jcb
always emerging from hibernation
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
It's the opposite, actually. He's in Florida.
There are two counsel. One is in Florida, the other in L.A.
It's the opposite, actually. He's in Florida.
I wonder, CAN Disney ban them from the parks/DTD/stores during the lawsuit?
If so, WOULD Disney ban them?
Cool. Thanks for explaining.
What's your opinion in regards to this case (if it's okay to say)?
I wonder, CAN Disney ban them from the parks/DTD/stores during the lawsuit?
If so, WOULD Disney ban them?
I feel like the plaintiffs continuing to visit would only strengthen Disney's case.
How can you say, 'I'm treated terribly and this system is working for us' but then continue to thrust yourself into that situation?
Here's a link to a news post about the change in venue.
http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/General...ey_transferred_from_California_to_Florida.htm
I'm on my phone, but could someone post the petition and response to add plaintiffs to keep this thread updated?
I don't have them with me on my computer at work but I'll try to remember to post links to the motion and responses this evening or this weekend.
A park ban would almost certainly be found to be retaliation in violation of the ADA.
The only thing I've found in the ADA regarding retaliation applies to employment, which would not be relevant in this case.
edited to add: I'm pretty sure that a business on private property can ban anyone for any reason, so long it isn't based on bias against a federally protected class. And people who file lawsuits are not a federally protected class.
42 U.S.C. 12203 provides: "No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter." "Chapter" refers to Chapter 126 in Title 42, i.e., all of the ADA (as amended), not just Title I (the employment provisions). By filing a lawsuit, the plaintiffs have "participated" in a "proceeding" under the ADA. Now we can debate whether a ban amounts to illegal discrimination. I'm not aware of a decision directly addressing this but I'd not recommend my (hypothetical) client try it.
Although they may not be formally banned I believe continuing to go to a nonessential place that you are suing for not meeting your needs won't look great for your lawsuit.
42 U.S.C. 12203 provides: "No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter."
"Chapter" refers to Chapter 126 in Title 42, i.e., all of the ADA (as amended), not just Title I (the employment provisions). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap126.htm
By filing a lawsuit, the plaintiffs have "participated" in a "proceeding" under the ADA. Now we can debate whether a ban amounts to illegal discrimination. I'm not aware of a decision directly addressing this but I'd not recommend my (hypothetical) client try it.
Disney is not a person, it is a corporation, correct?
It's wrong to make a person have to provide a service for someone who has sued.
Thanks for the info - don't know why they have to combine entities when they are completely different, as I think a single person is much different than a huge corporation, and should have different standards. A person should have the right to discriminate against someone who has filed a lawsuit against him, while a corporation should not.
If you are filing a lawsuit against a doctor, should that doctor still have to treat you? I don't think so, and I'm on the edge of such a situation myself. It's wrong to make a person have to provide a service for someone who has sued.