TO-WIT: THE AGE OF AQUARIUS
At first you could have knocked me over with a feather. Heretofore I had no idea that there even existed such a specialty of practice, but there it was, in the daily paper, in black and white for all to see.
It seems as if a colleague in another state has built an entire practice representing the interests of the obese. A reporter local to the area had written about it, a news service picked it up and there he was, seated beneath his diplomas at his office desk, flanked by two beaming clients. Actually I could only see that he was flanked by two fairly corpulent shoulders and a couple of candy bar wrappers, that’s all the camera lens could apparently squeeze in. I just assumed the "beaming" part.
It had never before occurred to me that the obese had any unique interests that might or should be protected by law. Oh, I remember once reading an ADA case that held that requiring an employer to purchase an industrial hoist to help an employee get to his third story office was a reasonable accommodation, but that’s about i t . But I know something of the Bill of Rights, and there is nothing in it that guards one's right of corpulence.
Ah, but as it turns out, this colleague is apparently busy night and day crusading for the rights of the very, very fat against the gaunt prejudices of a cruel society that, for the most part, equates obesity pretty much with gluttony and thus treats it with callous disdain.
I admit I had never before given the matter much thought, but then again I have never known the heartbreak of being told by a recalcitrant restaurant manager that no, the all-you-can-eat Chinese luncheon buffet ends when the food runs out, or that, sorry, getting winded in the parking lot does not toll the time limit on the early bird special. True enough, the paper reported he had lost both those lawsuits, but, as in anything else, the longest journey always begins with the fi r s t waddle. As a result of this colleague's pioneering efforts, I can already hear the scales of justice beginning to shift dramatically, albeit with a groan.
I am fascinated by this development. We currently live in an age in which the sweep of political correctness cuts a much broader swathe than ever before. Religion,
age, gender, race are fairly well entrenched as protected areas of personal life and sexual preference is not that far behind. Additionally ADA vouchsafes a broad array of disabilities within its statutory fortress. By crusading for the heft challenged, our courageous colleague is truly a harbinger of the coming age of enlightenment in the law. (Oh, come on now, even I couldn't say he has taken on quite a load.) We are bearing witness to the birth of a kinder, gentler age in which every person challenged by some component of life will find redress in the courts. I have given the matter considerable thought and I now think I know what lies just ahead
STUPID LAW - Make no mistake, this is the law's next unexcavated gold mine. As a nation, we can no longer afford the luxury of dealing with our IQ challenged citizenry by electing them to office. The plight of the cerebrally indisposed person (CIP) even now is coming under close scrutiny by Congress as the House Subcommittee on Dolts considers legislation to mandate reasonable workplace accommodations for the stupid.
When interviewed by the media, Calvin Unctious, President of DUH!, the fledgling organization for those with IQs below 50, was quoted as having said such hearings were fine, but the principal agenda of the organization remained their struggle for better toys in Cracker Jacks.
UGLY LAW - Along with fat and stupid, this area completes the triumvirate of New Age law. It is unfortunate that the legal system can offer little to ameliorate the basic plight of the appearance deprived but proposed new legislation will at least offer them some much needed relief. For instance, in response to a growing beautification trend by municipalities to herd the unattractive into the boundaries of the newly created U-1 residential zoning classification, Congress has proposed an FRCP amendment which would make it much easier for victims of such invidious legislation to maintain a successful facial challenge.
It has always been a testament to the vitality of the law that i t has been able to meet the needs of a changing society. In this coming New Age, we can look forward to all sorts of new challenges and new cases. After all, protecting the needs of the challenged is what the law is all about, and I for one heartily endorse such legislation. But as a personal aside, let me just say this... don't even think about offering such avenues of protection to old men in hats driving cars. I'm all for personal liberty and such, but that's where I draw the line.
© 2000, S. Sponte, Esq.