mark handler
SAWHORSE
ADA becomes handicap for business
By John Stossel
September 6, 2010
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1279425&srvc=rss
You own a business, maybe a restaurant. You’ve got a lot to worry about. You have to make sure the food is safe and tastes good, that the place is clean and appealing, that workers are friendly and paid according to a hundred Labor Department and IRS rules.
On top of that, there are rules you might have no idea about. The bathroom sinks must be a specified height. So must the doorknobs and mirrors. You must have rails. And if these things aren’t right - say, if your mirror is just one inch too high - you could be sued.
All of this is because of the well-intentioned Americans With Disabilities Act, which President George H.W. Bush signed 20 years ago
Passed by both houses of Congress with overwhelming majorities, the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities while requiring businesses to provide the disabled “equal access” and to make “reasonable accommodation” for employees.
The ADA was supposed to help more disabled people find jobs. But an MIT study found that employment of disabled men ages 21 to 58 declined after the ADA went into effect. Same for women ages 21 to 39. How could this have happened?
Because the law turns “protected” people into potential lawsuits. Most ADA litigation occurs when an employee is fired, so the safest way to avoid those costs is not to hire the disabled in the first place.
The law has also unleashed a landslide of lawsuits by “professional litigants” who file a hundred suits at a time. Disabled people visit businesses to look for violations, but instead of simply asking that a violation be corrected, they partner with lawyers who (legally) extort settlement money.
Some disabled people have benefited from changes effected by the ADA, but the costs are rarely accounted for.
If a small business has to lay off an employee to afford the added expense of accommodating the disabled, is that a good thing - especially if, say, customers in wheelchairs are rare?
Extra-wide bathroom stalls that reduce the overall number of toilets are only some of the unaccounted-for costs of the ADA. And since ADA modification requirements are triggered by renovation, the law could actually discourage businesses from making needed renovations as a way of avoiding the expense
By John Stossel
September 6, 2010
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1279425&srvc=rss
You own a business, maybe a restaurant. You’ve got a lot to worry about. You have to make sure the food is safe and tastes good, that the place is clean and appealing, that workers are friendly and paid according to a hundred Labor Department and IRS rules.
On top of that, there are rules you might have no idea about. The bathroom sinks must be a specified height. So must the doorknobs and mirrors. You must have rails. And if these things aren’t right - say, if your mirror is just one inch too high - you could be sued.
All of this is because of the well-intentioned Americans With Disabilities Act, which President George H.W. Bush signed 20 years ago
Passed by both houses of Congress with overwhelming majorities, the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities while requiring businesses to provide the disabled “equal access” and to make “reasonable accommodation” for employees.
The ADA was supposed to help more disabled people find jobs. But an MIT study found that employment of disabled men ages 21 to 58 declined after the ADA went into effect. Same for women ages 21 to 39. How could this have happened?
Because the law turns “protected” people into potential lawsuits. Most ADA litigation occurs when an employee is fired, so the safest way to avoid those costs is not to hire the disabled in the first place.
The law has also unleashed a landslide of lawsuits by “professional litigants” who file a hundred suits at a time. Disabled people visit businesses to look for violations, but instead of simply asking that a violation be corrected, they partner with lawyers who (legally) extort settlement money.
Some disabled people have benefited from changes effected by the ADA, but the costs are rarely accounted for.
If a small business has to lay off an employee to afford the added expense of accommodating the disabled, is that a good thing - especially if, say, customers in wheelchairs are rare?
Extra-wide bathroom stalls that reduce the overall number of toilets are only some of the unaccounted-for costs of the ADA. And since ADA modification requirements are triggered by renovation, the law could actually discourage businesses from making needed renovations as a way of avoiding the expense
