unsubscribe ABLA
>From [log in to unmask] Mon Jan 11 06:39:14 1999
>Received: from mango.ease.lsoft.com by home.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for
Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>; Mon, 11
Jan 1999 9:41:36 -0500
>Received: from home (206.241.13.31) by mango.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for
Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>; Mon,
11 Jan 1999 9:40:08 -0500
>Received: from HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM by HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
(LISTSERV-TCP/IP
> release 1.8d) with spool id 19766318 for
[log in to unmask];
> Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:41:15 -0500
>Received: from pva.org (smtp2.pva.org) by home.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP
for
> Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id
<[log in to unmask]>; Mon,
> 11 Jan 1999 9:41:15 -0500
>Received: from DO-National-Message_Server by pva.org with
Novell_GroupWise;
> Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:38:48 -0500
>X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Content-Disposition: inline
>Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:38:42 -0500
>Reply-To: American Blind Lawyers Association
<[log in to unmask]>
>Sender: American Blind Lawyers Association
<[log in to unmask]>
>From: Julie Carroll <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: law libraries and ADA
>Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>I believe there are some DOJ contacts on this list. Is this an issue
DOJ might
>be willing to revisit?
>And, could we get some official guidance about our rights so that we
can target
>advocacy efforts efficiently?
>Thanks.
>Julie
>
>>>> "craig r. anderson" <[log in to unmask]> 01/09/99 01:14PM >>>
>Hi Julie and listers,
>
> In response to Al Fogel's initial questionk, Julie and others
have
>noted arguments that the definition in Section 301(7) of the ADA of
"place
>of public accommodation" is not broad enough to cover a law book vendor
like
>Matthew Bender. However, the section includes in that definition "(E)
any
>bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center
or
>other sales or rental establishment." Why isn't a bookseller an "other
>sales or rental establishment", within this language? There seems to
be a
>related contention that the public accommodations provisions of the Act
deal
>onlyh with physical access, not to sales of products. Apparently,
under
>this theory, a restaurant that allowed disabled people onto the
premises but
>refused to sell them food would be immune from ADA liability. That
can't be
>right. If the DOJ actually espouses such an interpretation, then that
>agency has indeed fallen on hard times. The vendor here should clearly
be
>deemed to fall within the ambit of the ADA.
>
>C. R. A.
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
|
