Originally Posted by
rickair7777
Actually an employer or merchant could ask for details to
1) Ensure they properly accommodate the peron's needs and
2) To verify that accommodation is legitimately required. Although it seems like it, we're not required to provide accommodations to anyone and everyone just because they ask for it. It's legally reasonable to require verification..even though the media would say otherwise
Again #2 is reasonable though to some degree. Imagine you got shrapnel injury in war and just have to walk slowly, and then LNL and company asks you to "prove" it every time you fly. Gets old pretty quickly. I'd rather have a few freeloaders than a checkpoint/gestapo, which is why I feel just elminating the whole "advantage" for mildly handicapped would solve the problem.
Somebody who is nonambulatory is generally obvious and could make rare case-by-case accommodations.
Lady caridomd does litigation occasionally in this and related areas. I see you looked up the ADA wording - the "general public" has been focused on "can't blanketly ban" areas / businesses etc without reason. There are still "general public accessible" areas that dogs are not allowed, health, safety, even cases of religious areas etc., and while the original wording included general public area it has not held up or historically been enforced as strictly such.
ADA was a great law to prevent blanket discrimination, but people misinterpret it all the time (e.g. some people think you 'can't ask if somebody could do the job'). Of course an employer can ask about specifics - somebody who can't walk can't do a job that requires stairs etc. A custmoer who can't move his arms shouldn't go white water rafting. However every front line employee asking questions about a handicap may be perceived as harassment for better or worse, which is why LNL and other employees are told to not ask.