Obese Man to Sue NHS for letting him get fat.

[Warren Dew]

Technically, the way the law is written in the US, there are no "black rights" or "women's rights." There are certain things you can't do based on sex or race (or religion, national origin, etc.), like hiring, firing, giving raises, harassing, renting or selling houses, hotel rooms and public accommodations, etc. The "rights" are as applicable to white folks and men as black folks and women. It is just as illegal to not higher a white person because of his race, or not rent to a man because of his sex.

It's illegal, but I'm not sure it's "just as illegal". Current case law means minorities have a lower burden of proof in many alleged discrimination cases than whites do, for example. Some of the Supreme Court justices recognize that some of this case law is likely unconstitutional, but they've been putting off dealing with it for as long as possible.

It's also easier to win a race or sex discrimination suit than a disability related suit, because the ADA doesn't create the same degree of protected class.

[Coito ergo sum]

Technically, the way the law is written in the US, there are no "black rights" or "women's rights." There are certain things you can't do based on sex or race (or religion, national origin, etc.), like hiring, firing, giving raises, harassing, renting or selling houses, hotel rooms and public accommodations, etc. The "rights" are as applicable to white folks and men as black folks and women. It is just as illegal to not higher a white person because of his race, or not rent to a man because of his sex.

It's illegal, but I'm not sure it's "just as illegal". Current case law means minorities have a lower burden of proof in many alleged discrimination cases than whites do, for example. Some of the Supreme Court justices recognize that some of this case law is likely unconstitutional, but they've been putting off dealing with it for as long as possible.

In practice, you are probably right, but the case law has never overtly stated that the burden of proof is greater or lesser. The plaintiff always bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on their claims. In an employment case, the employer bears a burden of production - a burden of coming forward with evidence - to show that they have some sort of non-discriminatory reason for their actions other than race, if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case. But the overall burden of proof always remains with the plaintiff and is always a preponderance of the evidence.

People generally don't believe that a white person was discriminated against as easily as they believe a black person was discriminated against. That's a function of the jury, though, and has nothing to do with the legal burden of proof.

I don't think you're correct about supreme court justices recognizing that some "case law is likely unconstitutional." Which justices? When? What did they say?

It's also easier to win a race or sex discrimination suit than a disability related suit, because the ADA doesn't create the same degree of protected class.

The relative ease (I say "relative" because none of them are "easy") - the relative ease depends on the facts. To win a race discrimination case, the plaintiff has to prove that they were discriminated against because of a protected classification, and that they suffered injury or loss as a result of the discrimination. If the employer is able to present a legitimate business reason for its actions, then the employee must have some evidence that the reason was a mere pretext for invidious discrimination. To win a disability case, there are many ways - we have failure to accommodate cases and then we have discrimination cases. A discrimination case works the same as a race case - the plaintiff must prove that he was discriminated against because of a disability (which necessitates proof that he has a disability or is "regarded" as having a disability). The only thing I guess I could see being "easier" in a race case is that it's easier to prove you have a race than to prove you have a disability in some cases.

[Cunt]

Mainly because, in law, there are particular rights and responsibilities associated with the word 'disability' which are not applicable to anyone else.

Well, that's wrong. Rights and responsibilies should need more than a word to be automatically conferred.
Shades of grey again. The word has a huge span of shades of meaning, so nothing should be automatic, just on a word.

Well, I understand your frustration, but 'duty to accomodate' is not for people who have a feeling they need it. It is ONLY required for those who have a disability.

You do understand that the law is made of words, right? If you are visually impaired, your right to reasonable accommodation might include a much larger monitor at your workstation. If your co-worker gets such an accommodation, and you want one because you feel it is unfair that they get one and you don't - too bad.

Is lung cancer a self-inflicted condition? How about if someone got it from working for years with insulation? What about smoking for years? What about both?

You're back to shades of grey again. You've got to get your head round the concept. Nothing is black and white in human behaviour.
Cancer from smoking is self-inflicted, but not as much as poking your own eyes out.

I do get shades of grey, but we are talking about laws here. Some of them are pretty clear.

Where do you live? I can hop on my sled or boat and be alone in beautiful country in ten minutes. I can (and will) finish paying for my modest home with a modest job in just a bit over 10 years.
I have health care and good cold beer.
I don't have to piss a scrim of ice off the toilet every morning.
It's pretty fucking good, though I admit I haven't lived elsewhere...

