JOHN JOHNSON

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 03:20:33 EDT

Gina Ruebush (deaf, white, mid-60s) killed off of Hayne Blvd in New
Orleans. Call 210-678-9232.

Fran Blackston (deaf mother) with her infant daughter Rose Marie, killed
in Bayou Batre, Louisiana.

Chad Morgan (25, deaf, legally blind) killed in Brookhaven, Mississippi.
Please email his brother with info Wes@CrashSeattle.com
[mailto:Wes@CrashSeattle.com].

Michael Holmes & William Nicks (deaf group from Woodhaven Baptist Deaf
Church in Houston, Texas) killed in New Orleans area.

Madeline Scott (deaf) died at Reliant Center in New Orleans.

Martha Coray (deaf) killed in New Orleans.

Jerry Galloway died at the seating in the deaf section near the medical
station in New Orleans.

Sterling Everidge (deaf mute) died at the Reliant Center in New Orleans
and call 504-710-3510.

James Francis Smith Sr. (deaf, white, 85) from Nashville, Tennessee is
missing in Louisiana or Mississippi. Call 615-832-6364.

Monroe Bowens (deaf) killed at the post office in New Orleans East
(where he worked).

Anne Farmer & Jane Hardy (elderly, deaf) killed in Constantinople and
Prytania Street. Call 917-846-2265.

James Firmin (37, black, 5-9, 220, deaf, speak ASL) died last Sunday. He
lived in 200 Clouvert Street, New Orleans 70117. Call 804-986-9194 or
804-249-3682 or JComeaux1@comcast.net [mailto:JComeaux1@comcast.net].

Lenny Kaye & Morrell English (deaf, blind) killed in Pine, Louisiana.




This is a fine example how ignorant our behavior in this society! I find this very disgust that there is one person that got killed during at work with the U.S. Postal Service!!!!!! How can people leave him behind!?!? Now we would hear whine from APWU/Management bull****ting such as "Hey look at this deaf person and this person should have never have this job." Safety Issues-Bull****s! THIS IS A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT ANYONE, INCLUDING THE HANDICAP, CAN NOT RELY ON GOVERNMENT! Thank to those ignorants that have changed Government's attitude as there is always a cost being too concern by avoiding to provide assistance to the needy people while they do not bother to spend on something else that they deem a well-worth-spent.

Now you, all, see why and how disgust I am with Rehnquist as his decision had ended my career by placing people like me into "Government-dependant." I have no respect to any of Supreme Court judges for weakening the ADA that Southern states took advantage of it with "feel unobligate" to provide certain accommondations as States are immune from any lawsuits or anything associate to that. Hey! We are taxpayer too!!!!!

I am sure that there is some neighbors that should have known some deaf/blind that lives nearby ought have helped them by request transportation for them from hazard area!!!! Those behaviors are inexcusable.

I know their suffering while living on this **** planet. Now, May their journey to the HEAVEN heal their long-suffering handicaps into a perfect soul just like the rest of you. No handicaps after all.......Amen

__________________
Who should I consider?
Dumbocrat Clinton or Ruptublican Johnny Mc Cain?
Jimmy Mc Donald Help me!

N2272V

This is a fine example of a RANT for those Liberal loonies out there who wondered what the term was.

Carry on!

JOHN JOHNSON

This have ABSOULTELY nothing to do with either Liberal nor Conservation. You do not understand the difference between age-retirement and disability retirement. You will understand when you live on $500-$800 a month. (Figure as what majority deafies lives on under disability retirement income,)

__________________
Who should I consider?
Dumbocrat Clinton or Ruptublican Johnny Mc Cain?
Jimmy Mc Donald Help me!

ZX1100F1

Jim,
You gotta be kidding me! why don't you lay off the "Liberal" comments when responding to every single post, the phrase is losing steam, John is a good man.

N2272V

It's not a "phrase." It defines the position/attitude taken by people who love to spread hateful divisive rhetoric. I like John. I have met him. I have dealt with him selling models. This is still a political rant and I am pointing it out for those loonies on the forum who can't distinguish rant from fact.

Carry on!

ZX1100F1

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
No offense but, your posts are painful to read, you say the exact same thing in each and every one you just jumble the words around slightly.

Talking politics on this forum is kinda like having season front row seats at a WNBA arena, you can go there but why the hell would you want to?
They're painful to watch and win or lose it don't change a thing.

