Title III of the ADA provides: It shall be discriminatory to afford an individual or a class of individuals, on the basis of such disability ... with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(l)(A)(ii). By not condoning or condemning different benefits for different disabilities, the statute sheds little light on the issue and, without First Circuit precedent, the court must look to other circuit law for guidance. A plethora of rulings on the subject all reach the same conclusion — the ADA does not require equal benefits for different disabilities. See Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1116- 18 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); EEOC v. Staten Island Savings Bank, 207 F.3d
holding that a reversal of the plan administrators decision is in order under the most deferential arbitrary and capricious standard when no reasonable grounds exist to support the decision holding plan administrators decision to classify mentalillness risks differently than physical disabilities is permissible recognizing that pension plan administrators have the ability to fashion their own plan formulas holding that a plan administrators decision may not be deemed arbitrary and capricious so long as it is possible to offer a reasoned explanation based on the evidence for that decision recognizing that plan participants should be able to access information about the plan administrators fiduciary duties from the plan administrators counsel