Originally posted by Serkevan ...
Isn't it a common enough disability that someone would have done something about it if there was legal ground to stand on? Honest question here - I'm not versed in American law but, from the outside, people over there are famously litigious so I'd have expected someone to have already complained...
...
Well, I did litigation for a living for thirty years, and here's my take on that: there are very few people who are actually "litigious", but those are the cases that the news-faces talk about; in addition, the stories that get on the news are often about cases that the news-media masters don't like (mostly for economic reasons), such as the woman who was burned by hot coffee at a McDonalds restaurant. That doesn't happen, much, which is why it's news-fodder.
Most people don't want and can't afford the time, effort, and expense of litigation. And, really, it's not that big a deal, having to make little adjustments to be able to accomodate one's self to society at large. On the grand scheme of things, color-blindness as a disability isn't that important an issue. In theory, the U.S. Dept. of Justice is supposed to enforce those rules, but they are busy on other things (I can't say what those are, because of the rule against political ideas).
Anyway, most people, in my experience, have little taste for litigation and have a good intuitive sense of how important things are in their lives, and they "don't sweat the small stuff". The legal system is very cleverly designed to make people fight for every inch of their rights, precisely to prevent "opening the floodgates of litigation" - if people really could get some kind of wind-fall out of litigation, they'd all be doing it. And, frankly, the main job of the courts in the U.S., except where the "important people" are involved (big corporations and the upper class get special treatment in that they get taken seriously) is to provide a means to assist corporate creditors and to help the police "get the bad guys".