Adam Pajer, et al. v. Disney Parks, Experiences and Products, Inc., et al.

Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action— almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat. A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force. We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. …. We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms. Arizona v. Mayorkas, 143 S. Ct. 1312, 1315, 598 U.S. ___ (2023) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). The judiciary at times in this nation’s history has itself succumbed to the powerful force of fear. Rather than remain in its proper Article III role, confronted with a global health threat, the Eleventh Circuit in this case marched without hesitation directly into Article I powers and impermissibly—and inexplicably—carved out an entirely new statutory bar to seeking judicial redress in express contravention of the clear language of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and well-documented Congressional intent. The questions presented are: (1) Whether a judicial conclusion that no set of facts can plausibly exist to plead under the ADA that an employer regards an employee as presently disabled—by being diseased in the absence of