Originally Posted by
jkhuggins
the fact that you are being forced to litigate against TSOs making things up and refusing to accommodate passengers means that there's little distinction between your assertion and mine. To the ordinary passenger, the net effect is the same: there's no guarantee that a passenger's disabilities will be reasonably accommodated at a checkpoint.
At a ground level, I fully agree. It is seriously messed up that someone should have to litigate to get their rights respected. Yet that's how it is.
A "right" that can't be relied upon isn't a "right".
The only difference is that, at least in theory, an unreliable right can be enforced in court, with damages and injunction against those who violated the right.
I, too, hope that my litigation will help to change things systemically. I would consider it a failure to only get remedy for my own situation. I want to make it so nobody has the same thing happen again.
(Or, when that too inevitably fails — it's worth pointing out that much of what I'm litigating is prohibited by TSA's own supposed policies, so another memo definitely ain't going to fix it — make it so it's much easier and quicker to get appropriate compensation for the injured party and appropriate sanctions against the violator. Including the TSA itself.)