ABSTRACT
In Bragdon v. Abbott the defendant, a dentist, refused to fill the cavity of the plaintiff, who was HIV-positive, outside a hospital setting. There are essentially two remedies the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) contemplates granting those whose "rights" under the statute are violated: first, protection against "simple discrimination", and second, "reasonable accommodation''. Obviously, it is possible to imagine that people are unequal in ways some would deem relevant and others would not; thus the right to be free from simple discrimination requires some consensus on what traits potential defendants can deem relevant. The chapter focuses on group membership for wholly administrative reasons appears to the author incomplete even when we are talking only about simple discrimination. It also focuses on the "beneficiary" side. There are substantial questions as well about whether it is appropriate to levy such a regulatory tax on employers or public accommodations owners rather than to spread them more broadly.
