ADA and Martial Arts Schools

[Steve]

This comes from the Jr. Black Belt thread. I started to post this there, but realize that it's getting too far afield from the original post. So, I wanted to make a new one.

Sir, I totally agree with you. I reject any sort of entitlement mentality. Just because I have something you want, doesn't mean I should be legally obligated to give it to you. In martial arts school, accepting students you don't want can be detrimental to the other students, your reputation, and possibly the community. If you make exceptions and excuses for each student out on the floor, then you have no minimum, universal standard. You can't have any consistent quality that way, which seems important in an endeavor that may involve death. Plus, if you profess to teach someone 'deadly' skills, how can you in good conscious teach every person that wants them.

I'm not sure if this is in reference to my posts or not, but I just want to say that we can discriminate in America (in fact, it's our right to) unless it's in violation of the law by being based upon one of the several protected categories. As has been brought out in this thread, things get hazy, but to be sure, you can pick and choose unless your criteria involves race, color, religion or gender.

I've been doing more reading since this thread came up. Once again, while my understanding may be flawed, I haven't found anything to suggest that a martial arts school is exempt from civil rights laws and the ADA. If I'm mistaken, I'd appreciate it if someone could help me out. The stuff I'm reading points to reasonable accomodation and/or direct threat to safety stuff, which I understand. What it doesn't say is that a martial arts school can create blanket policy to deny access to disabled individuals, including individuals with mental impairments.

Where I'm looking is here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012181----000-.html where it defines the terms, including "public accomodation." And here: http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/2000NOV.htm where a little bit down it identifies the martial arts school as falling within this provision. And here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12182.html where it talks about what constitutes and what doesn't constitute discrimination.

Again, I'm not saying that this means a school owner has to take anyone and everyone who turns in an application. I'm saying that it seems to me that a school owner is breaking the law if they have a policy to deny anyone with a physical or mental impairment. There is a difference between making decisions about the fitness of a particular applicant for his or her own safety and "I don't do physically, mentally handicapped, and I don't do kids because the material is over their heads. And as long and I am the teacher, I'll decide who I should teach, not you, or anyone else. Sorry, but in America, that's just how we roll. Get your head out of - the clouds, and put your feet on the ground. I've never heard of anyone that I wouldn't teach, who couldn't find someone who would. They have the absolute right to learn somewhere, but they don't have a right to learn from me. I decide. End of discussion." The entire reason I'm posting is because I'm still not sure that this is actually how we roll.

So, my questions are, if I'm mistaken, what am I missing? And if I'm not, do I simply misunderstand what's been said previously in the thread?

 

[stickarts]

I don't know the detail of the law here in CT. I expect some of it would come down to what the judge thought if it ever came to that. We take everyone in that we think we can help. If we don't think we can help someone we will let them know that and our specific reasons why. If there are health or safety concerns we will request a note from the students doctor approving their training and even then I would have the final say as to who trains if there is a safety issue.
Over the years we have had many different people come in with varying challenges. Some we can help and some we can't. Ethically, I do feel obligated to helping anyone that we can although we do reserve the right to not accept a student if we have good reason to back it up. The few students that we have turned away or referred elsewhere has never been an issue since it was always mutually agreed, after discussion, that we weren't the best fit for them. If in doubt, I would talk to my attorney before I made a move that I thought could be a problem.

 

[BrandonLucas]

This comes from the Jr. Black Belt thread. I started to post this there, but realize that it's getting too far afield from the original post. So, I wanted to make a new one. [/i]

I'm not sure if this is in reference to my posts or not, but I just want to say that we can discriminate in America (in fact, it's our right to) unless it's in violation of the law by being based upon one of the several protected categories. As has been brought out in this thread, things get hazy, but to be sure, you can pick and choose unless your criteria involves race, color, religion or gender.

I've been doing more reading since this thread came up. Once again, while my understanding may be flawed, I haven't found anything to suggest that a martial arts school is exempt from civil rights laws and the ADA. If I'm mistaken, I'd appreciate it if someone could help me out. The stuff I'm reading points to reasonable accomodation and/or direct threat to safety stuff, which I understand. What it doesn't say is that a martial arts school can create blanket policy to deny access to disabled individuals, including individuals with mental impairments.

