still waiting for concrete examples

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

I don't think the ADA would overcome a serious safety concern.  It  
requires reasonable accommodation, not strict scrutiny.  As Art said, there  was 
serious evidence at trial and in the supporting papers showing safety is a  
problem if someone is not clean shaven.  Once again, I think Judge  Williams 
provides the clearest glimpse into the actual state of the record on  the 
safety issue.
 
In any event -- Vance--  does a firefighter have to be maimed or  die 
before the government can prove that safety is a compelling interest that  has 
been narrowly tailored?   And perhaps you could weigh in on  whether the 
hirsute firefighters in the case should have to sign an  indemnification of the 
District if they are injured from wearing a beard while  working as a 
firefighter?  Surely, it is not fair to make taxpayers pay for  injuries that occur 
as a result of an RFRA lawsuit with unclear facts...   What the DC Cir held 
was that DC had bungled its burden of proof, not that it  was wrong....
 
Marci
 
In a message dated 6/22/2009 8:38:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
vrkoven at gmail.com writes:

To say  nothing of a race discrimination case, since this condition 
apparently  primarily affects African Americans.  


Is this where the phrase "too clever by half" comes in?


Vance





**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
Steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823273x1201398689/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
eExcfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090622/20f90608/attachment.htm>