Did YOU read it? He said he never uses any of the rights EXCEPT using a computer for tests. I was curious what the other rights are.
You are not entitled to specific rights. What A is able to receive is "reasonable accommodations" that will enable A to perform their job/test/etc in a similar manner to B, who is not disabled. One key is the term reasonable. That is often the point of fact that is contested in lawsuits.
this stupid law suits would be cut down a lot if the loser always had to pay the winner legal fees. Instead the defended has to pay their own legal fees no matter what and if they lose they all have to pay the other guys legal fees.
Now I think if you sue some one and lose you should pay for their legal fees they took defending their case. It would cut down on stupid lawsuits like this. The guy have very little to lose and a lot to gain. Now if he loss I think she should pay for IMB legal fees and in doing that it would increase the risk to him.
Many times it would be nice. But, you need to look at the risk that is being assumed. Imagine this situation:
A point of fact is being debated. The law establishes an unclear line. David is going after Goliath. Now, if G is concerned that he might lose, one very powerful tactic is to snow D under with paperwork. Making deadlines, responding to everything properly is essential to proper trial. Now, D has a good argument, but since it is a fact issue and not a law issue the jury will decide. Well, the jury decides for G. In obtaining victory, G has incurred significant legal costs. Under your model, D, who had a valid argument, would be required to pay all the costs of G. That risk would discourage participation in the legal system by D, and is made all the more risky and discouraging as D gets poorer.
There are mechanisms in place to prevent frivolous law suits from being filed, ranging from dismissal of the complaint to sanctions by the court on D's attorney for bringing a case that is clearly frivolous. The sanctions (i.e. fines) are limited to circumstances where there is no argument available, which is rather constricting. But, they are there.
While lawyers should receive much of the blame for the quantity of complaints that are brought forward, you should remember that people are contacting their lawyers. When you consider that most lawyers really don't make that much money, you can't blame them for taking something that has an outside chance at winning (however outside). Moreover, if you go to the doctor, don't you expect the Dr. to look out for your best interests? If you go to an accountant, don't you expect them to have an outlook that puts your interests first? Lawyers are just doing the same.
I should mention that I can't stand trial lawyers. But, it is always good to consider things from both perspectives before judging.