{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03036876355748373, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028922631959508315, 'mean_word_length': 4.9655172413793105, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Lawsuit against Mason Tenders is heading toward a quiet finale.


 The June 1993 case challenging Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund's decision to exclude coverage of AIDS-related expenses incurred by union members enrolled in its health and welfare fund seems to have faded into the background. This is an important case because it is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) first target on disability-based distinctions, and, the defendant refused to settle the case. Since suing Mason Tenders, the EEOC has made the issue of AIDS- related caps and exclusions a priority in its enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Mason Tenders has battled the government at every turn, contending that it is not an "employer" as defined by the ADA, and therefore not subject to the Act's tenet of equal access to all benefits, including health insurance. Also, Mason Tenders argued that they excluded AIDS coverage not because of discrimination, but because AIDS treatment is expensive and they couldn't afford it. In addition, the Fund sued the government as part of its case against [name removed], the HIV-positive member whose complaint sparked the government's action. Presently, the EEOC's case against Mason Tenders, and the Fund's suit against [name removed], remain on the docket in Federal court in New York while they negotiate a settlement.