N2272V

So who is twisting your arm forcing you to read this? Certainly not me. I don't care whether you read it, delete it or ignore it. I'm just curious why you see fit to single me out? Am I the only one responding to this poltical nonsense?

Carry on!

JOHN JOHNSON

Dave is a good man! He is a man with full of common senses. Regardless whether he is a Republican or Democrat and I would definately VOTE him for President if he run. Why? Because he understand people (WOW! Really) better that most of us! Be neat to have 200,000,000 ZX1100F1-alike around this country and a 8 ZX1100F1-alike on Supreme Court Judge Bench! Our lives probably would be far-farther better than it is as of currently. He surely would toss out ridicious laws/regulations, send a ridiciousily Law/Regulation book that was wrote by either stupid nor moron Liberals/Conservation to China as a gift. China would be more than happy to use that book. Let them! That's because we will get our jobs back as the companies would dislike such ridicious Law-book that ZX1100F1 gave them and outsourcing their jobs over here. That would be a big welcoming in this country!

ZX1100F1 would be hailed as a well-respect person in the world!

Oh My God, Some of you, people, can not see what's inside of him!

__________________
Who should I consider?
Dumbocrat Clinton or Ruptublican Johnny Mc Cain?
Jimmy Mc Donald Help me!

N2272V

Yes Johnny, I have seen many examples of his "sensitive" nature. LMFAO

Carry on! Too funny.

ZX1100F1

Jim,
I have done a search for the word "sensitive" in this tread and (up until this reprint) you're last post was the only one containing this word.
You just keep trying to put words into people’s mouths or you're too stupid to comprehend the English language, did you even read John's post?
If you did then you're remark baffles me even further as it is baseless and irrelevant.

I also have not "singled you out" as you put it, I simply move around this forum making posts in threads that I either find interesting or bothersome.
While I think that we share some of the very same basic beliefs, I am disturbed by the way you come across in general.
And if something irks me I don’t just ignore it or hide from it, I’ve never used the “Ignore” list as you have suggested, I just post me rebuttal which is what makes this place entertaining.

ARIUS

Surely there must be liberals who do not spread hateful, divisive rhetoric?

__________________
Fly Air North,Yukon's Airline

JustPlaneCrazy

I've yet to meet one

N2272V

Yo Buford, perhaps it is YOU who are too "stupid" to comprehend that I didn't put any words in YOUR mouth. I used the term to describe YOU in a facetious manner. You do know the difference don't you?

As for singling me out, personally, I could care less what you personally think of me. Just be sure that you keep your "facts" straight.

Yes I did, and it came across to me as a rant. This was a posting that makes the false claim that deaf people died as a result of government policies and inaction. John goes further by claiming that Rhenquist, someone who died after an honorable carreer, is partly to blame for deaf people's dependancy on the Government.

None of these claims are founded in any facts. Obviously, once again, you FAILED to comprehend that fact. The reason I stated that you singled my comments out, is because you are silent on John's offensive comments on Rhenquist, "good riddance". I guess you are very selective about who you think makes baseless irrelevant claims. Perhaps you need to review your reading comprehension before you call others "stupid"?

Carry on!

N2272V

Yes there are. As a matter of fact there are a lot of very HONEST LIberals out there who do not go around spreading divisive political rhetoric and are probably embarrased by the current Liberal leadership. Senator Lieberman comes to mind. A man of deep convictions, beliefs, integrity and honesty.

However, when it comes to the Democratic leadership in this country, and the hateful Liberals who run pathetic hate web sites like Moveon.org, NONE come to mind.

Why a Canadian is concerned about this is still a mystery to me. I have been unable to get a clear answer why you or your hateful buddy C-Pal care so much.

Carry on!

ARIUS

THanks for your answer.

As to why I am interested, it is because we have liberals in Canada. In fact the federal government is led by the Liberal Party. I have taken your past posts about liberals to apply to liberals regardless of country. THis is not to say that there not any those that you describe above in Canada or anywhere else, but here there have been some good liberals.

__________________
Fly Air North,Yukon's Airline

N2272V

Arius, I do not think that people can be lumped into one homogenous category. I have many friends who vote Democrat and consider themselves Liberals. There is a difference between intellectual honesty, and people with LIRS. I'd like to think that you would be the former not the latter.

My comments are not intended to define people of other countries unless they are the individuals who post nonsense about the US not based on any fact. So when I call C-Pal a Canadork, that does NOT define all Canadians, just HIM.