Where I'm looking is here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012181----000-.html where it defines the terms, including "public accomodation." And here: http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/2000NOV.htm where a little bit down it identifies the martial arts school as falling within this provision. And here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12182.html where it talks about what constitutes and what doesn't constitute discrimination.

Again, I'm not saying that this means a school owner has to take anyone and everyone who turns in an application. I'm saying that it seems to me that a school owner is breaking the law if they have a policy to deny anyone with a physical or mental impairment. There is a difference between making decisions about the fitness of a particular applicant for his or her own safety and "I don't do physically, mentally handicapped, and I don't do kids because the material is over their heads. And as long and I am the teacher, I'll decide who I should teach, not you, or anyone else. Sorry, but in America, that's just how we roll. Get your head out of - the clouds, and put your feet on the ground. I've never heard of anyone that I wouldn't teach, who couldn't find someone who would. They have the absolute right to learn somewhere, but they don't have a right to learn from me. I decide. End of discussion." The entire reason I'm posting is because I'm still not sure that this is actually how we roll.

So, my questions are, if I'm mistaken, what am I missing? And if I'm not, do I simply misunderstand what's been said previously in the thread?

The way I read it, basically, you can't deny your services that are provided to the general public based on the reason of a disablity or handicap.

If you turn a person who's handicapped or has a disability, there needs to be another reason that you're turning them away.

Now, a way to look at this is that if a person is physically disabled, then you may not have a cirriculum that would support their disability. If this is the case, and the point is argued, then allow the person to join the class, and test them on the same grounds that everyone else is tested on. If they can pass, then great. If they are unable to pass, then you are not discriminating against them because they simply have a disibility, rather, you have given them the same opportunity that you give the general public to pass or fail.

In this light, you are not being discriminatory. However, if you passed them up in rank and are slack in their judgement, then you are being just as discriminatory as you would be to deny them the right to participate in class.

On a related side note:

My father is a disabled veteran. He injured his back in '92, and as a result had several slipped disks and had a great deal of difficulty in walking...in fact, he was told that he would never walk again, but he beat the odds.

Around '97, I had just earned my 1st dan, and my father decided to try to take a couple classes from my instructor, taking seperate classes from me. He enjoyed the classes, and actually earned the rank of green belt before his schedule wouldn't permit him to attend class.

Even though my father still, to this day, has a great deal of difficulty walking, he completed the required cirriculum to the best of his ability, and with effectiveness against a resisting opponent to earn his green belt. I was and am still very proud of what he accomplished in the face of adversity, and for the fact that despite his disability, he was able to mold the Tae Kwon Do that was taught the same to him as it was to everyone else into something that was effective for him to be able to defend himself.

The moral of the story is this:

Just because someone has a disability or handicap doesn't prevent them from making the same cirriculum that everyone else is taught work for them. Give them the chance, at least, to fail on their own, instead of failing them before they begin class.

 

[KempoGuy06]

first, the quoted post is in response to my post in that thread.

second. why and how can the law force someone to accept a student they do not wish to teach when they are paying for the services in question?

I understand the law when it comes to jobs, but when it comes to learn MA's it is different. If someone with a physically handicap can not do the required material set by the instructor at that school and he/she explains then upon refusal to teach them than that should be the end of the discussion. If the instructor makes it plain and clear that he/she is not accepting the prospective student in question because they would not be able to perform the required material to standards for advancing to the next rank due to their handicap and that anyone with or without and handicap who could not perform the required material to standards would also fail, than i see no problem.

I can hear some people saying: "well how do you know said person will fail because of their handicap?"

my response would be: "lets say the person in question has one are and what if the art they are looking into requires them to be able to perform a double chuck form at the beginning rank. how the hell is a one armed man going to swing around 2 chucks and perform the form correctly?"

(i know this is highly unlikely but go with me).

