[blindlaw] nfb v. target

[T. Joseph Carter]

Steve,

I think you missed the whole point of what statutory damages are for.  

If I am doing something that could cost me $4,000 per person, per 
incident, I'm not very likely to do it am I?  California's lawmakers 
(who arguably spend too much time in the Marijuana clinics if you 
look at some of the hair-brained things they've tried to make law) 
have decided to make the minimum amount of damage be $4,000 so that 
people will not discriminate.  Their thinking was that this was high 
enough to convince them not to do it--or failing that a couple of 
really high profile cases like ours with Target would make people 
think twice.

You can whine about the injustice of a huge cash payout to those 
blind Californians lucky enough to have attempted to use Target's 
website, but the fact remains that the payout is essentially how the 
California government has decided to punish discrimination.

I say good for them.  If discrimination can be proven 36 years after 
the Rehab Act and 18 years after the ADA, then obviously some people 
stubbornly refuse to get the message.

Joseph

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:24:24AM -0400, Steve P. Deeley wrote:
> That should not result in you receiving damages of almost $4,000.00.