|
|
The Council for Disability Rights |
| Advancing rights and enhancing lives of people with disabilities |
|
CDR HOME NEWS BOOKS VIDEO USEFUL LINKS ABOUT CDR HOW TO HELP |
November 2005
EEOC Settlement: Home Depot Sets Company Policy re Job Coaches By John Herzfeld NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York has approved a settlement agreement between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Home Depot USA Inc. calling for the retail chain to implement a national internal policy on the use of job coaches to help employees with disabilities integrate into the workforce and perform successfully (EEOC v. The Home Depot USA Inc., E.D.N.Y., No. 03-4860, settlement approved 10/17/05). In a consent decree approved Oct. 17 by Judge Dora L. Irizarry of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, EEOC and Home Depot settled a 2003 lawsuit filed against the retailer under the Americans with Disabilities Act challenging the termination of Carolyn Pisani, a developmentally disabled sales associate at a store in South Setauket, NY. The lawsuit charged that, over five months in 1999, Home Depot had denied Pisani reasonable accommodation for her disability by failing to involve her job coach — who was paid by the state — in helping her resolve work issues. In addition to the commitment to implement the national company policy on the use of job coaches and provide local training on the policy, the settlement calls for Home Depot to pay $75,000 to Pisani. Senior EEOC Trial Attorney Sunu P. Chandy, in an Oct. 18 statement, welcomed the settlement. "Employers should be aware that job coaches may be helpful in assisting people with developmental disabilities to remain successful in the workplace," she said. "Likewise, employees with disabilities and their advocates should understand that qualified people with disabilities may have the right to assistance from a job coach for training purposes, as well as to resolve workplace issues." Added EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr.: "Intellectually challenged employees are protected under the ADA just as those who are physically disabled, and are entitled to reasonable accommodations." In the settlement, Home Depot denied any wrongdoing or legal violation. The Atlanta-based retailer said in an Oct. 18 statement that it "is an equal opportunity employer and has a zero tolerance policy regarding discrimination." The company added that it had not engaged in any form of workplace discrimination, but had entered into the settlement to avoid costly and protracted litigation. "We are pleased we were able to work collaboratively with the EEOC to bring this matter to an amicable resolution," the statement said. "The Home Depot is proud to employ over 300,000 associates and continues in its commitment to be the employer of choice." Policy Provides Model for Others, EEOC Says In an Oct. 20 interview, Chandy suggested that the Home Depot policy on working with job coaches sets out parameters for accommodating disabled employees without hardship to the employer. "We hope this policy can provide a model for other employers and disabled employees," she told BNA. The Home Depot policy negotiated in the settlement, which will be distributed together with the company's policy on reasonable accommodation, explains the role of the job coach, or employment specialist, in helping many Home Depot employees "go about their daily routines in our store." It notes that Home Depot pays only the employee, not the job coach, who is provided by a non-profit organization or state agency. It spells out that, although the job coach may spend significant time at the job site initially, "the intent is that the job coach will spend just enough time (and no more) to support the associate." The coach should help supervisors and managers "learn how to work most effectively with the new associate and educate them about the role of the job coach," the policy said, and should discuss any requests for reasonable accommodation and work with the company "to arrive at the best solution." The policy further says that the presence of the job coach "gradually decreases" as the employee gains independence on the job, usually with "periodic follow-up support." Management should do as much of the training and support as possible, the policy provides, but if extended training is needed that exceeds the resources of the site, "the job coach may do more of the one-on-one training." Although management remains responsible for monitoring, measuring, and addressing performance directly with the employee, "it may be necessary to have the job coach present when addressing performance concerns during discipline or performance evaluations," the policy said. Chandy said EEOC officials hope that the settlement sends the message that, "when someone comes to an employer and says he or she has been assigned a job coach by a nonprofit group or an agency, with no financial hardship to the employer, that can be a reasonable accommodation." She noted that in two cases — EEOC v. Dollar General Corp., 252 F. Supp. 2d 277 (M.D.N.C. 2003); 65 DLR A-9, 4/4/03 , and EEOC v. Hertz Corp., 9 DLR A-1, 1/14/98 — courts have said that "a full-time job coach who performs essential functions of the job would be unreasonable but have left open and implicitly supported the position that a job coach can be a reasonable accommodation." She also cited a case, EEOC v. CEC Entertainment Inc., 54 DLR A-3, 3/20/00 , that acknowledged the role of a job coach in monitoring the employee's progress and serving as a liaison between the employee and the employer. Initially