B

 

[BrandonLucas]

first, the quoted post is in response to my post in that thread.

second. why and how can the law force someone to accept a student they do not wish to teach when they are paying for the services in question?

I understand the law when it comes to jobs, but when it comes to learn MA's it is different. If someone with a physically handicap can not do the required material set by the instructor at that school and he/she explains then upon refusal to teach them than that should be the end of the discussion. If the instructor makes it plain and clear that he/she is not accepting the prospective student in question because they would not be able to perform the required material to standards for advancing to the next rank due to their handicap and that anyone with or without and handicap who could not perform the required material to standards would also fail, than i see no problem.

I can hear some people saying: "well how do you know said person will fail because of their handicap?"

my response would be: "lets say the person in question has one are and what if the art they are looking into requires them to be able to perform a double chuck form at the beginning rank. how the hell is a one armed man going to swing around 2 chucks and perform the form correctly?"

(i know this is highly unlikely but go with me).

B

In the same regards that a man with no legs can compete in BJJ competitions. It's happened, and it's on youtube. (I'm not able to get to youtube since I'm at work, but you should be able to search for the vid)

Besides, why deny someone access to at least try? What's it going to hurt?

 

[harlan]

It seems to me that depending on the impact of 'mainstreaming' a disabled student, that the teacher has the right to decline to accept a student in a class if accomodating them is not possible or impractical.

I thought the extreme nunchaku example was interesting....because I mainly study kobudo. In the back of my mind, I tried to visualize how to teach a one armed person bo...the basic weapon. What would I do? Teach them only what they handle...and change the katas, and bunkai, and what weapons they could handle? That would be a highly personalized curriculum...and detract from other students who are paying to learn a system.

There are schools that have 'handicapped classes'...if one's ego can handle it...and private lessons.

 

[Steve]

first, the quoted post is in response to my post in that thread.

Great. It provided some food for thought.

second. why and how can the law force someone to accept a student they do not wish to teach when they are paying for the services in question?

Well, the simple answer is because in our country it was decided that there are groups of people who should be specifically protected from being discriminated against. These groups include race, religion, and gender, as well as disability.

I understand the law when it comes to jobs, but when it comes to learn MA's it is different.

That’s exactly what I’m interested in learning more about. While we’re all at least passing familiar with job related discrimination, the protections extend further to any public accomodation.

Someone in the previous thread (and I do apologize for forgetting who) said that he didn’t think that a martial arts school fell under the label of “public accomodation.” I posted a link to a summary of a case in which the martial arts school didn’t dispute that it clearly did meet the definition.

If someone with a physically handicap can not do the required material set by the instructor at that school and he/she explains then upon refusal to teach them than that should be the end of the discussion. If the instructor makes it plain and clear that he/she is not accepting the prospective student in question because they would not be able to perform the required material to standards for advancing to the next rank due to their handicap and that anyone with or without and handicap who could not perform the required material to standards would also fail, than i see no problem.

The rules of reasonable accomodation apply here, as well. In work or in this case, I’m not suggesting that the school dilute their standards. An accomodation is something that allows a disabled person to do the critical job functions at work, or participate without “fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden.” (from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012182----000-.html)

I can hear some people saying: "well how do you know said person will fail because of their handicap?"

I can’t find it again, but this line of reasoning was specifically mentioned as being unnacceptable. Wish I could remember where I ran across that.

my response would be: "lets say the person in question has one are and what if the art they are looking into requires them to be able to perform a double chuck form at the beginning rank. how the hell is a one armed man going to swing around 2 chucks and perform the form correctly?"

(i know this is highly unlikely but go with me).

B

As I see it, there are two issues, ultimately. The first being should you be required to admit a disabled person if there is no direct threat to the safety of the others in the school or to the individual?

The second is CAN you be required to do these things?

To answer the second question first, based upon my reading, I haven’t seen anything to suggest otherwise. If it’s possible to make an accomodation so that the person can participate, to do otherwise seems to me to be discrimination under the ADA. Once again, this is unless your school qualifies as a private club, which would make it specifically exempt.

Again, I am not saying I’m right. I’m saying that this is my lay understanding and I welcome a more informed position.

