Garrett and Bush v. Gore

[David Bernstein]

Let us note, however, that "discrimination" against the disabled, as defined
in the ADA, is rather a funny animal. Under the ADA you are liable for
discrimination if you fail to make reasonable (i.e., somewhat, but not too
costly), accommodations for the disabled.   Congress can define
discrimination any way it wants, and like any decent person, I sympathize
with the disabled, but it's not at all clear that it's a violation of *equal*
protection to fail to make *special* accommodations for the disabled.  Yes, I
know this leaves me open to the accusation of being "ableist," but so be it.
If the government has to provide a blind employee with a reader costing
$25,000 a year, and still pay the employee his full salary, that's strikes me
as more of forced subsidy to the employee that as a remediation of an equal
protection violation.

In a message dated 2/22/01 10:50:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gillman at RCF-FS.USC.EDU writes:

<< "The failure of a state to revise policies now seen as incorrect," he
wrote, does not "constitute the purposeful and intentional action required to
make out a violation of the equal protection clause." >>