Why the fuck are you so defensive about your lump of rock? For the record I've lived in Canada and I liked it. (apart from the clear-felling and Sudbury)
I was making a point about your LABOUR LAWS. India and the Phillipines couldn't afford the luxury of that kind of stuff, and that's why they will take more and more jobs from countries like Canada as time goes on. You gift them an easy way to undercut you. And so does Britain, (where I live) and France and most of the Western economies.
It's not just the cash that employers resent, it's the admin work that goes with it that really bites.

I agree, but I also know that business owners are often quite stupid about disability. An example is that I was talking to a fellow who runs a mining exploration company in town, and I asked him if he would hire someone with a disability. He said 'no way, we can't have anyone with a disability. The work is too hard'. So I said 'is that a hearing aid you are wearing?'.
India and the Phillipines might be attractive to business owners who want disability rules to be more lax, or who want lower safety standards, but that doesn't mean it's the right way to do business.
(it MAY indeed be the best way to make money, but that argument would work for keeping slaves, too)

I don't think that part is very unfair. I think the rotten part is allowing anyone who claims to be 'addicted' to be able to claim they are disabled.

I totally agree. Where I differ, is that even if you have to use the word disabled, it doesn't necessarily bestow the same rights as another disability. If it didn't, there wouldn't be the same clamour to get things labelled as a disability, if there was no cash in it.

The law should grasp the nettle that not all disabilities are worthy of the same benefits.

I think it could go even further and forget about 'disability' altogether. Why not make accommodations for anyone who needs them?

Going back to the example of the vision-impaired human and the monitor, what's the big deal on buying a productive employee better gear? What is the big deal on declining to buy someone better gear who doesn't need it?

Now back to fat fuckers...if you were the judge, and had to rule in the OP's favour, what kind of award would best serve justice and the public good?

That's easy. Check out page 1, reply 1.

You missed my question, but I understand. It's a tough one.
It began 'If you were the judge, and had to rule in the OP's favour....'

Meaning that you could indeed see that there was no cash award, but you still would have to make some kind.

Maybe I can make it easier...I know a couple of people who were prescribed a medication which had listed as a side-effect, weight gain. Is their weight gain partly the NHS's responsibility?

If someone really can demonstrate that something the NHS did was a contributing cause to the persons obesity, then how would you award?

I would award (I know this is sloppy) with nutritionist/psychologist consults (paid in part or in full) and physiotherapy (though I don't know what this means when the initial problem is obesity)

Can you answer? Maybe give it some serious thought? You do realize, I hope, that judges sometimes have to make awards which they would rather not.

[Warren Dew]

I don't think you're correct about supreme court justices recognizing that some "case law is likely unconstitutional." Which justices? When? What did they say?

Sorry, it's not case law, it's actual law, specifically the disparate impact provisions of Title VII. The first concurrence in Ricci v DeStefano is the most recent place I've seen that indication: "I join the Court's opinion in full, but write separately to observe that its resolution of this dispute merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection? ... The Court's resolution of these cases makes it unnecessary to resolve these matters today. But the war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how--and on what terms--to make peace between them."

Note that the disparate impact provisions don't apply to disability, just to race. The concurrence is not long and is probably worth your reading in full:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... ncurrence1

[mistermack]

You do understand that the law is made of words, right?

Bit sarky? I assume you know the answer to that.
Words can be used with fantastic precision, and should be, when framing law. They cost nothing, and don't warm the planet. So there is no excuse for imprecise laws. If "disability" needs to be clarified, it can be clarified for the purposes of the law
.
Also, I obviously don't know the wording or content of Canadian law, only what you have said. So I'm just spouting off my thoughts on what I've read here.

If you are visually impaired, your right to reasonable accommodation might include a much larger monitor at your workstation. If your co-worker gets such an accommodation, and you want one because you feel it is unfair that they get one and you don't - too bad.

In my opinion, employers also have a right to reasonable accommodation from their employees. Especially as they pay the wages. Nobody should expect a perfect world. Number one priority is to get the job done.

India and the Phillipines might be attractive to business owners who want disability rules to be more lax, or who want lower safety standards, but that doesn't mean it's the right way to do business.
(it MAY indeed be the best way to make money, but that argument would work for keeping slaves, too)

All true, but that argument won't pay any unemployment benefit. The facts of life aren't always what we would like.