Performed Well In the Pisani case, the job coach visited the store several times in each of the first couple of weeks of Pisani's employment, but came only about once a week after that, EEOC said in its initial complaint. Store managers admitted that they had told the job coach on several occasions that Pisani was progressing well at the job, she added. But later Pisani and her father received phone calls telling her not to come to work for assigned shifts and "blindly complied" with the instructions, since she lacked "the capacity and judgment to decipher whether the individuals calling her were deceiving her, or in fact had authority to dictate her schedule," EEOC said. When Pisani was informed that she was being terminated for not showing up, management rejected her explanation that she had been told she did not have to work on the days in question, made no attempt to investigate, and simultaneously gave her first and second warnings and a termination notice, all of which she was asked to sign, EEOC said. The job coach was contacted only to be notified of the termination, the commission added. In addition to Chandy, EEOC was represented by Regional Attorney Elizabeth Grossman. Home Depot was represented by Esther Tamburo, Donald R. Livingston, and Paul Mirengoff of the Washington law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Source: Bureau of National Affairs: Daily Labor Report: News Disabilities, 10/21/05. EEOC Explains Employment Rights of Persons who are Blind or Visually Impaired New Document Answers Frequently Asked Questions, Challenges Stereotypes WASHINGTON — The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued a question-and-answer document on the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to people in the workplace who are blind or who have vision impairments. The new publication is available online. The latest Q&A document is the fifth in a series of fact sheets issued by the EEOC for persons with disabilities, and/or focusing on the ADA and specific disability issues, in accordance with President Bush's New Freedom Initiative. It is the second ADA document made available by the Commission in the past two weeks, in observance of National Disability Employment Awareness Month. "This publication will help eliminate unfounded fears and stereotypes that lead to employment discrimination against so many people who are blind or visually impaired," said EEOC Chair Cari M. Dominguez. "As with prior ADA fact sheets, our goal is twofold: first, to make clear that all people with disabilities are protected from workplace discrimination and, second, to educate employers and promote access and inclusion." Among the issues the new Q&A document addresses are:
In addition to enforcing Title I of the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments, and the Rehabilitation Act's prohibitions against disability discrimination in the federal government, EEOC enforces laws prohibiting race, sex, color, national origin, religion, and age discrimination in employment. For information contact : Charles Robbins, David Grinberg 202/663-4900 / TTY:202/663-4494 Source: EEOC, 10/25/05. 
Questions and Answers About Blindness and Vision Impairments in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act
EEOC
Federal Law Protects Those who associate with the Disabled, EEOC Affirms New Document Sheds Light on Little-Known ADA Provision WASHINGTON — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued a question-and-answer-style document about a little-known but significant provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that protects applicants and employees from discrimination based on their association with people with disabilities. The document, entitled "Questions and Answers about the Association Provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act" and available online, is the first of several the EEOC intends to issue in October as part of National Disability Employment Awareness Month. The "association" provision of the ADA prohibits an employer from discriminating against an applicant or employee who has a known association with an individual with a disability. This prohibition covers hiring, firing, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire someone because of an unfounded fear that the individual will be excessively absent or unproductive because of the need to care for a child with a disability. "Family members, friends and caregivers of people with disabilities should know that they are protected from employment discrimination based on those relationships," said EEOC Chair Cari M. Dominguez. "This new document also advises employers of this important provision of the ADA." The following actions would also be discriminatory:
For information, contact: Charles Robbins, 202/663-4900 James Ryan, 202/663-4965 / TTY: 202/663-4494 Source: EEOC, 10/17/05
Questions and Answers about the Association Provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act
EEOC
