So begins
a Daily News article about Joel Nixon, "The Blind Barber," who is legally blind, but not — at least not yet — entirely blind.
He lost his job at Tony's Barber Shop in 2012, after his boss Tony Morales noticed Nixon's condition. He had tripped over a customer's legs, and later tripped over a chair... Morales said Nixon wasn't fired because he was legally blind, but because he wasn't qualified. He said Nixon wasn't carrying his weight and was an unlicensed barber.
Elsewhere in the Daily News:
Man Bites Dog.
David Etzel, 36, attacked his mother's shih tzu Cujo in April, after getting drunk and teasing the 10-pound pup....
I'm leaving out gory details. What kind of mother names her little dog
Cujo?
Posts
17 comments:
Sounds like the woman should have named her son Cujo.
I've known several Cujos. It's a fine name for a dog.
How is it possible that the "commission" (EEOC?) found the barbershop could make accommodations? Would you want your hair cut, sharp scissors snipping about your face, neck, and ears, by a blind barber?
We teach children not to run with scissors, and here we have a barber tripping over chairs and customers.
A mother with a sense of humor?
From the Article:
Nixon said he hopes to bring his son to Disneyland before he loses his vision completely.
Atrocious grammar sentence of the day from the Press.
Ah Barbers, the original surgeons.
Back in Victorian days "shaved by the blind barber" meant having one's throat cut. I think the jury needs to agree to being shaved by Nixon with a straight razor if they're going to award him $100K.
Yes, anti-discrimination lawsuits seem awfully full of "unintended consequences".
Sounds like a bad precedent from a liability standpoint, no? If the barber trips and injures himself he'll have both Workers Comp claims and (likely) a lawsuit against the owner. If the owner can't get rid of him for posing a risk to himself and others who is going to compensate the owner for that risk?
It is all around bad for the employer. He's a personal injury lawsuit waiting to happen. I suppose he could pay him to just sit in shop and greet people as they come in.
Blogger HoodlumDoodlum said...
Sounds like a bad precedent from a liability standpoint, no? If the barber trips and injures himself he'll have both Workers Comp claims and (likely) a lawsuit against the owner.
You aren't thinking correctly. You don't understand. None of that matters. The employer must accommodate the worker even if it means increase liability risk. He has no choice in the matter. It is never about what is good for the employer or how it impacts the employer. It is only about the employee. Each agency has its own set of blinders, so to speak. All that matters is their narrow scope of how it protects the worker. This is how OSHA, EEOC, ADA, etc. work. And now, of course, Obamacare and the $15 minimum wage. The consequences to others is irrelevant. This is why the owners of such establishments just lease out "chairs". The barber/stylist becomes an independent contractor.
Igv: I hear you, and I was actually thinking a bit farther down the road. If I'm that barber's insurance carrier I'm either going to jack up his rates or drop him completely (I don't want to be on the hook for a barber tripping and stabbing some kid in the neck, etc). Holding liability ins. is probably a requirement to keep his business license anyway, so without that ins. (or without being able to pay the super-high premium I'd charge him) he'll have to close up shop...at which point this particular barber is out of a job.
Not...not really sure who "wins" here, but I guess the idea of finding a reasonable accommodation for someone whose condition poses a risk to themselves and others is a bit beyond me anyway. I mean, if you said "you can only use clippers (no scissors)" that might work, but you still have a trip/fall hazard in an environment with a lot of pointy things around (plus lots of people, cords, that kind of thing).
I wonder how much things like this prevent greater individual entrepreneurship and small business growth in this country.
This was essentially a default judgment.
Evidently the employer ditched his original lawyer and refused to participate in the MCAD proceedings.
Thus it was sufficient for the complainant to present merely "an unrebutted prima facie case of discrimination based on his disability" in order to win.
It sounds like the employer has a new lawyer and will appeal.
Decision: http://www.mass.gov/mcad/docs/decisions/2015/decision-2015-nixon-v-tonys-barber-shop.pdf
If he's unlicensed, why wasn't the case tossed on just that alone?
So the blind barber gets fired. Get him another job. I suggest President of the University of Missouri -- I mean no one could say he doesn't apply color-blind standards, right?
I met my first Cujo last week, at a very fine home, and sadly I forgot why Cujo was so moniker-ed, but I do remember a point was made to note the origin and the little fella was too excited saying hello for me to give due attention the explanation of the origin deserved.
A schnauzer, his being housed at the Dumb Friends League points to the strong possibility the name was chosen by someone who had to leave him behind, although it worked out really (really) well for him by all appearances, wagging and other.
What kind of mother names her little dog Cujo?
A mother with an ironic sense of humor?
Post a Comment