I'm handicapped and also a freelancer and I have six years of college and I worked for a Fortune 500 company at one time. I feel I'm better positioned than a lot of individuals to figure out what I need to do without an accountant and a legal team and yadda, but I have my moments when I would like to go hide under a bed and cry and try to figure out how to kill myself because our highly regulated world sometimes seems like it is actively designed to make it impossible for people to make their lives work (without being part of a megacorp -- and what if that doesn't work for you?).
I thought that everybody being part of megacorps was the intended outcome of a lot of regulations. Isn't that why there are no clear guidelines and limits to a lot of regulation? It's particularly ironic that the government themselves can't even seem to keep up with a lot of regulations (reminds me of GDPR and how the EU commission's websites didn't follow them).
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."
People tend to make rules that reflect the kind of environment that is typical for them. Federal government is large, bureaucratic, etc. It's no surprise that rules coming out of it implicitly assume that everyone works in a similar environment.
Another contributing problem is that people need to justify their paycheck. Writing more rules is how politicians look productive.
I don't know what the solution is. But assuming malice rather than trying to understand the problem space in more neutral terms is not a constructive path forward.
Basically what seems to have happened is this:
1. Robles sued Dominoes alleging their website violated the ADA.
2. The district court dismissed the suit, saying the DOJ needs to provide guidance on the standards that websites must meet, if the court is to hold them to the ADA. They don't examine the question of the phone.
3. The appeals court steps in and says that no, the district court was wrong to dismiss it for that reasons, and sends it back to the district court.
4. Dominoes appeals to SCOTUS, saying "help, the appeals court got it wrong, please step in!" SCOTUS declines to get involved, so the case will go back to the district court, which may still find that the phone access provided is an adequate accommodation.
> However, the district court did not reach whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the telephone hotline’s compliance with the ADA, including whether the hotline guaranteed full and equal enjoyment and "protect[ed] the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability." ... We believe that the mere presence of the phone number, without discovery on its effectiveness, is insufficient to grant summary judgment in favor of Domino’s.
And there might be trouble with some of Domino's coupons being online-only.
