It’s not a pleasant conversation when you disrespect the work I did to extensively source what the law says

Have you ever thought that maybe you think a little too highly of yourself and the "extensive work" you do?

​

High and mighty is thinking your interpretation of the DoJ’s own regulations is more accurate than their interpretation or a federal judge’s interpretation.

I've never pretended to be "high and mighty"... I'm arguing from experience. Both my own experience and the experience of a multitude of people who feel they were discriminated against, or were actually discriminated against.

Based on what I know, what I've experienced, and what I've seen through how these cases are handled, this fails to meet the standard of ADA discrimination. The burden of proof is incredibly high for these cases, and I can assure you, this one wouldn't win.

This isn't based on something I found on WestLaw... it's something I know from firsthand, personal experience...

​

If you mentioned the practical realities

I have mentioned these. I pointed out personal experiences. I pointed out the experiences of people I've counseled. You seemed more hellbent on flexing your WestLaw subscription and wanted to argue from law, and not from practical realities. And you seemed to get upset when the realities of actual people didn't seem to match up with what you found in your online database.

Just know, you're consulting WestLaw. I've got lawyers (read: plural) on my board of directors that I consult regularly regarding ADA issues for those my organization serves.