Posted by Six String Stu on 10/04/07 01:12

"Paul T. Holland" <pholland@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:47042C35.27F7003E@bellatlantic.net...
>
>
> Relayer wrote:
>
>>
>> Stu, first off, I have owned my own business.
>>
>> Second, I have run a number of companies.
>>
>> Third, we are not talking accessability or accomidation here. (I
>> actually think I had a typo there..I said Toys R Us is
>> accessible..their web site might not be)
>>
>> The OP complained and wants to sue because their website is not usable
>> by disabled people
>
> actually, that's not really what he wrote:
>>Their Web site for applying for employment is inaccessible to
>>low-income disabled people who are most in need of jobs.
>
> In my other post to this thread i mentioned that he's pretty well know
> around usenet - and that he doesn't grasp the idea that there a re
> multiple ways for folk to apply for work there.
>
> he's saying that low income, disabled, aren't going to have internet
> access or any way to access the internet job sites that employers put
> up. [i've had multiple go rounds with him elsewhere] this is an issue of
> robert's of long standing, that the 'combination' of low income and
> disabled is 'of itself' limiting...
>
> which of course it is...as it is for any low income person, disability
> notwithstanding. he believes that disability should give 'greater'
> access to things like the internet - jobs - etc. as if, by itself, one
> earned extra bonus points above any other low income person...
>

Well that sure isnt the case. Most times a disabled person mentions his own
limitations more then twice in the work force he gets labled as a whiner.
> has has in his own right had access to multiple opportunities for
> further education, none of which has led to employability - his
> particular mental state makes him a 'difficult' fit...even with multiple
> social workers, counselors, et al...
>
> (so we all assume he is blind..as I cant think of
>> another reason why it's not usable)
>
> he is not blind
>>
>> It was suggested he actually go to the store (which is the only thing
>> legally required to be accessible) and apply for the job (and if
>> blind, would have a hard time actually performing the required work
>> there).
>>
>
> robert has great difficulties when he has to go to a particular location
> on his own. and a greater difficulty in fitting into a given corporate
> structure. this isn't because of physical needs...
>
Many folks who have suffered differnt sorts of brain injury end up losing
some social skills. I guess that goes for mental impairments as well.
An often misunderstood malady.
>> Has nothing to do with a business being accessible, as most are. In
>> fact, it's rare now to find one that isn't, so people are running out
>> of people to sue.
>
> indeed

I don't know about a law suite for capitol gain, but I run into equal access
violations a lot. Most times I just tell the person my dog is a service
animal, but there have been instances where a lesson along the lines of a
person getting charged for a class A misdomeanor, punishable by up to 90
days anf 500 bucks, is called for.
I have complaints ND0802-008PA and ND0802-009PS filed right now.

>
>>
>> Stu, you are legally blind. Do you think you could run around a Toy's
>> R Us and find the newest "My Pretty Pony" the mother with 6 kids in
>> tow is trying to find, while 6 other people are trying to return their
>> lead paint toys and you need to do a price check on the latest Hot
>> Wheels '67 Camero (all toys that do NOT have braille?)
>>
>> How would you handle it if you couldnt read the packaging. Sue Mattel
>> because their Hot Wheels are not handicapped accessible? Or Toys R Us
>> because they stock toys like that (which by the way, are almost all
>> toys)?

[Back to original message]