On Wednesday 16 January 2008 17:56:54 Kendall D. Corbett wrote:
> 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?

The article suggests the CTAs decision (to uphold Neubauer's complaint) was 
the only choice "... given the content of the governing legislation and case 
precedents.". So the rest is just a complaint that the law/precedent should 
not exist.

> 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?" 

Ms Selick seems to like to support losing causes!! Her "Open Letter" to the 
the Canadian Justice Minister says "Should Marc be extradited to the U.S.? 
The Canadian court will almost certainly say yes.  It has little choice under 
the Extradition Act.", and then spends the rest of the article arguing the 
law is wrong. See:-

<http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n004.a01.html>

(Actually, I completely agree with her that the worldwide network 
of "Extradition Treaties" the US has been building up over the last 6 years 
is very bad news.)

My favourite Selickism is this though:-

"Firms should be able to question applicants about their intended lifestyles 
and their ability to withstand the rigours of Bay Street. Do you expect to 
have children? Who will be looking after them while you're trapped downtown 
at midnight? Can your health stand the stress without giving you a heart 
attack or cancer?

This would at least give firms a chance to weed out applicants who may lack 
the competitiveness, drive or robust health necessary to survive. And it 
might clarify to some applicants, if they didn't already know, exactly what 
the firm's expectations for them would be. They might choose to spare 
themselves the torture immediately, rather than after several years of agony.

Unfortunately, questions like these are forbidden, both under the rules of 
professional conduct and the human rights codes. So the mismatches, the 
personal discomfort and the waste of money continue."

Another example of her finding a law "wrong"!!!

Her own website says "The political philosophy expressed in my writing is 
called "libertarian" or "classical liberal"."  :-)

So many battles, such little success!!!

Cheers

Deri




> 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.
>
Cheers

Deri

> 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

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

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

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