I think it could go even further and forget about 'disability' altogether. Why not make accommodations for anyone who needs them?

Going back to the example of the vision-impaired human and the monitor, what's the big deal on buying a productive employee better gear? What is the big deal on declining to buy someone better gear who doesn't need it?

You're straying into the realm of common sense there. Hardly a matter for the law. At the end of the day, the employer pays the bills. And has to try to keep emloyees content, or go to the expense of finding new ones.

You missed my question, but I understand. It's a tough one.
It began 'If you were the judge, and had to rule in the OP's favour....'

Meaning that you could indeed see that there was no cash award, but you still would have to make some kind.

Maybe I can make it easier...I know a couple of people who were prescribed a medication which had listed as a side-effect, weight gain. Is their weight gain partly the NHS's responsibility?

If someone really can demonstrate that something the NHS did was a contributing cause to the persons obesity, then how would you award?

I would award (I know this is sloppy) with nutritionist/psychologist consults (paid in part or in full) and physiotherapy (though I don't know what this means when the initial problem is obesity)

In this case, firstly, I can't see how it COULD be possible that I HAD to rule in his favour. How many times would he have been advised, asked, even pleaded with, to eat less, by his doctors? (over many years). I think if he has had this advice, there is no negligence, and therefore no liability.

In your "easier" case, the same applies. If the doctor was not negligent in his prescribing or care, then any side-effect is a risk the patient takes. You can't expect perfect outcomes from medical treatment. With many treatments, there are risks in not taking it, and risks in taking it. If it goes wrong, and the doctors weren't negligent, at the end of the day, that's a chance you take as a patient. Side effects are listed with medicines and if you experience them, it's up to you to talk it over with the doctor.

If someone really can demonstrate that something the NHS did was a contributing cause to the persons obesity, then how would you award?

It would have to involve negligence. Just ""contributing" to is not enough. Lots of medicines can cause weight gain. It's an informed risk you take as a patient.
If there was some sort of negligence, you would have to decide if it made a material difference, if it was slight, or gross etc.

[Cunt]

You do understand that the law is made of words, right?

Bit sarky? I assume you know the answer to that.

So you know that the law can be very black and white. If you have a disability, you can request accomodations and invoke the employers duty to accommodate and if you don't you can't.
Pretty black and white. (as laws go)

If you are visually impaired, your right to reasonable accommodation might include a much larger monitor at your workstation. If your co-worker gets such an accommodation, and you want one because you feel it is unfair that they get one and you don't - too bad.

In my opinion, employers also have a right to reasonable accommodation from their employees. Especially as they pay the wages. Nobody should expect a perfect world. Number one priority is to get the job done.

Prioritizing like that is why employers are bound by laws. Number one priority in todays world seems to be safety - of the individual working , and the environment (to a lesser degree)
You can't skip over the rights of an employee to get a job done. Many employers do, and many think they can't have it any other way, but just because an employer owns the business doesn't mean it's right for him to make an employee put his job over his personal safety.
Bosses pay the wages, but they have (and SHOULD have) obligations to their employees. The size and nature of those obligations are the main reason I would not have employees.

India and the Phillipines might be attractive to business owners who want disability rules to be more lax, or who want lower safety standards, but that doesn't mean it's the right way to do business.
(it MAY indeed be the best way to make money, but that argument would work for keeping slaves, too)

All true, but that argument won't pay any unemployment benefit. The facts of life aren't always what we would like.

Well, if you don't like the human rights offered in a given country, you can always work to change them. Why not lobby for less rights for people with disabilities. You could start off with forcing them to disclose their disability to their employers!

I think it could go even further and forget about 'disability' altogether. Why not make accommodations for anyone who needs them?

Going back to the example of the vision-impaired human and the monitor, what's the big deal on buying a productive employee better gear? What is the big deal on declining to buy someone better gear who doesn't need it?

You're straying into the realm of common sense there. Hardly a matter for the law. At the end of the day, the employer pays the bills. And has to try to keep emloyees content, or go to the expense of finding new ones.

[/quote]What you seem to be missing is that the employer may be legally bound to purchase a larger monitor for one employee and not for another, based solely on their disability.

Or any number of things - based solely on the claim of disability. It's like it's black and white.