Programs to create jobs for disabled help only fraction By Kathy Kiely WASHINGTON — Two programs established nearly 70 years ago to create jobs for the disabled have made millions of dollars for a handful of companies but helped only a fraction of those who were supposed to benefit, a Senate investigation has concluded. Investigators for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee reported that under one of the programs, companies run by those who are legally blind control $1.2 billion in cafeteria contracts at military facilities. But companies run by blind people don't always hire the blind. As of 2002, the most recent year for which figures are available, the 2,681 licensed vendors in the program employed 337 legally blind workers, 278 with other disabilities and 6,507 persons with no disabilities, investigators reported. The findings were provided to USA TODAY by committee staff. Enacted in 1936, the Randolph-Sheppard Act gives legally blind persons priority on government contracts to operate food services on federal property. Someone who is legally blind has vision no better than 20/200. The Wagner-O'Day Act of 1938 required the federal government to purchase brooms, mops and other products from organizations that employ blind laborers. It was amended in 1971 by Sen. Jacob Javits, R-NY, to include other disabled workers. Committee investigators discovered that the two programs provide jobs to roughly 48,000 disabled persons. There are 15 million persons with disabilities nationwide who are unemployed. Major military money Companies run by people declared legally blind control military cafeteria contracts worth $1.2 billion. The largest contracts (in millions) are: Base Contract Fort Benning, Ga. $305.9 Fort Jackson, SC $112.5 Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo. $88.0 Lackland Air Force, Tx. $86.1 Fort Knox, Ky. $72.0 Source: US Dept of Defense The committee investigators also reported that some companies with contracts pay executives "excessive" compensation. "It is unconscionable that private companies and employers exploit federal laws to make millions off people with disabilities," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. Melanie Brunson, executive director of the American Council of the Blind, said "nobody can be expected to hire only blind people." She defended the program created by the Randolph-Sheppard law as one "that provides blind persons with an opportunity to run a business." The two programs have created bitter legal fights between groups representing the blind and those representing people with other disabilities. Brunson acknowledged that lawsuits have been filed when lucrative military cafeteria contracts that had been held by companies controlled by people with any disability were transferred to ones run by those who are blind. "We've tried to negotiate a compromise," she said, adding that the law gives priority to blind vendors. The Senate committee is considering the possibility of combining the two programs. "We can and must improve on these laws by creating more and better opportunities for more persons with disabilities," said committee Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. Enzi plans to air the findings at a hearing today. Source: USA Today, 10/20/05 EEOC Report Highlights States' Efforts to employ People with Disabilities Best Practices Emerge from Federal Partnership with Nine States WASHINGTON — Cari M. Dominguez, Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), today released a comprehensive report on the efforts of nine states to employ more people with disabilities in government jobs. The study, Final Report on Best Practices for the Employment of People with Disabilities in State Government, is the third EEOC publication released in October as part of National Disability Employment Awareness Month. The report is available online. It contains findings from the EEOC's "States' Best Practices Project" launched in December 2003 - one of many Commission activities under President George W. Bush's New Freedom Initiative to integrate people with disabilities into all aspects of the nation's social and economic life. An interim EEOC report issued last October focused on state government practices affecting people with disabilities in Florida, Maryland, Vermont, and Washington. The final report covers these four states and five others - Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Utah. The final report also highlights some practices that may inadvertently act as barriers to the employment of people with disabilities in the states surveyed. "All employers can learn from the best practices of our state partners cited in this report," Chair Dominguez said. "Individuals with disabilities deserve the freedom to compete in the workplace on a level playing field — without discriminatory barriers based on myths, fears and stereotypes." The governors of the nine participating states voluntarily allowed the EEOC to review a wide range of best practices affecting disabled state government employees or applicants. The practices related to the recruitment and hiring of people with disabilities for state jobs; the provision of reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees with disabilities; the retention and advancement of individuals with disabilities within state government; and the employment of people with disabilities more generally in both public and private sector jobs. The EEOC is offering free, informal technical assistance to states to enhance voluntary compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC enforces Title I of the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; the Rehabilitation Act's prohibitions against disability discrimination in the federal government; and other federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the agency is available on its web site, or contact: David Grinberg or James Ryan 202/663-4900,tty 202/663-4494. Source: EEOC,10/31/05
Final Report on Best Practices
For the Employment of People with Disabilities
In State Government
EEOC
