Mag,

You're right; I was confusing the two.  I knew about the refused certified
letters to Eastwood, and the guy filing lawsuits for everything, and lumped
the two together.  Which begs the question: Would a 90 day notification law
have helped Eastwood, or were the certified letters sent after the suit was
filed?  It's been awhile since I read about it.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!


On 1/16/08, Tamar Raine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> yes she wrote him several times about the barrier issues, and he refused
> the letters sent by special delivery, and refused to do anything about it.
>
> I think people are cnfusing her case, with the guy who goes around suing
> everybody! His suits are so frequent, he has been barred from suing anymore.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> http://www.zazzle.com/TamarMag*
> Tamar Mag Raine
> [log in to unmask]
> www.cafepress.com/tamarmag
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:34:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Robbing (able-bodied) Petra to pay (disabled) Paula
>
> Do you mean she sent several notices of ADA violations but was ignored?
> Where did you hear that?  I haven't read of that bit.
>
> Kat
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Tamar Raine [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:55:56 -0800
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Robbing (able-bodied) Petra to pay (disabled) Paula
>
>
> kat, she sent several letters.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> http://www.zazzle.com/TamarMag*
> Tamar Mag Raine
> [log in to unmask]
> www.cafepress.com/tamarmag
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Cleveland, Kyle E." <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:37:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Robbing (able-bodied) Petra to pay (disabled) Paula
>
> Seems like a measured response to me.  Small business owners can't hide
> behind ignorance of the law, but three months to fix a problem brought
> to the fore by a pwd seems like a "reasonable accommodation" on the part
> of the plaintiff.
>
> Unless there's more to the story...
>
> Did the woman inform Mr. Eastwood and his staff that his hotel was out
> of compliance with regard to door width, or did she go right to the
> attorneys?  Our litigious society (and subsequent tort "reform") is one
> of the reasons that the ADA stands in danger of being "watered down".
>
> K.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cerebral Palsy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Robbing (able-bodied) Petra to pay (disabled) Paula
>
> Hi, Kyle,
>
> Maybe this will explain things:
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2000/nf00517c.htm
>
> Kat
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Cleveland, Kyle E. [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:00:18 -0500
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Robbing (able-bodied) Petra to pay (disabled) Paula
>
>
> Eastwood??  Really??  Why for izzat?  I figured him for a more liberal
> outlook on things.
>
> Kyle
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cerebral Palsy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Kendall D. Corbett
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Robbing (able-bodied) Petra to pay (disabled) Paula
>
> Deri,
>
> Your take on the Canadian situation is appreciated.
>
> In the US, large companies (WalMart, etc.) and powerful, well connected
> individuals (Clint Eastwood) or, in some instances, plaintiffs
> (Littleton,
> etc.) have appealed summary judgements or jury findings and it's
> resulted in
> a weakening of the ADA on appellate review.  This has happened because
> the
> ADA was not written as explicitly as, say, the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> The ADA Restoration Act is before Congress right now to address these
> concerns.
>
> As far as I know, the Canadian airline policy hasn't been tested on
> appeal
> yet.  Meir, I'd be interested to know what court precedents Selick was
> referring to, and what courts they were in - any ideas?  Also, was the
> Canadian decision a result of a lawsuit filed by Neubauer, or was at an
> "administrative decision" by CTA?
>
> An idea just occurred to me - maybe Selick's editorial piece was a well
> placed advertisement so that when the airlines deny someone a seat for
> an
> attendant on an otherwise full flight, the airline will contact Selick
> or
> her firm when the person with the disability files a lawsuit, or is that
> what you meant by "....no win/no fee basis?"  The parking analogy is
> apropos
> (I think there's supposed to be a "double P" in there somewhere, but I'm
> not
> sure which one).  There have been public entities that have made similar
> arguments (dating back 35 years now, under Section 504 of the 1973
> Rehabilitation Act) by saying "If we put in 'handicapped parking,' it's
> not
> used, and we lose spaces that could be used by other people."  As a
> matter
> of fact, the UW Transit and Parking people tried that just this fall.
> There
> was a person who was alotted a reserved spaceby one building, and their
> office was moved into our building.  TransPark's immediate solution was
> to
> use one of the accessible spaces for this spot.  I know the people at
> TransPark pretty well, and took pictures of the lot (with all the
> accessible
> spaces full, and the "regular" spaces half full, at most, and the
> TransPark
> people decided to put the reserved space in another location entirely.
>
>
> On 1/15/08, Deri James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I wonder if Selick's diatribe was due to taking up the Airline's case on
> a
> no
> win/no fee basis!!!
>
> Seems, from the article, the courts interpreted the law correctly (so
> probably
> no appeal would be successful). The problem in the US seems some courts
> are
> weakening the law, in Canada, it is decisions like this which keep the
> law
> strong.
>
> In victory we can smile on Ms Selicks sour grapes and pat her kindly on
> the
> head. :-)
>
> Cheers
>
> Deri
>
> PS Anyway, why should supermarkets use up valuable real estate putting
> in
> parking places for disabled people - they weren't responsible for
> causing
> the
> disability. (I'm joking - but its the same argument!)
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
>
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Kendall
>
> An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's redundant!)
>
> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
> progress
> depends on the unreasonable man.
>
> -George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
>
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
>
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>
>


-- 


Kendall

An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's redundant!)

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.

-George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy