|
|
The Council for Disability Rights |
| Advancing rights and enhancing lives of people with disabilities |
|
CDR HOME |
May News
HUD Proposal Would Harm People with Disabilities with the Lowest Incomes This week the US Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to file legislation which would fundamentally change the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and would negatively affect the lowest income people with disabilities, particularly those who rely on federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments of less than $600 per month. The National Low Income Housing Coalition and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have provided the Technical Assistance Collaborative (TAC) with preliminary information concerning HUD's legislative proposal, which is to be known as the State and Local Housing Flexibility Act of 2005. Links to this information are provided below. HUD's proposal, if enacted into law, would hurt the lowest income people with disabilities in the following ways:
For more information: 
National Low Income Housing Coalition Letter to Secretary Jackson Strongly Urging HUD not to introduce the Voucher Legislative Proposal
Initial Summary of HUD's Proposed "State And Local Housing Flexibility Act of 2005
HUD Talking points
Technical Assistance Collaborative. TAC is a national organization that works to achieve positive outcomes on
behalf of people with disabilities or other special needs by providing state-of-the-art information, capacity building, and technical expertise to organizations and policymakers in the areas of mental health, substance abuse, human services and affordable housing.
Source: Technical Assistance Collaborative and the Opening Doors project, 4/07/05 HUD Program Changes [This message, from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, pertains to the message that TAC sent out on HUD's proposed legislation.] Call To Action Be the First to Urge Your Members to Oppose Forthcoming HUD Bill. Call all Senators and Representatives toll free via 888/818-6641. HUD is poised to have legislation introduced that will drastically change how affordable housing programs operate and who they serve. The bill will affect the Section 8 voucher program, the public housing program and residents of project-based Section 8. NLIHC has called upon HUD to reverse course and to not introduce this bill. HUD's Changes to the Voucher Program:
Source: Technical Assistance Collaborative and the Opening Doors project, 4/7/05 Less Immunity for Public Colleges? A federal appeals court has poked a hole in the immunity shield for state colleges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled this week that the 11th Amendment does not protect public colleges from lawsuits filed by students under the Americans With Disabilities Act. The 11th circuit's decision overturned a lower federal court's 2001 ruling in a lawsuit brought against Florida International University by a group of hearing impaired students. They contended that the state-funded university had violated the ADA by failing to provide qualified classroom interpreters or note takers or to offer other ways for such students to understand class-room instruction. The suit also charged that the students had received lower grades because of the university's failure to communicate classroom material well, and that the institution had then failed to remedy that problem. Florida International sought refuge behind the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants states and public agencies broad protection against being sued in federal court. In December 2001, a federal judge in Miami, where the university is located, dismissed the students' lawsuit, arguing that in passing the disabilities law, Congress had not specifically abrogated, or waived, states' right to immunity. The lower court based its decision on the Supreme Court's decision that year in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, which held that state employees could not sue their agencies or institutions under Title I of the ADA, which governs employment. The Florida International students appealed to the 11th Circuit, and its review was delayed until the Supreme Court considered a voting rights case known as Tennessee v. Lane. In its May 2004 ruling in Lane, the Supreme Court ruled that in drafting Title II of the ADA, which applies to access to education and other public services, Congress had intended to abrogate immunity when a state discriminates against individuals in a way that deprives them of a "fundamental right" like voting. Last June, the U.S. Justice Department joined the case on the side of the students, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Lane in urging the 11th Circuit to overturn the lower court's decision. Wednesday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit did just that. "Discrimination against disabled students in education affects disabled persons' future ability to exercise and participate in the most basic rights and responsibilities of citizenship, such as voting and participation in public programs and services," the court said in its 10-page decision in the case, Association for Disabled Americans v. Florida International University. It directed the lower court to decide whether the students' claim of discrimination has merit. Legal experts said that the 11th Circuit ruling represents an expansion from previous federal court decisions of disabled students' rights to sue their institutions. In an e-mail message, Douglas J. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University, called the decision "an unwarranted expansion of Tennessee v. Lane." That case was anchored, he said, "in the fact that the Congress needs greater latitude where there is a denial of a clearly established fundamental right by a pattern of state discrimination against the disabled. "Despite the recitals of the 11th Circuit," Kmiec added, "education has not been declared to be a fundamental right by the Supreme Court and the evidence relied upon to establish a pattern of discrimination may also be arguable." The 11th Circuit's decision applies only in the states of Florida, Georgia and Alabama, and as other ADA cases brought by public college students move through other regions, other appeals courts will have to decide whether to embrace or challenge the 11th Circuit's legal logic, said William E. Thro, solicitor general in Virginia and a former general counsel at two of its public colleges. "We're likely to see in the years ahead continued litigation over what exactly is the abrogation standard," Thro said. He and Kmiec both said the issue could well be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. Source: Inside Higher Ed News, 4/7/05. Addressing ADD in the workplace By Kara Shea Difficulty concentrating. Weak organizational and time-management skills. Trouble completing tasks. Procrastination. Impulsive behavior. Not exactly the types of characteristics most human resources professionals are looking for in an ideal employee. Yet millions of Americans — most of whom don't even realize it — struggle with those types of problems as a result of a neurological misfire in their brain called attention deficit disorder (ADD). Figuring out what to do with employees who have or appear to have ADD can be tricky. Many employees have trouble concentrating and poor time-management skills, but does that necessarily mean they have ADD? What if you suspect an employee has ADD but he doesn't realize it? Are you required to offer reasonable accommodations under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? And what kinds of treatment and/or accommodations can or should you offer to help employees overcome their ADD at work? Roughly 8 million American adults have ADD, and up to 80 percent of them remain undiagnosed. In a 100-employee company, it's likely that five employees suffer from ADD, whether they realize it or not. According to the American Medical Association, adult ADD costs employees billions of dollars each year in lost wages and the inability to hold steady jobs. If it's costing employees that much, then you can bet it's costing employers just as much in lost productivity, absenteeism and turnover. The key factor in determining whether an employee is disabled under the ADA isn't whether he has an impairment, but whether that impairment substantially interferes with a major life activity. Whether an employee who has ADD meets the ADA's strict definition of "disabled" is decided on a case-by-case basis. Many won't. But you should respond carefully and responsibly to any employee who comes to you seeking accommodations for a diagnosis of ADD. If an employee is experiencing difficulties that you think may be attributable to ADD, your first approach could be to simply refer him to your employee assistance plan with the suggestion that he look for the source of his difficulties. Assuming an employee is diagnosed with ADD, many of his undesirable behaviors can be minimized through a combination of medication and therapy. Employees can also learn specific techniques to control some of their behaviors, such as impulsiveness, procrastination and distractibility. Much of the responsibility for controlling those behaviors will necessarily lie with the employee. But there are things you can do to help him perform his job to the best of his ability. First, look for different positions within the company that are particularly suitable for someone who's struggling with ADD. Many employees with ADD excel at jobs that require constant movement from one job site to another or that involve a lot of one-on-one interaction or require an immediate response by their very nature. Try to focus on the particular employee's strengths and weaknesses, and see if you can structure his job around those. To the extent problems remain, try to foster a close relationship between the employee and his supervisor. Adults with ADD tend to thrive with structure. Make sure the supervisor provides detailed instructions — in writing if possible — and breaks down large assignments into smaller, more manageable pieces. As for workplace distractions, there are a number of simple things you can do to help employees who are having trouble focusing: Offer employees the opportunity to work before or after regular office hours or at home to avoid the busiest and most distracting times of the day. Ask the employee if it would help if he used headphones or a white-noise machine to muffle sounds. For employees who don't have a private office, allow them to work in vacant offices or conference rooms for part of the day. Offering some simple accommodations to help valuable employees perform their job better is usually worth the effort. The employee gets to keep his job and will hopefully be happier and more productive as a result of your efforts. You, in turn, hopefully will get reduced turnover and improved productivity. [Kara Shea represents businesses in the area of labor and employment law in Miller & Martin's Nashville office and is an editor of M. Lee Smith Publishers' monthly newsletter Tennessee Employment Law Letter. More on human resources can be found at HRhero.com.] Source: Nashville City Paper (Nashville, TN), 4/13/05. Autoliv to pay $70,000 in ADA lawsuit By Mike Gorrell Autoliv ASP Inc. will pay an Ogden woman $70,000 to resolve a federal court lawsuit in which she accused the company of discriminating against her because of a physical disability. In a consent decree signed April 13 by U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart, Autoliv also agreed to revise all of its employment policies and procedures to ensure they comply with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and to conduct regular disability-law training sessions for company supervisors. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the civil rights lawsuit in September 2003 on behalf of Judy Holt Day, who had worked seven years at the Ogden plant where Autoliv manufactures air bag components. Through the EEOC, Holt alleged she was fired Sept. 5, 2001, after the company failed to assign her to light-duty jobs after she suffered work-related injuries to her lower back that affected both of her arms. A company policy that prevented injured workers from being reassigned to light duty for more than 120 days was the grounds for her dismissal, violating her rights under the ADA, the EEOC added. Day could not be reached for comment. Autoliv spokeswoman Kathy Whitehead said her company was pleased with the settlement, which ended the lawsuit "without any finding of fault or wrongdoing and an affirmation that Autoliv will train their employees of their rights under the ADA." She said Autoliv "vigorously defended its policies and personnel practices" against Day's allegations, adding "equity, fairness and integrity have been the cornerstones of our business since we began and we certainly will continue our strong support for equality in the workplace." The consent decree requires Autoliv to pay Day $20,000 in lost wages (minus taxes and Social Security payments) and $50,000 in compensatory damages. Autoliv has until May 13 to revise its employee handbook, transitional duty program and other policies to comply with ADA and to prohibit retaliation against employees who exercise their rights under ADA. Within 30 days of revising those policies, the company must inform employees of the changes via e-mail, the decree said. By mid-August, Autoliv also has to provide one hour of training to all employees, supervisors and managers. More training is required in the second and third years covered by the consent decree. Source: The Salt Lake Tribune (Salt Lake, UT) 4/20/05. Wilson Quit in Protest: Disabled Program Changes Decried, Former RSA Chief Faults Consolidation By Brian Faler The woman who, until recently, led the federal government effort to get the nation's disabled into the workforce is lashing out at the Bush administration, saying it is quietly attempting to "dismantle" programs critical to helping the blind, deaf and otherwise disabled find jobs. Joanne Wilson, who left her job as commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration on March 1, now says she quit in protest of what she said were the administration's largely unnoticed efforts to gut the office's funding and staffing. "Programs for people with disabilities are being dismantled, and nobody is crying out and saying, 'Look what's happening,'" said Wilson, who, as RSA commissioner, was one of the government's highest-ranking disabled officials. Wilson said the Department of Education, which has jurisdiction over the office, is pushing to allow governors to combine RSA programs with a number of other job placement programs that serve both the disabled and the able-bodied. The net result of such a move, she said, would be less money and fewer services dedicated to helping those with disabilities. Wilson said the agency is also cutting RSA staffing by about half while pushing to downgrade the authority of the commissioner who runs it. The agency defended the proposal, saying the consolidation would make the program more efficient and flexible and would not affect the government's vocational services for the disabled. "Even though you combine it with other programs, it's going to be the responsibility of the states to use it responsibly and to generate the results that they are going to be required to have in order to qualify for the money," said John Hager, assistant secretary for special education and rehabilitative services. Hager said the staffing cuts — expected to slice the RSA's personnel to about 70, from 138 — are coming at the expense of its regional offices, which the agency has deemed unnecessary thanks, in part, to advances in technology. "This is something most parts of the Department of Education did years ago," he said. The reorganization, which the administration proposed in its 2006 budget plan, would have to be approved by Congress. The RSA provides money, technical assistance and oversight to state agencies that, in turn, provide rehabilitative and vocational services for those who are blind, deaf, paralyzed or intellectually disabled. Such services may include training on how to live independently, navigate communities and develop marketable skills. The program serves about 1.2 million people at an annual cost of about $2.9 billion. Those who enroll in the programs participate for a few months to several years. Hager said that the RSA places about 215,000 each year and that two-thirds of those who enter the program come out with jobs. Fredric K. Schroeder, who ran the office for much of the Clinton administration and is teaming up with Wilson to draw attention to her criticisms, said the proposed consolidated job program would not be able to provide the same range of the often expensive and extensive services RSA offers. "The way you rehabilitate a person with a severe disability is very different than the way you help a dislocated worker return to the workforce," he said. Moreover, they said, the disabled would probably get lost in the mix of a combined program because many state agencies are pressured to place as many people in jobs as possible. That would often