Wheelchair users sue Detroit: saying city violates US act that requires accessible sidewalks, intersections for the disabled By Marisa Schultz DETROIT — A disability rights group filed a lawsuit against the city of Detroit on Thursday, claiming the city is in violation of the federal Americans With Disabilities Act by making several city intersections and sidewalks impassable for people in wheelchairs. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit by the Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, cites intersections the city recently resurfaced near the U.S. District Court house, Eastern Market, Ford Field, Comerica Park, Coleman A. Young Municipal Center, Masonic Temple and Motor City Casino. The curb ramps, which connect street crosswalks to sidewalks, at these intersections are too steep, uneven, defective or nonexistent, the lawsuit said. Improper curb ramps force people in wheelchairs to travel in the street and compete with traffic. Also, uneven pavement is dangerous as it can jar someone off the chair, said J. Mark Finnegan, an Ann Arbor attorney who filed the lawsuit. Wheelchair users will continue to suffer and be excluded from city life until a judge "remedies the city's continuing, over-arching pattern and practice of discrimination against people with disabilities," the lawsuit said. James Canning, spokesman for the city of Detroit, said, because the city's law department is reviewing the lawsuit, he could not comment on the specifics of the case. "But the city of Detroit works to ensure that all residents have access to city right of ways," Canning said. "We will continue to work to make sure that access is granted to all citizens." The issue of accessibility is particularly acute in Detroit, which has one of the highest rates of people with disabilities in the nation. More than one in four residents older than 5 and not living in an institution has a disability in the city. This lawsuit comes at a time when the city's bus system is being sued for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit against the Detroit Department of Transportation alleges that many wheelchair lifts on the buses are inoperable. "We are honoring Rosa Parks for her accomplishments and rightfully so," said Mike Harris, deputy executive director of the Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America. "But she was a wheelchair user later in her life. In today's world, she wouldn't be able to get on the bus in Detroit and she wouldn't be able to navigate the city." DDOT Director Norman White said the city has made improvements to the bus system, including purchasing 121 new "kneeling" buses with modern front-door ramps that lower to the ground to help solve the problem. The ADA outlines clear codes on how to construct curb ramps, Finnegan said. Complying with it is not only common sense, but it's the law, he said. "The code is pretty simple. It's got diagrams and measurements and it tells you what a curb ramp is supposed to look like," Finnegan said. "The complaint sets out hundreds of examples of defective curb ramps installed by the city in the last year and a half." When the ramps are not constructed properly, a simple errand of going to the grocery store may be off limits to someone in a wheelchair if the sidewalks to the store are out of compliance, according to the plaintiffs. Robert Harvey, a Detroit man who uses a wheelchair, must regularly ride his motorized chair in the street because of uneven sidewalks and curb ramps, he said. And sometimes when he crosses one curb ramp, he'll find the curb ramp on the other side of the street is just not there, he said. "You have to ride in the street," said Harvey, 55, who has been in a wheelchair since1989 after breaking his hip and neck. "The police don't want you to ride in the street, but the sidewalks are so bad. "There are bumps and humps and the wheelchair is banging over the bumps. Wheelchairs don't have shock absorbers. It's just really bad." You can reach Marisa Schultz at (313) 222-2310 or via e-mail. Source:The Detroit News, 10/28/05 
Marisa Schultz
CCD: Don't Ban Disability Nonprofit Voter Education People with Disabilities Need More Access to the Ballot, Not Less [Washington, DC — Curt Decker, Chairman of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), sent the following letter to US House Committee on Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-CA) and Ranking Member Louise Slaughter (D-NY) concerning a proposal by Financial Services Committee Chair Mike Oxley (R-OH) that would dramatically restrict the ability of Americans to engage in our democratic process. Rep. Oxley's proposed "manager's amendment" to the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) in the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (HR 1461) would disqualify nonprofits that engage in nonpartisan voter registration and education efforts from applying for Affordable Housing Fund grants.] Dear Chairman Dreier and Ranking Member Slaughter: As you know, the House is scheduled this week to consider HR 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. The Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities (CCD) would like to go on record against language in the proposed manager's amendment that we believe would be of tremendous harm to community-based nonprofit disability organizations across the country. CCD is a coalition of more than 100 national disability organizations working together to advocate for national public policy that ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. A large part of our agenda focuses on civil rights and protections for the 56 million people with disabilities in the U.S. It is CCD's understanding that the proposed manager's amendment contains language that would require many disability organizations to violate state law if they were