The case is about accessibility information on hotel websites, but arguments focused on questions about whether the plaintiff could bring the lawsuit and whether the case is moot.
The ADA absolutely requires Disabled people to file private lawsuits in order to remedy discrimination, including when interpreters are denied in medical situations for Deaf people. This allows the perpetual denial of interpreters within the medical crisis itself, and the “solution” is a private lawsuit after the fact, that maybe someday is fixing the situation for others down the road.
It is plainly obvious that people don’t understand that this is exactly how the ADA works. It’s terrible! Disabled people and Deaf people have no EEOC-like agency to report discrimination to, and no capacity to fix problems unless they themselves sue. Make an ADA agency. Remove the requirement for private lawsuits. Make reporting discrimination simple and easy.
I’ve experienced interpreter denial thousands of times, and sucked it up, especially in hospitals, because I was always seriously ill and couldn’t simply walk out and get treatment elsewhere. Medical appointments weren’t much better than that. Hell, it would be great if it was easy to get interpreter access paid for.
In Minnesota, health insurance plans pay for the interpreter, removing any cost burdens on the medical facility. But in other situations it can be more difficult. A small federal tax to pay for interpreters would be way better than perpetual discrimination, 33 years later.
Thank you for this! You have described so succinctly the root of the problem, which in my experience is representative of our broader cultural attitude regarding access for disabled and Deaf/deaf/HOH people: the onus is on the person who requires the accommodation to do the heavy lifting, and the fact that doing so is often not possible is seen as a failing on the part of person needing access that should have been reliably available but wasn't. It's far past time in this society that the dignity and well-being of disabled and Deaf/deaf/HOH be respected and prioritized ahead of the convenience of systems and services that routinely fail to provide necessary accommodations.
“the onus is on the person who requires the accommodation to do the heavy lifting” THAT THAT. And people are just easily able to deny our asks. We have no recourse, not in the moment.
I'm not sure what that means exactly. It's a very different case, about very different issues. 303 Creative is about exemptions from state public accommodations laws; this is about standing and mootness under that ADA's public accommodations provision.
I meant that they took the 303 Creative case due to one person. This one affects a lot more people even if the plaintiff isn't going to use the accommodations herself. Did the hotel change their website already and that's what makes it moot?
The ADA absolutely requires Disabled people to file private lawsuits in order to remedy discrimination, including when interpreters are denied in medical situations for Deaf people. This allows the perpetual denial of interpreters within the medical crisis itself, and the “solution” is a private lawsuit after the fact, that maybe someday is fixing the situation for others down the road.
It is plainly obvious that people don’t understand that this is exactly how the ADA works. It’s terrible! Disabled people and Deaf people have no EEOC-like agency to report discrimination to, and no capacity to fix problems unless they themselves sue. Make an ADA agency. Remove the requirement for private lawsuits. Make reporting discrimination simple and easy.
I’ve experienced interpreter denial thousands of times, and sucked it up, especially in hospitals, because I was always seriously ill and couldn’t simply walk out and get treatment elsewhere. Medical appointments weren’t much better than that. Hell, it would be great if it was easy to get interpreter access paid for.
In Minnesota, health insurance plans pay for the interpreter, removing any cost burdens on the medical facility. But in other situations it can be more difficult. A small federal tax to pay for interpreters would be way better than perpetual discrimination, 33 years later.
Thank you for this! You have described so succinctly the root of the problem, which in my experience is representative of our broader cultural attitude regarding access for disabled and Deaf/deaf/HOH people: the onus is on the person who requires the accommodation to do the heavy lifting, and the fact that doing so is often not possible is seen as a failing on the part of person needing access that should have been reliably available but wasn't. It's far past time in this society that the dignity and well-being of disabled and Deaf/deaf/HOH be respected and prioritized ahead of the convenience of systems and services that routinely fail to provide necessary accommodations.
“the onus is on the person who requires the accommodation to do the heavy lifting” THAT THAT. And people are just easily able to deny our asks. We have no recourse, not in the moment.
We absolutely need to do more for equitable access for disabled people. I hope whatever outcome we get for this case doesn't limit that in any way.
isn't this a little more consequential than the website case from last term?
I'm not sure what that means exactly. It's a very different case, about very different issues. 303 Creative is about exemptions from state public accommodations laws; this is about standing and mootness under that ADA's public accommodations provision.
I meant that they took the 303 Creative case due to one person. This one affects a lot more people even if the plaintiff isn't going to use the accommodations herself. Did the hotel change their website already and that's what makes it moot?