The first question is a should question. Should you as a school owner be made to do these things? I believe you should. The laws exist for a reason. While you don’t necessarily need to promote an individual beyond their abilities, to deny them access to training is discriminatory. That’s my opinion.

To clarify, I’ve said before that I may not ever become a black belt in BJJ. I may not ever meet the objective criteria for advancement. But I am still able to train and haven’t been denied service. I wasn’t refused service because I might not meet the standards for advancement in the future.

As an example and probably why I find this subject so interesting, I have mentioned before that the guy who ran the school that first introduced me to martial arts several years back now had no function in one arm. It was completely paralyzed above the shoulder. He was able to accommodate the disability. If I remember correctly, he was in a motorcycle accident and actually went back (perhaps required to go back) to white belt so that he could relearn his style using only one arm. While I left his school for a variety of reasons, it certainly wasn’t his martial skill. He is a very, very capable martial artist, likely better than I will ever be. Could he do a specific technique involving that arm? Of course not. But he was able to accommodate the disability and excel in the style.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Ok so basically we are talking about equality, right?

If that is the case than let me ask you this, is it right if I a perfectly capable white male with such and such degree is not given a job because the company i applied to is required to keep a quota of hiring minorities and gave the job I wanted to a less qualified person because they were handicap?

B

 

[stickarts]

These are people coming to us to learn and improve their lives. If they are willing to have the courage to overcome their challenges, then i am willing to teach them.

 

[Steve]

Ok so basically we are talking about equality, right?

If that is the case than let me ask you this, is it right if I a perfectly capable white male with such and such degree is not given a job because the company i applied to is required to keep a quota of hiring minorities and gave the job I wanted to a less qualified person because they were handicap?

B

I don't think it's about equality. It's about discrimination, the difference being subtle but I think important.

To answer your question, I would say absolutely not. If, however, the final two candidates for a position are a white male and a minority male who are both equally qualified, I would have no problem with someone choosing the minority male in order to improve underrepresentation. Two equally qualified candidates, it becomes the employer's choice. If he chooses to give the job to a minority, it's his choice. Often, this is the case, but the white dude presumes it was reverse discrimination. I've seen this situation time and again.

This becomes much more complex when you're in a situation where the two final candidates bring different pros and cons. The white guy might very well get passed over because he has a bad attitude as a result of the giant chip he has on his shoulder at having been passed over for promotion in the past. He blames reverse discrimination, but it's his own crappy attitude keeping him from promotion, not equal opportunity.

 

[Tez3]

Common sense has to be the priority surely. Clubs and schools should have an open door policy, this incidentally means you have the largest choice of potential students apart from any discrimination issues that could arise. Instructors and potential students can discuss training and any health and medical problems that could arise then an informed decision can be made by both sides. It is as simple as that I believe. It's the policy we pursue in our club and we've never had any problems with being 'made' to take anyone with a disability. it's not as bald as 'refusing' to take a student, it's more that the person sees for themself whether it's possible to train and attain the grades they wish. I doubt anyone with a disabilty wants to be patronised by lowering the standards for them or just taking them on because you feel sorry for them. also people with disabilities I know would far rather you talked to them honestly about those disabilities rather than beat around the bush then make up an excuse why they can't do something.

What is wrong I believe ( and probably illegal) is a statement to the effect that the club/school will not take people with any disabilities or conditions, without discussions and don't bother even applying!


As for people with missing limbs, I'm sure that the Samurai and the original masters of martial arts were more than passing aquaintances with injuries that left disabilites and didn't stop training unless they relly couldn't compensate for them.

In the British Army now we have several serving soldiers who have had amputations, especially legs. Afghan and Iraq has left many injured, however especially with modern prosthetics many soldiers are going back on active service as infantry soldiers able to do everything they could before losing a leg.they aren't taking desk jobs, they are going back on patrols etc.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news-old/to...urn-to-afghanistanfront-line-115875-20765506/

Talking is the trick with any new potential student, that and an open mind!

 

[KempoGuy06]

I don't think it's about equality. It's about discrimination, the difference being subtle but I think important.