to apply for grants made available through the Affordable Housing Fund included in HR 1461. This would result from a requirement in the legislation for nonprofit organizations that seek funding from this program to certify that they are not engaged in voter registration or voter education efforts, regardless of the source of these funds. At the outset, CCD would like to make clear that we oppose efforts on the part of Congress to use federal funding as leverage to control how nonprofit disability organizations expend other resources, including state and local, as well as privately raised funds. Such restrictions, in our view, amount to undue federal government control over activities of nonprofit disability organizations. Unfortunately, the language in the proposed Manager's Amendment to HR 1461, singling out voter registration activities of nonprofit organizations, takes an additional step that would place nonprofit disability groups in jeopardy of violating both the Constitution and the law. In addition, this would also conflict with the "Motor Voter" law. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 ("Motor Voter law") was enacted to facilitate voter registration, with the goal of increasing turnout on Election Day. Besides requiring states to allow voter registration at motor vehicle agencies, the Motor Voter law also requires nonprofit organizations that receive state funds and are primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities to provide voter registration forms as well as assistance in completing them. Because some of these same organizations would be prohibited from engaging in voter registration activities under the manager's amendment to H.R.1461, the manager's amendment would force many organizations — particularly those that provide housing and other services to people with disabilities — to choose between their obligation to register voters and their ability to provide housing to individuals who need it most. No organization should be forced to make such a decision. Because voter registration, identification, and get-out-the-vote efforts, as well as lobbying, are constitutionally protected First Amendment activities, funding restrictions that would stifle such activities could well be struck down if they are not adequately tailored to further an important government interest. Ensuring that organizations spend federal funds only as Congress has intended is, in itself, a legitimate government objective. The extreme breadth of the language in the proposed manager's amendment, however, would do nothing to further this goal. It does not seem possible that retroactively prohibiting activities, disqualifying applicants based on their affiliations with organizations that do not receive any federal dollars, or restricting the use of other unrelated funds would ensure that Affordable Housing Fund grants are used properly and in accordance with the law. Furthermore, there is no legitimate governmental interest in preventing nonpartisan voter participation activities. As such, the restrictions in the proposed manager's amendment will face inevitable challenge and could well be struck down as unconstitutional. Finally, the proposed legislation would affect disability organizations that are essential to the successful development of affordable housing and permanent supportive housing for persons with disabilities. For example, it would affect nonprofit disability organizations that have a direct role in the development and subsequent ownership of affordable rental housing for people with disabilities. Equally important, the proposed legislation would affect nonprofit service provider organizations that are affiliated with affordable housing developers/owners for the purposes of providing essential supportive services to people who are living in the housing. Many nonprofit service providers have structured these relationships with housing providers through formalized Memoranda of Understanding, Management Agreements, or other written agreements. CCD has supported the Affordable Housing Fund contained in HR 1461 since its inception. Nonprofit disability groups across the country struggle every day to seek out funding to meet the growing affordable housing crisis for non-elderly people with disabilities. HUD programs such as Section 811, Section 8 tenant-based and project-based, HOME, CDBG and McKinney-Vento are critical resources in meeting the needs of extremely low-income people with disabilities. However, additional resources are needed to ensure that the increasing demand for affordable rental housing in the community among people with disabilities is met. Nonprofit disability organizations want to be able to access the resources being made available by this important legislation. CCD therefore urges you to remove the unfair and unwarranted restrictions on nonprofit disability groups in the proposed manager's amendment to HR 1461. Nonprofit disability groups should not be forced to violate state law in order to compete for affordable housing resources. Sincerely, Curtis Decker, Chair Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities [The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities is a coalition of over 100 national consumer, provider, and advocacy organizations working together to advocate for national public policy that ensures the determination, independence, empowerment, integration, and inclusion of the 54 million children and adults with disabilities living in the United States.] Source: Jim Baker, United Cerebral Palsy, 202/973-7114 Tackling the ADA By Elisabeth Moriarty-Ambrozaitis The hotel industry has