lead them, Wilson said, to focus on those easiest to place. Hager, the education official, called those warnings "speculative" and said the administration has proposed increasing the RSA's funding. It has proposed expanding the office's state grant programs by slightly more than 3 percent. The overall RSA budget would remain essentially unchanged, however. The president of one of the major advocacy groups for the disabled, the American Association of People with Disabilities, said the organization has not taken a position on the proposal. Andrew Imparato said the group is waiting for more details to emerge. "There's an ongoing dilemma within disability policy," he said. "Do we want separate programs that we can then try to hold accountable? Or do we want to hold the generic programs accountable? Or do we want a little bit of both?" Wilson, who was named to the post in 2001, is herself the beneficiary of a job placement program designed for the disabled. She became blind as a child and was illiterate for much of her childhood, she said. Wilson entered a program in Iowa at age 19. She went on to become a public school teacher before running the Louisiana Center for the Blind and, later, the RSA. She is now a director at the advocacy group, National Federation of the Blind. "The system invested money in me, and they invested a lot of time in me," Wilson said. " . . . But as a result I've been employed for how many years now? That was when I was 19. I'm now 58. I was employed for 40 years and paid a lot of taxes back into the system with that. I couldn't have gotten that if I had walked into a generic job placement program." Source: Special to The Washington Post, 4/25/05 Treating mental illness: A burning state issue By Pamela M. Prah Nearly one American adult in three suffers from a mental disorder or substance abuse each year, but a patchwork of state and federal laws leaves many segments of the population without insurance to cover treatment. Dissatisfied with a federal law that falls short of requiring all mental illnesses be covered the same as physical ailments, more states are compelling private insurers to provide mental health parity. Washington last month became the 23rd state to pass amental health parity law (10 of these include substance abuse in their requirements as well), according to the Health Policy Tracking Service, a private, nonpartisan firm that tracks and analyzes state health legislation and policy trends. The issue is on the front burner in statehouses in Iowa, Oregon and South Carolina, while the governors of both Nevada and New Jersey have made expanding mental health services a major priority. State parity laws vary, but generally require private health insurers provide the same level of benefits for mental ailments as those provided for physical disorders and diseases. The coverage can include visit limits, deductibles, co-payments and lifetime and annual limits. For example, an insurer that covers cancer treatments can't charge higher rates for schizophrenia treatment in states with mental health "parity" laws. Several other states mandate coverage for mental health treatment but not necessarily at parity levels. Click here for a list and brief explanation of the various state parity measures from the National Conference of State Legislatures. Whether they have a mental-health parity statute or not, states every day cover the cost of mental health coverage through Medicaid and other state mental health programs. Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the needy, is the largest single payer for mental health services in the country, outpacing all private insurers, Medicare and other state and local funding, according to figures released in late March by the US Dept of Health and Human Services. Medicaid paid nearly $27 billion of the $104 billion spent on all mental health and substance abuse treatment in 2001, or 26 percent of the total, according to HHS. That figure, the newest available, is expected to pick up even more over the next decade, according to Jeffrey A. Buck, associate director for organization and financing with HHS's Substance Abuse & Mental Health Administration. Buck estimates that Medicaid funds more than half of all public mental health services administered by states and predicts that number could grow to two-thirds by 2017. Private insurers shelled out a relatively small portion of the overall mental health and substance abuse spending provided nationwide in 2001, accounting for 22 percent of the total, about the same as level as a decade ago, according to HHS figures. Other state and local governments paid 26 percent. Medicaid hasn't always been the No. 1 payer of mental health services. Twenty years ago, most people with mental illnesses were institutionalized and treated in state hospitals. States paid for the treatment with their own funds. But as people with mental illnesses were moved out of hospitals and into communities, states turned to the federal government to get a "match" in money through Medicaid to help pay for mental health services. While states got more federal dollars, they also lost some control of how the money was allocated and spent for mental health. With Congress and the Bush administration now considering cutting Medicaid funds, states worry that they will have to scramble to make up the difference. California is trying a different approach. Voters last November overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that is expected to raise $1 billion for mental health services by imposing a one percent tax on those who earn more than $1 million. "Anyone interested in mental health is looking to see what California does," said Matt Rosenberg, an analyst with the Health Policy Tracking Service. 