To answer your question, I would say absolutely not. If, however, the final two candidates for a position are a white male and a minority male who are both equally qualified, I would have no problem with someone choosing the minority male in order to improve underrepresentation. Two equally qualified candidates, it becomes the employer's choice. If he chooses to give the job to a minority, it's his choice. Often, this is the case, but the white dude presumes it was reverse discrimination. I've seen this situation time and again.

This becomes much more complex when you're in a situation where the two final candidates bring different pros and cons. The white guy might very well get passed over because he has a bad attitude as a result of the giant chip he has on his shoulder at having been passed over for promotion in the past. He blames reverse discrimination, but it's his own crappy attitude keeping him from promotion, not equal opportunity.

discrimination and equality go hand in hand. The first bold statement is blatant reverse discrimination, by giving the job to the minority male just so the company doesnt look bad. that is outrageous.

The second bold statement gives the impression that you do not believe that reverse discrimination is real, is this true or false? merely asking not passing judgment, please take no offense.

B

 

[KempoGuy06]

first, the quoted post is in response to my post in that thread.

second. why and how can the law force someone to accept a student they do not wish to teach when they are paying for the services in question?

I understand the law when it comes to jobs, but when it comes to learn MA's it is different. If someone with a physically handicap can not do the required material set by the instructor at that school and he/she explains then upon refusal to teach them than that should be the end of the discussion. If the instructor makes it plain and clear that he/she is not accepting the prospective student in question because they would not be able to perform the required material to standards for advancing to the next rank due to their handicap and that anyone with or without and handicap who could not perform the required material to standards would also fail, than i see no problem.

I can hear some people saying: "well how do you know said person will fail because of their handicap?"

my response would be: "lets say the person in question has one are and what if the art they are looking into requires them to be able to perform a double chuck form at the beginning rank. how the hell is a one armed man going to swing around 2 chucks and perform the form correctly?"

(i know this is highly unlikely but go with me).

B

Just to clarify this post. Im merely asking that if this situation were real, who feels that the instructor should be made to change his material to accept that man?

B

 

[Steve]

discrimination and equality go hand in hand. The first bold statement is blatant reverse discrimination, by giving the job to the minority male just so the company doesnt look bad. that is outrageous.

The second bold statement gives the impression that you do not believe that reverse discrimination is real, is this true or false? merely asking not passing judgment, please take no offense.

B

Okay. Let's take a step back and define some terms so we're clear. Discrimination exists in every single decision we make. Choosing one wine over another demonstrates a form of discrimination. Reverse discrimination occurs, essentially, when someone is white and/or male and/or christian and instead of perpetrating discrimination against a protected group is instead discriminated against. Does that sound about right? If not, let me know.

I agree with you in your first scenario. If a person is passed over due to race in favor of a less qualified minority, that's clearly discrimination. If, however, he was passed over for an equally qualified person (or more qualified person), any allegation that race, religion or whatever else was a factor is purely conjecture. My own experience has been that it is often NOT a factor in reality, but only in the mind of the person who feels slighted, and is usually the product of their not wanting to own their flaws and accept responsibility for their own actions. In other words, it's easier for a person to blame the guy's race than to accept that they just didn't cut the mustard. Ego.

Does reverse discrimination occur? Absolutely. I'm sure it does. That's not what I was addressing. I was building on your idea, that being passed over in favor of a less qualified minority is discrimination and I agree with you that it is wrong. I was adding my own experience, that "less qualified" is subjective, where in addition to tangible qualifications there are a large number of intangibles including, potentially leadership ability, realiability, personality and attitude that can all influence hiring and promotion selection.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Okay. Let's take a step back and define some terms so we're clear. Discrimination exists in every single decision we make. Choosing one wine over another demonstrates a form of discrimination. Reverse discrimination occurs, essentially, when someone is white and/or male and/or christian and instead of perpetrating discrimination against a protected group is instead discriminated against. Does that sound about right? If not, let me know.

