Statement of Marcie Roth, Executive Director, National Spinal Cord Injury Association

House Committee on Ways and Means

Statement of Marcie Roth, Executive Director, National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Bethesda, Maryland
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oversightof the House Committee on Ways and Means
December 13, 2005
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendly&id=4574
Good Afternoon Chairman Ramstad, Ranking Member Lewis, and distinguished committee members. Thank you for inviting me to testify on issues regarding the response by nonprofit organizations to the needs of Hurricane Katrina survivors.
My name is Marcie Roth and I am the Executive Director and CEO of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association (NSCIA). NSCIA is the nation’s oldest and largest civilian organization serving the needs of people with spinal cord injuries and spinal cord diseases since 1948.
I am here representing NSCIA, but I want to be very clear that in our disaster relief efforts we have been working on behalf of ALL people with disabilities, including those with sensory and intellectual disabilities and those with mental illness and other psychiatric disabilities.
And, although we are focusing on efforts to assist Americans with disabilities in disasters, we are also wholly committed to working with others who are addressing the needs of ALL people with disabilities in disasters in other parts of the world.
I want to thank my colleagues in the private sector and those representing government, who have given those of us who are experts on the additional needs of people with disabilities before, during and after a disaster the opportunity to work alongside you over the past fifteen weeks as we have shared our knowledge, resources and a deep commitment to meeting the critical needs of as many hurricane survivors with disabilities as we possibly could. I am grateful to those individuals who have joined us around the clock, for many weeks, in a shared commitment to do what no one else was doing, despite their legal and moral obligations, to meet the additional needs of hurricane survivors with disabilities.
On September 13, 2001, I first became involved in navigating between the Federal systems and the private sector in an effort to address the very urgent disaster related needs of people with disabilities who had survived the terrorist attacks in New York City two days earlier. I quickly learned that a lifetime of knowledge of the additional needs of people with disabilities was being called into action as I found myself in the breach, navigating between the very real needs of very real people and the limited public and private systems poorly designed to address those needs.
I was shocked when I discovered how ill prepared the major disaster relief agencies were, and I became actively involved in efforts to assist those relief agencies and communities across the US to better plan for the additional needs of people with disabilities. In the months and years after those terrible days, I also participated in efforts to assist people with disabilities to prepare for another emergency. I saw the creation of the US Department of Homeland Security, the relocation of FEMA and the National Disaster Medical System, and many printed and internet published materials on preparedness for people with disabilities, workshops and conferences on the topic, and many other visible signs that indicated to me that high level planning for the next national disaster was in good hands. I did my part, made recommendations when the needs of people with disabilities were being overlooked and voiced my concerns when it seemed that plans were unrealistic. Even when the ideas of disability and disaster experts were being met with a surprising amount of resistance and exclusion, I trusted that even though I couldn’t always see it, we were “ready”. Just like most Americans, I assumed that the Red Cross and the other major relief organizations were building on something far more durable than sand when they published guides and booklets and held meetings and workshops on emergency preparedness for people with disabilities.
And then, in the last week of August, I joined much of America as we watched with more than a little alarm as Hurricane Katrina took a bite out of FL and then made its way into the Gulf.
On the morning of August 29th, I received a call that I will never forget and once I tell you about it, I hope you will never forget it either. My friend and colleague, former appointee to the Social Security Administration, Susan Daniels called me to enlist my help because her sister-in-law, Benilda Caixetta, a New Orleans resident who was quadriplegic, paralyzed from the shoulders down, had been unsuccessfully trying to evacuate to the Superdome for two days. Despite repeated requests to be evacuated, in her power wheelchair, which is a vital tool for mobility and independence, the paratransit system that serves the transportation needs of people with disabilities never showed up. Even calls to 911 had been fruitless. She was still in her home, she had not been able to evacuate, despite her very best efforts. In my naiveté I thought a few phone calls to the “right” people would help, and I was sure I knew who to call. I was wrong. After many calls to the “right” people, it was clear that Benny, was NOT being evacuated.
I stayed on the phone with Benny for most of the day, assuring her that I was doing all I could to make sure help would be coming as soon as possible. She kept telling me she had been calling for a ride to the Superdome for three days, but, despite promises, no one came. The very same paratransit system that people with disabilities can’t rely on in good weather was what was being relied on in the evacuation. It’s no surprise that it failed.
I was on the phone with her that afternoon when she told me, with panic in her voice, “the water is rushing in” and then her phone went dead.
We learned five days later that she had been found in her apartment, dead, floating next to her wheelchair.
Sometimes things like this can’t be prevented. Despite the magnitude of the catastrophe, this was not one of those times. Benilda did not have to drown.
I am here today to say some other difficult things, and while there are many organizations worth comment, I will focus almost exclusively today on one of the biggest, best funded and most beloved non-profit organizations of all, the American Red Cross. It feels almost blasphemous to criticize the Red Cross, almost like criticizing one’s own grandparents. But, for hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities, the Red Cross has frequently failed to meet the greatest needs while simultaneously diverting donations and other resources from small organizations left to address a myriad of often complex unmet needs. Not only has this hurt people with disabilities and the organizations that serve them, but it has also added an untold burden on every taxpayer in this country, through costs associated with preventable secondary complications in disaster survivors, unnecessary hospitalization and institutionalization and failure to maximize limited resources to meet needs.