Send your comments on this story. Selected reader feedback will be posted in the Letters to the editor section. Source: Justice For All Moderator, 4/15/05. Build Your Child's Future with the Rehabilitation Act A workshop for parents persons with disabilities, family members and volunteer trainers
Find out how to increase opportunities for employment and independent living; and how to become a volunteer trainer on the Rehabilitation Act. Wednesdays, June 15th & 22nd Time: 9:30 am - 3:30 pm Place: 20 E. Jackson Blvd. #300 Chicago, IL 60604 Fee: $10.00, includes lunch for both days Participants who complete the training will receive free:
To register, please call 312/939.3513. Why the Disabilities Act Exasperates Entrepreneurs They support the law's aims but find it vaguely written and hard to comply with By Justin Martin A young man with cerebral palsy went out for breakfast at the Blue Plate Café in Memphis. He arrived in a wheelchair, accompanied by a service dog to help him with tasks such as opening doors. The restaurant was crowded, so owner Mike Richmond says he made a decision: Because eight people came with the man and were available to help him, the dog would not be allowed into the dining area. The party then left. Not long afterward, in June 2004, Richmond was served with a lawsuit under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. To head off a legal battle, he quickly settled. He agreed to pay $3,500 in damages to the man, as well as legal fees and a $1,000 fine. "I was shocked," says Richmond. "But with some of these ADA lawsuits, you don't even know the rules until you get hit." Dave Mock was hit too — and harder. The owner of Mock Bros., a saddle maker in Yucca Valley, Calif., was sued for several alleged ADA violations, including a counter that was too high to be accessible for disabled customers. When lawyers' fees hit $27,000, Mock settled and paid $4,000 in damages. But that wasn't the end of it. To address his ADA violations, he would have to make at least another $20,000 in renovations. Instead he shut down his store this past December and sold the property. The great irony: Mock Bros. was founded in 1941 by Archie Mock, Dave's uncle, a paraplegic who is now deceased. Closing the family business, Dave says quietly, "was just devastating." The ADA, which turns 15 this year, has literally broken down barriers for Americans with disabilities. Most small-business owners say they want to comply. But many also believe that the law's requirements are growing vaguer and more onerous. The two primary federal agencies that oversee the law — the U.S. Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — don't do any policing. This might seem like good news to those who hate government regulation, but there's a downside. With no inspectors making the rounds of small businesses to issue warnings to those that aren't complying, it's up to entrepreneurs to stay abreast of how the broadly written statute is interpreted in courts around the country. Those who don't keep up risk getting sued — and even if they win in court, they often lose time and legal fees and suffer damage to their reputation. While the ADA is quite specific on some requirements, there are a lot of gray areas. The law contains many detailed rules related to access to public spaces such as stores and restaurants. For instance, doorways must have openings at least 32 inches wide. Such guidelines apply even to businesses operated by one person. But the rules about access are less stringent for older buildings than for those built after 1992. How much less stringent is a matter of interpretation. The ADA also covers discrimination against employees with disabilities, an equally fraught issue for employers. If a small business fails to hire a qualified job applicant who is deaf or copes with diabetes, it faces a potential lawsuit. The same goes for a company that fires or downgrades the job duties of a disabled person. But this part of the law differs from the one governing access because it applies to any company with 15 or more workers. Small businesses are supposedly held to lower standards than large corporations and are required only to comply with the ADA in ways that are "readily achievable." But that term is defined on a case-by-case basis. "It's really difficult for a small business to keep up with all the rules and regulations" and court decisions, says William Anthony, a Florida State University management professor and expert on the ADA. The law even extends to psychiatric conditions. Fire a poor performer who happens to be depressed, and that employee may be able to sue, arguing that his condition is a disability. For such a case to hold up, the plaintiff needs to have a diagnosed condition and an employer must know about it. But ADA lawsuits stemming from psychiatric conditions are notoriously murky. Consider the case of Audrey Jacques, an employee with bipolar disorder who worked for DiMarzio, a maker of electric-guitar components based in New York City. DiMarzio alleged that Jacques was extremely confrontational with co-workers and supervisors. Though Jacques denied that allegation, DiMarzio fired her. Because she had a diagnosed condition and said her employer was aware of it, Jacques was able to sue. She won in federal district court. DiMarzio was ordered to pay $50,000 in damages for emotional distress and $140,000 in back pay. When DiMarzio appealed, the decision was reversed. Both parties dropped the case in February. Such legal flip-flopping highlights the complexity of psychiatric disability cases under the ADA. Was Jacques merely a bad employee? Was her condition to blame? What obligation did DiMarzio have to keep employing her if she caused disruption? Such questions continue to play out in the courts. Meanwhile, the number of ADA suits — over physical and mental disability, handicapped access, etc. --continues to rise, although that isn't obvious