I agree with you in your first scenario. If a person is passed over due to race in favor of a less qualified minority, that's clearly discrimination. If, however, he was passed over for an equally qualified person (or more qualified person), any allegation that race, religion or whatever else was a factor is purely conjecture. My own experience has been that it is often NOT a factor in reality, but only in the mind of the person who feels slighted, and is usually the product of their not wanting to own their flaws and accept responsibility for their own actions. In other words, it's easier for a person to blame the guy's race than to accept that they just didn't cut the mustard. Ego.

Does reverse discrimination occur? Absolutely. I'm sure it does. That's not what I was addressing. I was building on your idea, that being passed over in favor of a less qualified minority is discrimination and I agree with you that it is wrong. I was adding my own experience, that "less qualified" is subjective, where in addition to tangible qualifications there are a large number of intangibles including, potentially leadership ability, realiability, personality and attitude that can all influence hiring and promotion selection.

Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. actually you seem to be many chapters ahead of me but im trying to catch up...LOL

B

 

[BrandonLucas]

discrimination and equality go hand in hand. The first bold statement is blatant reverse discrimination, by giving the job to the minority male just so the company doesnt look bad. that is outrageous.

The second bold statement gives the impression that you do not believe that reverse discrimination is real, is this true or false? merely asking not passing judgment, please take no offense.

B

First, here, where you're talking about the first bolded statement:

If, however, the final two candidates for a position are a white male and a minority male who are both equally qualified, I would have no problem with someone choosing the minority male in order to improve underrepresentation.

This is not blatant reverse discriminition. If you're down to 2 equally qualified canidates, then it's the employer's decision as to which candidate is the best.

Now, even if the decision is based solely on race, then it's still up to the employer's discretion...the key here being that both candidates are both equally qualified, meaning that neither candidate actually has an advantage over the other candidate in any way.

It would essentially be the same as choosing a name out of a hat, but less random.

For it to be reverse discriminition, then the minority candidate that was chosen for employment would have to be less qualified in some way, no matter how small, than the other candidate. This means that even if being hired for whatever company relied on the results of an apptitude test, then whoever scores the highest should be considered the most qualified, no matter what the color. If both candidates come out with the same score after a series of retests, then the decision should be free to be made by whatever means necessary.

As far as your second question about changing the cirriculum to accept someone with a disablity, I stated in one of my earlier posts that this would be no better than saying that they are not allowed to participate.

If safety is a question, then the person should be made to sign a liability waiver stating that any and all injuries incurred are understood to be the fault of the student, possibly as result of the disability. Also, it should be stated in the waiver that the individual is understood to have a disability or handicap, and that they accept that they will be taught the same cirriculum as everyone else, and have the same requirements as everyone else.

If the person could possibly injur others, then another adendum should be made that states that the person may be required to attend single teacher/student classes.

There are always ways around those kinds of things. IMO, it's still wrong to deny someone instruction because you think that they are not able to participate. Of course, this is all under the assumption that a doctor has allowed the person to participate.

Like I said before, if they're going to fail, then let them fail. But allow them the chance to fail.

 

[KempoGuy06]

First, here, where you're talking about the first bolded statement:

If, however, the final two candidates for a position are a white male and a minority male who are both equally qualified, I would have no problem with someone choosing the minority male in order to improve underrepresentation.

This is not blatant reverse discriminition. If you're down to 2 equally qualified canidates, then it's the employer's decision as to which candidate is the best.

Now, even if the decision is based solely on race, then it's still up to the employer's discretion...the key here being that both candidates are both equally qualified, meaning that neither candidate actually has an advantage over the other candidate in any way.

It would essentially be the same as choosing a name out of a hat, but less random.

For it to be reverse discriminition, then the minority candidate that was chosen for employment would have to be less qualified in some way, no matter how small, than the other candidate. This means that even if being hired for whatever company relied on the results of an apptitude test, then whoever scores the highest should be considered the most qualified, no matter what the color. If both candidates come out with the same score after a series of retests, then the decision should be free to be made by whatever means necessary.

As far as your second question about changing the cirriculum to accept someone with a disablity, I stated in one of my earlier posts that this would be no better than saying that they are not allowed to participate.

