• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    This leads to endless confusion and to court cases exactly like this, which are leveraging the text of the ADA as it stands to make their point.

    That’s how common-law systems are designed to work, though (along with delegation to regulators in the executive branch). You can’t really expect the legislature to think through every single nuance and corner-case a-priori, right?

    • piecat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah like if they had a mega list of every disability they could think of, but forgot one, or a new one is discovered, what happens in court? Said new/forgotten disability wouldn’t legally be a disability.

    • Snot Flickerman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Oh of course, but I was speaking of people who are seriously disabled (not just people with lactose intolerance) and that severely impacts their ability to just go out and get a lawyer to fight for their rights.

      Like, the lactose intolerant, I’m pretty okay with them needing to come up with the money to prove it in court. Lactose intolerance may be considered a disability, but it doesn’t rise to the level of disability that makes it hard to hold a job.

      However, a lot of other people are stuck, shit out of luck, unable to work, hell, often unable to move, and they’re still fighting for their problems to be recognized as a disability. Further, even with a disability that’s accepted as a disability, you still have to go to court and fight, often for years, to get a disability recognized. You’re not allowed to work while you’re waiting for that classification. It’s just a bad system for it.

      The common-law system is fine and good, but we’re all aware of how it’s absolutely tilted in favor of people who have money and against those who don’t.