Over the past 100+ days, while the rest of America and the world watched on TV, millions of Gulf region residents desperately tried to survive not only the weather, but the many human failures to follow. For 25-30 % of those people, the additional challenges of disability, poor planning and low expectations made the unimaginable crisis much, much more dangerous.
As the parent of two children with significant disabilities and as the legal guardian for an Iraqi child who was spinal cord injured in an accidental US artillery bombing two years ago, I am acutely aware every day of the unmet needs of 56 million Americans with disabilities and hundreds of millions of people with disabilities worldwide. I am also acutely aware of just how rare it is that the unmet needs of people with disabilities are ever considered by the people who have the most power and the best resources to maximize positive outcomes for a minority population that encompasses a sizable portion of the general population of the United States. According to the U.S. Census of 2000, people with disabilities represent 19.3 percent of the 257.2 million people ages 5 and older in the civilian non-institutionalized population. Another 2.2 million Americans are institutionalized in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. And, it is necessary to point out that these are all people with disabilities. People don’t go to nursing homes because they are old; they go to nursing homes when their community fails to meet their additional needs.
Some areas of our country have an especially high percentage of people with disabilities. As it happens, the areas most severely impacted by the hurricanes were also areas with especially high percentages of people with disabilities living in their communities.
According to the 2000 Census:
In Biloxi, Mississippi, 10,700 people (25% of the residents) are classified as people with disabilities.
In Mobile, Alabama, 43,000 people (24% of the residents) are people with disabilities.
In the New Orleans metropolitan area, 250,000 residents (21.3 %) described themselves as disabled.
Because people with disabilities are…
disproportionately below the poverty line,
often less mobile than the general population,
disproportionately more dependent on outside assistance, and
often misjudged as less capable
… this population felt the impact of Hurricane Katrina quite severely.
For most of my career, since the 1970’s, I have worked primarily for non-profit organizations. For most of this time, serving people with disabilities, we have struggled to meet complicated needs with extremely inadequate resources. As the executive director of a non profit organization for the last four years, I am sure I have often fallen short. Due to the magnitude of need, the shockingly limited resources made available to invest in the needs of people with disabilities and the never changing bigotry of low expectations regarding the value and contributions of Americans with disabilities, I anticipate that the needs of my constituency will remain under-met for the foreseeable future. And, as long as Congress fails to ensure the enforcement of laws to educate children with disabilities, fails to address the institutional bias in Medicaid, fails to pass Money Follows the Person, MiCASSA, the Christopher Reeve Act and the Family Opportunity Act, fails to fund adequate housing, mental health parity, access to quality health care, equipment and services and considers legislation that will limit the human and civil rights of one in five Americans, no real progress will be made in maximizing limited Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance and other resources. This is both wrong and it is foolish public policy.
There are many fine examples of nonprofits who have actively sought to meet needs by using limited resources that were intended to serve people who are in the greatest need even when the weather is fine. Some organizations, like mine have been very fortunate to have come to the attention of true heroes who quietly find a way to make a real difference. Thanks to a very generous donation from Robert and Ita Klein, who recently established the Brian Joseph McCloskey Hurricane Katrina Survivors with Disabilities Fund, my organization, the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, is able to replace wheelchairs, hospital beds, household goods, repair homes, and pay rent and mortgages for as many people with disabilities as our fund will stretch to serve. The Kleins’ company, Safeguard Properties, Inc. has been playing a significant role in disaster and housing related services, and they wanted to make a generous donation to meet an otherwise entirely unmet need. Their recognition of the unmet needs of hurricane survivors with disabilities is a shining exception to the fairly bleak picture. Yet another is the Disability Funders Network which raised over $100,000 that it is distributing to small non-profits in $5,000 grants to meet unserved needs. Many disability organizations have had to tap their own limited resources to meet the needs of constituents who have lost everything. When we were desperate to send replacement equipment like wheelchairs and hospital beds to people who had to have them to preserve their health and we couldn’t get the Red Cross or any of the other large relief organizations to provide funds for drivers, trucks and insurance, we were very fortunate to find an unlikely ally. The Muslim Public Affairs Council stepped in with funding to help Portlight Strategies to get trucks full of donated durable medical equipment and supplies on the road and into the hands of those who had lost theirs.
As wonderful as these stories are, with not more than a few exceptions, the needs of people with disabilities, and their stories have been almost entirely overlooked by the general public. Even house pets have fared far better! I would be remiss if I didn’t thank Joe Shapiro, a wonderful reporter with National Public Radio who was one of the very, very few to report about people with disabilities. And, another shining example of high quality non-profits would be the formerly all volunteer Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, a part of the crown jewel known as the National Disaster Medical Systems.