from looking at the federal statistics. The EEOC received 15,376 ADA complaints in 2004. That's nearly identical to the 2003 number:15,377. But according to legal experts, an increasing number of cases are being filed in state courts. All the states have their own statutes, so-called mini-ADAs. A small business must keep track of both federal and state laws, which don't always agree. State laws are often stricter, particularly in places such as Illinois that have a history of heavy workplace regulation. Many states also lack caps for certain types of damages. In federal employment-discrimination cases, the cap on compensatory and punitive damages is $50,000 for a firm with fewer than 100 employees. But the limits are higher, even nonexistent, in states such as New Jersey and Massachusetts. Of particular concern for small businesses are so-called frequent filers-disabled customers who go from establishment to establishment, uncovering alleged ADA violations and filing suits. Sometimes the motive is to attract publicity for the needs of the disabled. But some frequent filers are just looking to make a quick buck, say critics. Because it's so expensive to pursue a court battle, many small businesses simply settle. George Leage owns three restaurants in Morro Bay, Calif., which were sued in rapid succession by frequent filer Jarek Molski. Leage says he has credit card slips that show that Molski visited his Harbor Hut restaurant at 4:20 p.m. on June 16, 2003, then dropped by the Great American Fish Company at 6:27 p.m. Two weeks later Molski went to Leage's other eatery, the Outrigger. Molski, who uses a wheelchair, filed suits against all three restaurants, citing ADA violations in their bathrooms. He alleged that he injured himself not once, but in each of the three bathrooms. It turns out that Molski, 34, is notorious for filing hundreds of ADA suits throughout California. A federal judge recently deemed him a "vexatious litigant" responsible for a "scheme of systematic extortion." Molski was slapped with an order that-if upheld on appeal-will prevent him from filing in federal court without first getting the approval of a judge. But Leage will still have to face Molski in state court. The case against the Outrigger recently settled for $18,000; a court battle would have rung up thousands in lawyers' fees. "I'm willing to do whatever I can to abide by the law," says Leage, "but this is nothing but a moneymaking scam." (Molski and his attorney did not respond to telegrams seeking comment.) Congressman Mark Foley (R-Florida) is sponsoring a law to slow down frequent filers. It would give a business 90 days to rectify an ADA complaint before a lawsuit could proceed. Foley plans to reintroduce the six-year-old proposal later this year. For many small-business owners, the most troublesome part of the ADA is the "readily achievable" standard. What that means is anyone's guess. Say a small business can't easily afford a wheelchair-accessible desk for an employee. Instead, a standard-issue desk is put up on blocks. If such an accommodation satisfies the employee, it means no problem, no lawsuit. Meanwhile, there are stories of frequent filers, armed with measuring tapes, going from business to business, filing lawsuits whenever a handgrip is an inch too high, a parking space an inch too narrow. "It's very situational. If someone wants to sue you under the ADA, there's often a way to be found," says Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation. But if there is one clear rule about the ADA, it is this: Doing something trumps doing nothing. If a small business gets sued, any steps it took to accommodate the disabled can weigh heavily with jurors. Potential litigants are also less likely to sue a business that makes an effort, however simple and inexpensive. A retailer might advertise that its web site is available to take orders from disabled shoppers. Or a worker who is groggy in the morning from medication might be allowed to arrive later and stay later. A few years ago, a wave of ADA lawsuits [was] filed in the historic South Side district of Pittsburgh. Yet City Theatre has avoided trouble by taking such actions as printing programs in Braille. "There are many small steps you can take that send a message to the disabled community that you are open to change," says Diane Nutting, City Theatre's education director. That's a good message, and given that disabled Americans spend an estimated $796 billion a year, it's also good business. Source: Fortune Small Business, May 2005. Join Equip for Equality in Planning Our Priorities You're Invited! Equip for Equality is hosting three Public Meetings to solicit your input for planning our priorities for the forthcoming year. This meeting presents a unique opportunity for people with disabilities, family members, service providers and other interested parties to participate in this planning process. Refreshments will be served. We carefully consider all public input we receive in finalizing our annual priorities and plan. The Board of Directors and staff of Equip for Equality look forward to this meeting where we can share with each other our vision for the future. A sign language interpreter will be present. Please advise us if you require any other accommodation to participate in the meeting or if you would like to participate in the Chicago meeting via teleconference. Thursday, June 2, 2005, 10:00 a.m. - 12 noon Chicago Bar Assn., Corboy Hall 321 S. Plymouth Court, Chicago Tuesday, July 19, 2005, 10:00 a.m. - 12 noon Hilton Hotel, Rm Vista 6 700 E. Adams, Springfield Wednesday, July 20, 2005, 10:00 a.m. - 12 noon Southern Illinois University Lesar Law Building, Rm 206 1150 Douglas Drive, Carbondale
To RSVP, please contact E.G. Enbar at 800.537.2632, ext. 7312, TTY 800.610.2779 or via e-mail.
To participate online, submit your comments on our web site.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