recently become a significant target of US Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Just this past spring, the DOJ initiated a sweeping investigation of more than 45 hotels in New York's theatre district alone for ADA compliance. The DOJ and various ADA watchdog groups have increased their scrutiny of hotels for ADA compliance and are filing lawsuits at a rapid pace. In light of this heightened scrutiny, it is critical that hotels evaluate both their hotel properties and guest procedures for compliance with the disability standards set forth by the ADA. The ADA's Coverage of Hotels The ADA is a federal civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination based on an individual's disability. Hotels are covered under Title III of the ADA as places of "public accommodation." An individual with a disability is a person who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity; (2) has a record of such an impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. The ADA also protects individuals who have a relationship or association with a disabled individual. ADA Prohibitions The ADA prohibits hotels from discriminating against, or denying services to, a guest because that guest has a disability or is associated with a person who has a disability. Accordingly, the ADA requires that hotels remove all structural and architectural barriers that would limit a disabled individual's access to the hotel, if the removal would be "readily achievable." Moreover, newly constructed hotels and properties that undertake alterations, must be made "readily accessible" to disabled individuals, unless such accessibility would be "structurally impracticable." Importantly, the ADA imposes more than just structural requirements on hotels. A hotel must ensure that its practices, policies, and procedures allow disabled guests an equal opportunity to enjoy the hotel's services and amenities. Hotels often overlook a vital component of ADA compliance - the training of their staff on their obligations to guests under the ADA. Every member of a hotel's staff, from the reservationists to the engineering staff, must be trained on the hotel's policies and procedures regarding guests with disabilities. An untrained staff member who does not understand the hotel's accommodations for guests with disabilities may lead to increased liability for a hotel. ADA Compliance A hotel's compliance with the ADA is determined by the property's conformity to a set of complex regulations that set forth the ADA requirements. The extent of the hotel's duty to comply with the ADA and its regulations depends upon a variety of factors, including when the hotel was constructed; whether the hotel is registered as an "historic" building; and whether the hotel has undergone major renovations. For example, a hotel built more than 80 years ago, but renovated after January 1992, must comply with the ADA regulations to the "maximum extent feasible." However, any newly constructed hotel occupied after 1993 must meet a higher standard of physical accessibility. In addition to construction and renovation requirements, the ADA requires a hotel to implement policies, practices, and procedures to allow disabled guests an equal opportunity to utilize the hotel's services. A hotel must also provide auxiliary aids and services to disabled guests, including but not limited to TDD devices, visual alarms, grab bars, roll-in showers, Braille and large print materials, and closed-caption televisions. Penalties for Violating the ADA Both the DOJ and private parties may bring lawsuits against hotels that are not compliant with the ADA. In such cases, a court may issue orders requiring that the hotel be made readily accessible to individuals with disabilities, as well as orders requiring the modification of policies, practices or procedures. Additionally, in a suit brought by the DOJ, the court may award monetary damages and civil penalties. The maximum penalty that the court may assess in the first lawsuit against a hotel is $55,000. If a hotel continues to violate the ADA, the maximum penalty in each suit after the first lawsuit is $110,000. Proactive Measures to Comply with the ADA With the strong threat of DOJ ADA compliance investigations and lawsuits filed by watchdog groups, it is essential that hotels evaluate their compliance with the ADA. We recommend that all hotels develop an ADA compliance checklist and review their level of ADA compliance as it relates to the physical structure and design of the hotel property. Hotels should also develop ADA compliance guidelines for all employees, and conduct regular employee ADA training sessions. These guidelines and training sessions will ensure that hotel employees thoroughly understand both the hotel's policies regarding guests with disabilities and how to properly interact with disabled guests. Given the potential legal liability at stake, hotels should be on alert and take immediate action to best protect themselves in the event of a government investigation or private lawsuit. Krupin O'Brien LLC is an associate member of the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the National Restaurant Association, and the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association. The firm is sponsoring a Tuesday Nov. 15 presentation, "ADA for the 21st Century: Five Star Service for Guests with Disabilities," from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the China Grill in Miami Beach, Fla. To register, call 202/ 467-2493 or send e-mail. Source: Hotel Interactive 11/02/05
Register via e-mail
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