Carry on!

JOHN JOHNSON

Please de-dwell my remark against Good Riddance Rehnquist.

Can I ask you a question? Have you ever work under a boss that you disrespect him/her but done your job regardless..... Until the day your boss that you dislike either leave nor retire. You celebrate "Good Riddance"?

I am sure that 100% of us do!

__________________
Who should I consider?
Dumbocrat Clinton or Ruptublican Johnny Mc Cain?
Jimmy Mc Donald Help me!

JOHN JOHNSON

US Airways v. Robert Barnett

Do that research. Please. This case, that one, ultimately affected my EEO/EEOC case regarding to seek reasonable accommondation (RA) to day shift.

Please be considerable. Ask yourself. Your a deaf-mute-N-dumb with other degenerative handicap's capability to work in regular job or night shift become too restrict due to other degenerative disability. Even they knew your disability before they hired you. You ask for a reasonable accommondation (RA) to day shift because it is less crowd, able to safety yourself in case of emergency evacuations, and many other good reasons. Your company provided you RA. You got the job to keep your contiuning to work as possible..... Your seniority is... say.... # 200th out of 500.... With 10 years of service... People who you work with would hail you a HAPPY welcoming news that you still have a job! Congrulations to you..... Yown, UNION foul OUT-BABYCRYS!!!! "Hey I have a senioirty # 2nd that want this job!" That person is 55 years old with 25+ years of service. Management have to put you back to your job where you came from, posing more safety threats to yourself and others..... You can not quarantee such safety to self or others.... If you injure yourself or others, Of course you will get serious discipline or lose job either way! You applied an EEO/EEOC to seek enforcement to abide under Rehabiliation Act of 73 or ADA to adhere with RA to modify shift as a RA. Result..... Your out of luck that's because of this decision made by Supreme Court. Situation is Dead End. Your either quit nor take disability retirement. Which choice does that leaves you?

#2 person laugh his *** off and still work, enjoying $50,000+ a year and you suffer a $25,000- a year income on disability retirement for a very long time until your 62 years ago then your disability retirement converts to age retirement! Do you know the difference between disability and age retirement's restriction? DUH? When your age-retirement and you can work other job and still enjoy way more income! Do disability retirement get the same opportunity? NO. But at restrict "small" allowance income...

Now, Your as a Republican. Republican supporters are known to be avid INDEPENDENT from the Government! You, Republican, do not like to depend on Government! How can I be INDEPENDENT from Governemnt to enjoy my well-living beings!?!? Especially under the situation as explained above. Picture this if this apply to you. You will understand!

Now Republicans are trying to fock up Social Security. What about those handicapped people!!!??? Why more financial suffer is need to apply toward us especially "drying up pond" of job opportunities because of the rulings from idiots.

Now you understand why ADA was being established from Congresspeople, Senators, and Presidents! You, the majority, people challenge ADA by having such decison reverse thru Supreme Court! I would not be surprise that one day there will be new law that would make much difficult for anyone to try to cook the law after any of parties passes! Who pay you disability retirement? The Government! NOT the Union, NOT the Supreme Court and this produces the more fear to the companies (with great pay-job) to hire any more handicapped people!

Rehabiliation Act of 73 was established in 1973, have proven to defunction under today system. ADA was established in 1990 and again have proven to weakening! Either Liberalism-idiots nor Conservationism-iditos really fock up our opportunities by challenge with grievances thru Unions or Supreme Court! I would not be surprise that there will be new law being establish next! Maybe to euthanasia us by offering handicapped people a $10,000,000 to die! Would you take the offer!? So you, Republicans, can say "Good Riddance" the handicapped and see your age retirement check increase by 50%!

Please be more of considerable to any kind of people. Not just a Birth=perfect white man-only.

No Dave is not a stupid.

__________________
Who should I consider?
Dumbocrat Clinton or Ruptublican Johnny Mc Cain?
Jimmy Mc Donald Help me!

N2272V

On April 29, 2002, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that employees with disabilities are not always entitled to jobs intended for workers with more seniority. The decision is another one in a series of rulings in which the Court has sided with employers instead of workers with disabilities.


Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 328, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V), prohibits an employer from discriminating against an “individual with a disability” who, with “reasonable accommodation,” can perform the essential functions of the job. §§12112(a) and (b) (1994 ed.). This case, arising in the context of summary judgment, asks us how the Act resolves a potential conflict between: (1) the interests of a disabled worker who seeks assignment to a particular position as a “reasonable accommodation,” and (2) the interests of other workers with superior rights to bid for the job under an employer’s seniority system. In such a case, does the accommodation demand trump the seniority system?

In our view, the seniority system will prevail in the run of cases. As we interpret the statute, to show that a requested accommodation conflicts with the rules of a seniority system is ordinarily to show that the accommodation is not “reasonable.” Hence such a showing will entitle an employer/defendant to summary judgment on the question–unless there is more. The plaintiff remains free to present evidence of special circumstances that make “reasonable” a seniority rule exception in the particular case. And such a showing will defeat the employer’s demand for summary judgment. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e).

Johnny, I'm sorry, but this is a case was about seniority rights over ADA accomodation.

Carry on.

N2272V

Docket Number: 00-1250
Abstract

Argued:
December 4, 2001

Decided:
April 29, 2002

Subjects: Civil Rights: Rights of Handicapped

Facts of the Case
In 1990, Robert Barnett injured his back while working in a cargo-handling position at US Airways. Invoking his seniority rights, Barnett transferred to a less physically demanding position in the mailroom. Subsequently, Barnett's new position became open to seniority-based employee bidding under US Airways' seniority system and, ultimately, he lost his job. Barnett then filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits an employer from discriminating against "an individual with a disability" who with "reasonable accommodation" can perform a job's essential functions unless the employer "can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of [its] business." In granting US Airways summary judgment, the District Court found that altering a seniority system would result in an "undue hardship" to both US Airways and its nondisabled employees. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the seniority system was merely a factor in the undue hardship analysis and that a case-by-case, fact intensive analysis is required to determine whether any particular assignment would constitute an undue hardship.


Question Presented
Does the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 require an employer to reassign a disabled employee to a position as a reasonable accommodation even though another employee is entitled to hold the position under the employer's seniority system?


Conclusion
No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that the ADA did not require the employer to assign the employee to the mailroom position in violation of the established seniority system. The Court reasoned that an employer's showing that a requested accommodation conflicts with seniority rules is ordinarily sufficient to show that an accommodation is not reasonable. However, the Court added, an employee remains free to present evidence of special circumstances that makes a seniority rule exception reasonable in the particular case. Justice Antonin Scalia, in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that the accommodation provision of the ADA requires the suspension, within reason, of employment rules and practices that an employee's disability prevents him from observing. Also dissenting, Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that US Airways failed to establish any burden brought on by accommodating Barnett.

Looks to me like two CONSERVATIVE justices sided with the disabled person here.

JOHN JOHNSON

Is Seniority a Federal Law? or Is it a Union's law?

I always have assumed that Seniority is within the Union's most precisous # 1 priorities.

If-If Seniority is NOT a Federal Law then How do Union have a power to win? Union do not pay disability retirement.

Law is law. Take it or Leave..... You know.... How cold isn't it? I have my own reason to disrespect those judges that supported Seniority over RA. Especially when I am trying to live better well lifestyle like the rest of you with my disadvantage of human being that God created me! (Lousy egg and sperm of my parent!)

Don't forget that there was many ex-TWA pilots that have worked so many years, merged into AA's seniority rooster as the end behind the most Young AA worker.... Not base on old-system under Date of Hire system..... Lose their job.... Another example.... Not fair! In the opposite if with DOH then the youngs will whine not fair! See?

Either young nor old under that example of AA's seniority is another reason of unfairness to old people and an advantage of youngs that works with AA longer than pre-merge of that TWA.

So, Seniority do not pay any of Liability! This is wrong!

Do not get the wrong idea that I am "anti-seniority" That is not the point.... Example when it comes to Holiday off-day or any minor reasons like force mandatory overtime at certain number or volunteer overtime or other minor issues and I am for seniority.. For serioius issues that force either lose job (ie: TWA example) or force into disability retirement (ie: the handicaps) This is wrong! To bid the preference job, I used to support seniority after years of experience with work and I do not support base on seniority to offer preference of job as I am for those who work their *** off, lives on honest lifestyle, and have faith with the company. Not the one who have crime records, DUI/dope, dishonest lifestyle, and disrespect to the company! But it is the way it is......

Seniority system do need a big fix up to correct the uncommon senses to common senses.... My opinion.....

_______________