Where to even begin?
I've been working as a paralegal the last couple weeks -- hence the paucity of updates. Being unemployed for a long period totally kills your time-management skills. I'm sure I had some, once upon a time. It's good work -- pays much, much better than office-temping (I'm getting nearly twice what I made doing data entry), and my brain is occasionally even involved. Not a lot, mind you, but it does keep me busy, and I've learned a fair lot about real estate. Now that I have a pretty good idea what I'm doing, tomorrow is my last day. Hopefully, Bob has told Tom that I'm a good paralegal (for an attorney), and Tom will have found me something for next week. *crosses fingers*
So it's not so much my life that's been interesting enough to warrant such a headline. The past weeks have been busy, but not exciting. No, what I'm excited about are this week's Supreme Court oral arguments and decisions. Is that pathetic? Not really, since what I'm so amused about is mostly Justice Scalia, who's always a hoot. I've heard that he's one of the few who actually does most of his own writing. Either that, or he's managed to find clerks who are just as firey as he is.
The first case argued this week before the Supreme Court was an ADA issue, entitled Specter v. Norwegian Cruise Lines. The link just goes to the SCOTUS oral argument calendar for February 22-March 2. I discovered, to my delight, that the SCOTUS does provide transcripts of oral arguments on its website. Frankly, I was a little shocked at how easy it was to find. Anyway, the transcripts take a month or so to make their way to the website, so this week's cases aren't there yet.
So the Specter case, above, is a case study in what not to do if you're a cruise line and you want to thumb your nose at American anti-discrimination law. The U.S. has this little law called the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). In a nutshell, it says that you can't discriminate against people because they're disabled, and you have to make reasonable accommodations for disabled clients and employees. Enter Norwegian Cruise Lines. Mr. Specter is disabled, and needs to use a scooter to get around. He went on a cruise with his family on Norwegian Cruise Lines. He was charged nearly twice what the rest of his family was charged, for a room that not only was generally not as nice, it was also not as accessible as it was supposed to have been. There was a step involved. The rest of the ship was worse. The restroom doors opened in, rather than out (a HUGE accessiblity no-no), and the dining rooms were inaccessible. There was a laundry list of complaints. According to the report I heard on NPR (probably Nina Totenberg), Norwegian had actually made claims that it was accessible.
That right there is fraud. That's bad.
It gets better.
Norwegian claims it is not subject to U.S. law in this matter, because it is incorporated in Jamaica. However, its principal place of business is Florida, and the tickets explicitly state that all disputes shall be resolved under Florida law. (I'm assuming it specifies Florida, though the reporter said U.S., rather than Florida.) This fact alone makes the case open-and-shut. It has a contract, that it created, that say it agrees to be subject to U.S. law in the case of disputes with clients.
It gets better.
Oral argument did not go so well.
When asked if it could discriminate on the basis of race (since it is claiming that it can discriminate on the basis of disability), consel for the defense hedged, and said that Jamaica has a law prohibiting racial discrimination, so no, it couldn't discriminate on the basis of race. When pushed, counsel said that if Jamaica did not have such a law, then no, it would not be bound by US law in that matter, and would be able to discriminate based on race.
Wrong answer. (There was no right answer, btw.)
***
It is now officially way past my bedtime. Perhaps tomorrow I will get a chance to discuss the 5-4 decision prohibiting execution of criminals who were minors at the time of their crimes, and the oral arguments of the Texas and Kentucky Ten Commandments cases, in which, as Nik so eloquently put it, "Justice Scalia proves that he hates all people equally."
So it's not so much my life that's been interesting enough to warrant such a headline. The past weeks have been busy, but not exciting. No, what I'm excited about are this week's Supreme Court oral arguments and decisions. Is that pathetic? Not really, since what I'm so amused about is mostly Justice Scalia, who's always a hoot. I've heard that he's one of the few who actually does most of his own writing. Either that, or he's managed to find clerks who are just as firey as he is.
The first case argued this week before the Supreme Court was an ADA issue, entitled Specter v. Norwegian Cruise Lines. The link just goes to the SCOTUS oral argument calendar for February 22-March 2. I discovered, to my delight, that the SCOTUS does provide transcripts of oral arguments on its website. Frankly, I was a little shocked at how easy it was to find. Anyway, the transcripts take a month or so to make their way to the website, so this week's cases aren't there yet.
So the Specter case, above, is a case study in what not to do if you're a cruise line and you want to thumb your nose at American anti-discrimination law. The U.S. has this little law called the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). In a nutshell, it says that you can't discriminate against people because they're disabled, and you have to make reasonable accommodations for disabled clients and employees. Enter Norwegian Cruise Lines. Mr. Specter is disabled, and needs to use a scooter to get around. He went on a cruise with his family on Norwegian Cruise Lines. He was charged nearly twice what the rest of his family was charged, for a room that not only was generally not as nice, it was also not as accessible as it was supposed to have been. There was a step involved. The rest of the ship was worse. The restroom doors opened in, rather than out (a HUGE accessiblity no-no), and the dining rooms were inaccessible. There was a laundry list of complaints. According to the report I heard on NPR (probably Nina Totenberg), Norwegian had actually made claims that it was accessible.
That right there is fraud. That's bad.
It gets better.
Norwegian claims it is not subject to U.S. law in this matter, because it is incorporated in Jamaica. However, its principal place of business is Florida, and the tickets explicitly state that all disputes shall be resolved under Florida law. (I'm assuming it specifies Florida, though the reporter said U.S., rather than Florida.) This fact alone makes the case open-and-shut. It has a contract, that it created, that say it agrees to be subject to U.S. law in the case of disputes with clients.
It gets better.
Oral argument did not go so well.
When asked if it could discriminate on the basis of race (since it is claiming that it can discriminate on the basis of disability), consel for the defense hedged, and said that Jamaica has a law prohibiting racial discrimination, so no, it couldn't discriminate on the basis of race. When pushed, counsel said that if Jamaica did not have such a law, then no, it would not be bound by US law in that matter, and would be able to discriminate based on race.
Wrong answer. (There was no right answer, btw.)
***
It is now officially way past my bedtime. Perhaps tomorrow I will get a chance to discuss the 5-4 decision prohibiting execution of criminals who were minors at the time of their crimes, and the oral arguments of the Texas and Kentucky Ten Commandments cases, in which, as Nik so eloquently put it, "Justice Scalia proves that he hates all people equally."