On Ethics and Maxi-Aids

On Ethics and Maxi-Aids

PHOTO/CAPTION: Stylized Maxi-Aids title

On Ethics and Maxi-Aids

by Kenneth Jernigan

Some time this spring (I think it was around May 1) an event occurred that deserves

comment and careful consideration. Elliot Zaretsky of Maxi-Aids called President Maurer to

ask that the Federation sell him Braillers. President Maurer refused to do so, and

Zaretsky expressed surprise, which in itself is surprising.

Since we believe that Zaretsky and Maxi-Aids do not behave ethically and are a

destructive influence in the blindness field, the National Federation of the Blind will

have no dealings with them at all. Even if their prices are lower than their competition,

we will not buy products from them. We will not sell them any products, and we will not

permit them to exhibit at our conventions. This is a matter of principle.

For background on the Maxi-Aids story see the December, 1994, and March, 1998, issues

of the Braille Monitor. Late last year in the Federal District Court of Eastern New York a

jury decided that Maxi-Aids was guilty of unethical business practices and assessed

penalties of $2,400,000.06 against them. The six cents has special significance, not

because of the amount, but because of the message the jury wanted to send (see the March,

1998, Braille Monitor). In the trial the Zaretsky family (Elliot and his children, the

owners of Maxi-Aids) evaded, dodged, and weaved. They showed remarkable lack of memory.

Among other things Elliot Zaretsky said under oath that he had never given the Department

of Veterans Affairs a document concerning ownership of shares in Maxi-Aids by his

daughter. Yet that very document was obtained from the VA under the Freedom of Information

Act.

Since the trial, which came about because of unfair competition by Maxi-Aids, both

sides have presented motions to the court. Maxi-Aids has asked that the jury verdict be

reversed, that the monetary penalties be reduced from $2,400,000.06 to $14,132, and

(assuming those motions are denied) that a new trial be granted. Independent Living Aids

has asked that the Maxi-Aids motions be denied, that it be given more than $400,000 in

legal fees, and that all of the Maxi-Aids catalogs and the plates to print them be

confiscated and destroyed. Oral arguments on these motions are scheduled for June 19. In

the circumstances it seems most unlikely that Maxi-Aids will prevail on any of its

motions.

In any case the National Federation of the Blind feels that it must stand and be

counted. Neither directly nor indirectly should we support those in this field that we

believe behave unethically. In the long run this is a matter not only of principle but

also of practical common sense, for if Maxi-Aids can drive its competition out of

business, then it can (and we believe will) raise its prices to unconscionable levels and

take advantage of blind consumers. We want no part in supporting such practices.