This is such a no brainer. Even if a "bubble" was required, who said
it had to be a structural addition to a house? Especially a $10.5K
addition? Ever seen the movie "The Boy in the Plastic Bubble?" The
movie was inspired by the lives of David Vetter and Ted DeVita, and
the main word here is "plastic." These guys did not have structural
rooms built for them; they had plastic sheeting separating their
"clean rooms" from the rest of the house.
Even if this woman can be proved to be disabled (and frankly that one
would probably have to go to the Supreme Court based on her
nonspecific ailments and subjective complaints - insides feeling like
fire with ground glass in it), the most that the Fair Housing Act
could do is to prevent her from being discriminated against because of
a disability. Not being allowed to have a wheelchair ramp would be a
discrimination, because there would be no other way for someone to get
into one's house. However, even if (1) it could be proven that this
woman is disabled, and (2) it could be proven that this outdoor
structure helped her disability, the Fair Housing Act (nor the ADA)
still does not come into play and would not give her any protection
here. It's simple ... there's no reason for her to have her "bubble"
outside when there is every reason that she could have it inside her
house where it wouldn't bother anyone. Therefore, there is no
discrimination. She is not prevented from having a "bubble." She is
only prevented from having a deluxe $10.5 outdoor bubble (that is
bothering everyone else.) Unfortunately, she's not entitled to an
accommodation "any way she wants it."
People who are disabled are entitled to "reasonable accommodations."
But there is emphasis on "reasonable." The ADA and Fair Housing Act
were designed for one reason only: to elevate the disabled to the
level of the able-bodied. Unfortunately, some people try to use these
laws to elevate themselves above the able-bodied. Even worse, some of
these people aren't even disabled.
|
