Unintended Legal Consequences
By Sebastian Holsclaw Posted in Law — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have a friend who takes care of disabled children. She told me about a place called 'Dollywood'. She told me that one nice thing about the amusement park was that they let severely disabled people in for free. Since I was tickled by the idea of a Dolly Parton theme-park, I took a look at them on the web. While there I found this :
For many years Dollywood has been privileged to offer free admission to individuals who had a total and permanent vision or hearing loss, and/or who have a medical or physical condition which made them permanently dependent on a wheelchair. However, due to recent civil litigation filed against Dollywood regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), we have been advised that legally our disability policy must be changed.
Effective January 01, 2004, we will not be able to offer free or discounted admission to anyone based on their disability or level of disability. From a legal standpoint, our staff is not qualified to make decisions on who should or should not be given free admission to the park based on their level of disability. For those reasons we regret to inform you that individuals who have been admitted under our previous disability policy will no longer be allowed to enter free of charge.
I haven't been able to find an internet copy of this suit, but I think we can safely infer what happened. Dollywood had a policy which allowed certain extremely disabled people get in for free. Someone with a disability less severe than that threshold didn't get in for free. She got angry and sued. Rather than spending tens of thousands of dollars on future lawsuits they decided to drop the policy which was once helpful to certain disabled people in favor of a policy which doesn't help any disabled people.
I am certain that this is not an intended consequence of the ADA. In fact, I suspect that if you were poll all the people who voted for it, at most one or two would be ok with that result. Why is our legislative and judicial system so weird that a law can end up doing almost the exact opposite of what was intended? I almost want there to be some sort of common sense clause in Congressional Acts.
I know that I am providing questions with no answers, but isn't there some way we can stop this from happening? Allowing things to become this ridiculously legalistic just can't be good for our society in the long run.
« Rethinking War Powers — Comments (1) | Court Allows Investigation Into Yet Another NY Times Leak — Comments (18) »
Unintended Legal Consequences 6 Comments (0 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
When I find the guy suing to stop ladies night...why, I'll...
Why is our legislative and judicial system so weird that a law can end up doing almost the exact opposite of what was intended?
Because laws are very blunt instruments; their currency is force and compulsion; and their practicioners are a kind of aristocracy.
A nation turns to law as a kind of last resort when it has gradually eroded all the less rationalistic codes of behavior -- mores, conventions, customs, traditions, even prejudices -- by which it achieved order and repose as distinctive people.
Common sense is an oxymoron where the law is concerned.
We hire legislators to create new laws. The problem is if they don't get their name on a law then they appear to have done nothing. So we wind up getting laws whether we need them or not.
And most of them we don't.
The problem is if they don't get their name on a law then they appear to have done nothing
Let's take that a step further. How can any politician vote against a law called the "Americans With Disabilites Act"? If you were a politician, would you want your opponent to be able to run an ad saying you are against disabled people, no matter how bad that law is?
The extreme example of this was the "Violence Against Women Act" a few years ago that let rape victims sue in federal court. Totally unconstitutional (and eventually struck down), but who wants to be seen as pro violence against women?
I raise a glass every day the Congress is in recess, or rained out. The less they do...the better.
I don't have an answer either, but it reminds me of the "ladies night" specials at bars that are going bye-bye because of suits or threatened suits because of the "gender discrimination."
How soon before senior or veteran discounts come under the ACLU's gaze?