffee kind of vibe. Not so in NYC. In New York, coffee’s gotta be served up PDQ or fuhgedaboutit. Doesn’t matter what time of day. So I can see where a manager at a busy Starbucks might first be thinking of mitigating the risk of injury prior to accommodating someone who can’t effectively reach all the necessary equipment to wait on customers.

It’s not hard to imagine the hustle and bustle behind the counter with waves of piping hot coffee (where’ve I heard that before?) cresting at the rim of every cup that’s being shuttled around. Throw in a step stool to maneuver about and it’s a burn injury waiting to happen at the very least; a slip and fall injury (or worse) at the worst.

The manager’s concerns—if that’s what they were—really aren’t part of the equation when it’s an ADA case. So for Sallard, Starbucks should’ve just run out to Lowe’s and gotten a blessed step stool. Instead, they’re coughing up $75,000 and providing diversity training on how to manage associates with disabilities.

Tags: ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, Dwarfism, EEOC, El Paso TX, Elsa Sallard, Starbucks Discrimination, Starbucks Dwarf
Posted in Discrimination, Emerging Issues | 3 Comments »