If safety is a question, then the person should be made to sign a liability waiver stating that any and all injuries incurred are understood to be the fault of the student, possibly as result of the disability. Also, it should be stated in the waiver that the individual is understood to have a disability or handicap, and that they accept that they will be taught the same cirriculum as everyone else, and have the same requirements as everyone else.

If the person could possibly injur others, then another adendum should be made that states that the person may be required to attend single teacher/student classes.

There are always ways around those kinds of things. IMO, it's still wrong to deny someone instruction because you think that they are not able to participate. Of course, this is all under the assumption that a doctor has allowed the person to participate.

Like I said before, if they're going to fail, then let them fail. But allow them the chance to fail.

I understand what you are saying.

by picking the minority male over the equally qualified white male simply for the fact that you are trying to improve under representation has to be reverse discrimination.

Basically you are telling the white male "we are picking the other guy, who you are equal to in every way except that you are white and well we just arent hiring white people right now because we need to keep up or racial quota so we do get our *** sued"

am I wrong?

B

 

[SL4Drew]

Where I'm looking is here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012181----000-.html where it defines the terms, including "public accomodation." And here: http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/2000NOV.htm where a little bit down it identifies the martial arts school as falling within this provision. And here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12182.html where it talks about what constitutes and what doesn't constitute discrimination.

You have to be careful, the summary of the opinion stated that no one was challenging whether the school was a public accommodation. For whatever reasons, the attorneys for the school didn't argue that. So, for purposes of the decision, the court assumed it was so without expressly deciding it was so. Unlike those attorneys, I would have personally taken a run at it because the one part of the definition that would facially cover martial arts schools is if you considered it a gym, a spa, or a health club.

If you notice, the school won (and the court also found they won on the state law claims). And two of the issues I posted on in the other thread where mentioned, safety and whether the modifications sought (or offered) where reasonable. Also keep in mind that money damages are also not generally available, which reduces the number of people willing to sue.

So, while I wouldn't advise someone to have a blanket policy (and if you did to state it), you could probably base a denial of participation on a legal and legitimate reason.

 

[Steve]

You have to be careful, the summary of the opinion stated that no one was challenging whether the school was a public accommodation. For whatever reasons, the attorneys for the school didn't argue that. So, for purposes of the decision, the court assumed it was so without expressly deciding it was so. Unlike those attorneys, I would have personally taken a run at it because the one part of the definition that would facially cover martial arts schools is if you considered it a gym, a spa, or a health club.

If you notice, the school won (and the court also found they won on the state law claims). And two of the issues I posted on in the other thread where mentioned, safety and whether the modifications sought (or offered) where reasonable. Also keep in mind that money damages are also not generally available, which reduces the number of people willing to sue.

So, while I wouldn't advise someone to have a blanket policy (and if you did to state it), you could probably base a denial of participation on a legal and legitimate reason.

I did notice those things you mention. In the summary I referred to, it was specifically dealing with HIV/AIDS which changes the circumstances dramatically from what we're talking about which is largely dyslexia and loss of limbs. What was relevant was the point about whether the school qualified as public accomodation. I appreciate the distinction you make between being found to be a public accomodation and simply not contesting it. I wish I had time and resources to look into it more.

I also understand that money is not generally available for damages. That's not really the point I was getting at. I'm not in any way suggesting that people sue for damages or that this could be a way for someone to take advantage of a school owner.

Regarding your last point about blanket policies, that was really what I was driving at initially. Doc started by taking a very severe position and has since backed off of it somewhat. I appreciate that. At the same point, I've read about situations in which someone has a "soft" policy of discrimination who eventually gets nailed. Eventually, a lack of representation can be damning. It's a difference between saying, "I don't accept students who are physically or mentally impaired because they cannot meet the standards of the program," and "I'll accept students who can meet the standards of the program whether or not they have a physical or mental impairment."

 

[Steve]

Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. actually you seem to be many chapters ahead of me but im trying to catch up...LOL

B

I wouldn't say that's true. I appreciate your responses. It's all food for thought. Right?