Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (7293)	2/12/2005 9:25:34 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 12465

I understand the "reasons." Again, the cure is worse than the disease. Go back 50 years. The average person went to court when he had to and he got more justice for the dollar. Times have changed. Whether one calls it "expanding liberalism," and I don't like categorizing, or just that desire that everyone has to have his day in court no matter how insignificant the issue, the system does not work. The little guy has made in roads, but the overall cost to society has gone up. It's a nickel gained at a dollar of cost, kind of like the typical class action recovery.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (7293)	2/13/2005 12:10:00 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 12465

OT but more on how frivolous litigation kills our system. Civil Rights Wheelchair - Racquetball League Where a plaintiff wheelchair racquetball player alleges that a fitness club committed handicap discrimination by not permitting him to receive two bounces instead of one, a judgment in favor of the defendants should be affirmed on the ground that the accommodation sought by the plaintiff was not reasonable. "In this case, we hold that a fitness club's refusal to permit a wheelchair racquetball player to compete in a club league under the condition that the wheelchair player receive two bounces and his able-bodied (referred to by the parties as 'footed' player) opponents receive one bounce is not an act of discrimination on the basis of physical disability in violation of Federal and State antidiscrimination laws. ... "The defendants do not contest that [plaintiff Stephen B.] Kuketz's requested modifications — to play in a wheelchair and to be given two bounces — are 'necessary' for Kuketz to play in the men's 'A' league. There is significant dispute, however, as to the reasonableness of the modifications sought in light of the safety concerns raised by the defendants. There is also disagreement on whether the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the game. Because we conclude that affording Kuketz two bounces against footed players in league play would fundamentally alter the nature of the competition, we need not otherwise address the reasonableness of Kuketz's requested modifications. ... "... The essence of the game of racquetball, as expressly articulated in the rules, is the hitting of a moving ball with a racquet before the second bounce. Giving a wheelchair player two bounces and a footed player one bounce in head-to-head competition is a variation of the official rules that would 'alter such an essential aspect of the game ... that it would be unacceptable even if it affected all competitors equally. ... The modifications sought by Kuketz create a new game, with new strategies and new rules. The club is certainly free to establish or enter into a league that plays this variation of racquetball, but it is not required by the ADA to do so. "... Because the record demonstrates that Kuketz's requested modifications require the 'waiver of an essential rule of competition,' the defendants need not make an individualized inquiry to determine the reasonableness of those modifications. ... "Finally, Kuketz contends that the defendants' refusal to accommodate his needs is unjustified when the defendants previously have accommodated the needs of less skilled players through the practice of 'spotting' points. That practice, however (just as a handicap in golf), does not change an essential aspect of how the game is played. Fitness and athletic clubs open to the public may choose to 'level the playing field' in any number of ways, and such practices are not to be discouraged, but the law does not require modifications that change the fundamental rules of the sport." The full text of this decision can be found on Lawyers Weekly's website, www.masslawyersweekly.com. Kuketz v. Petronelli, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-015-05) (12 pages) (Cordy, J.) (SJC) Case heard by Gants, J., on motions for summary judgment. J. Michael Conley and Mark D. Horan for the plaintiff; Marsha V. Kazarosian and Janet E. Dutcher for Roslyn Petronelli; Daniel J. O'Connor and Michael G. Sites, for Charles M. Mirrione, were present but did not argue (Docket No. SJC-09314) (Jan. 28, 2005). Click here for the full text of the decision. © 2005 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights Reserved.