Most organizations like mine exist in the shadow of high profile non-profits like the American Red Cross. In the days after the hurricanes, the American Red Cross has received a reported $1.68 billion dollars in donations while Gulf coast residents with disabilities have hardly benefited because many were excluded from their shelters and relief assistance services.
Sadly, we have attempted to help the Red Cross and other disaster relief leaders to see that they have been in a key position to address this inequity since 2001, but instead, people with disabilities are still turned away from the Red Cross and other charity-run shelters.
As well as the disability community has come together to try to take care of “our own”, we have been excluded from the larger relief community, sometimes told that we would just be “in the way” and “make things worse”. We were told to leave the relief efforts to those who “know what they are doing”. At the same time, we received report after report about the Red Cross shelters turning people with disabilities away or separating them from caregivers and service animals, then sending them to nursing homes when they couldn’t maintain their independence.
We had many reports of people with disabilities arriving on busses from New Orleans and being forced to remain on the bus while everyone else was invited in. Then they were driven from shelter to shelter for sometimes hundreds of miles before being taken in.
When disability experts showed up at the shelters to offer their assistance, they were frequently turned away, and we’ve been told that this was because they hadn’t completed the “required training”. This was an interesting disconnect from another conversation I had.
When I inquired about the sheltering needs of people with disabilities, once I was finally able to reach a National Red Cross Operations official, she told me “we aren’t supposed to help those people, the local health departments do that. We can’t hardly deal with the “intact” people (this term is considered highly offensive to people with disabilities). Don’t you understand that we’re taking volunteers off the street to run these shelters?”
I am told that just last week, a Red Cross official told meeting attendees at an AARP meeting that the Red Cross does not serve people with disabilities. I would have dismissed that comment entirely as mere gossip if I hadn’t had a similar conversation.
There are many stories, but a few stand out as especially egregious.
One woman in Alabama, a college graduate who survived a spinal cord injury 10 years ago but was living independently until the hurricane struck told me she went to the Red Cross shelter as soon as it became clear that her home was about to flood, but she was turned away. She was directed to a “special needs shelter” but that shelter was so overcrowded with people who all needed additional help that she ended up sleeping in her wheelchair for days on end. This caused a serious skin condition to develop, landing her in a hospital and then a nursing home. Despite the $1.68 billion raised by Red Cross, she never received any assistance from them.
In one town, also in Alabama, after waiting all day in line for assistance, residents of the Red Cross shelter were told that the only way to register for assistance was to leave the Red Cross shelter and travel to another town. But there was no accessible transportation offered so those with mobility disabilities were unable to seek assistance.
Jason and his mom, displaced from New Orleans to Dallas, sent us the following email three weeks after the hurricane:
“To Whom It May concern:
Presently, Jason (SCI, 11 years post) and I are homeless and living in a Salvation Army Shelter due to Hurricane Katrina. We had to leave our home, and all of Jason's medical equipment (i.e. his hospital bed, electric wheelchair, hoyer lift, etc.) Since I am in a public place using one of the laptops that they have made available to us, I will not be able to write a long letter explaining all of our business. But I am writing now because we need some financial help.
Because we don't live in one of the shelter sites, we are out of the loop of things that are going on. We have not been able to secure clothes or any basic funding. FEMA is taking a long time to help and we are missing out on everything because we're not able to get around. Jason is using an old manual wheelchair and I have to push him everywhere. This has been a strain on me also.
If you can help us, please contact us. Any help we can get would be appreciated. We are desperate, so I'm grasping at any and all past contacts. Normally, I would never find myself in this sort of begging position. But this has been anything but normal. People's lives were totally shattered. Families were torn apart. Please help us.”
Jason ended up in the hospital for weeks as a result of the lack of medical equipment and supplies.
We worked around the clock for weeks to try to get disability experts into the shelters to assess the needs of people who couldn’t hear the announcements over loud speakers, or see the signage that directed them to assistance, people who were losing critical stability because they didn’t have access to medication to treat their mental illness, people whose eyes and kidneys and hearts were being attacked because they didn’t have insulin, people who didn’t understand what they needed to do to get food and water because of an intellectual disability and people who couldn’t stand in line for seven hours, or even seven minutes because they had lost their wheelchair during the evacuation. People housed in alternative settings were excluded from the myriad of relief programs at the shelters and unable to gain equal access to resources vital to survival and prevention of secondary complications.
People without their wheelchairs, walkers and canes couldn’t stand on line. In the heat, many people were unable to wait for hours to be assisted and so those with the direst needs often had the least assistance.
Some people, who need additional supports to maintain their independence, were forced to go to special needs shelters while family, other caregivers and even service animals were denied access to offer assistance. Once independence was compromised, people were institutionalized. I am told that many, many of these people have still not been located!
One man in east Texas told us about having to drive from a shelter to the local hospital for weeks, every time he had to go to the bathroom because the bathroom at the shelter was not wheelchair accessible.
In a recent report by the National Organization on Disability: “The most underserved group [in shelters] were those who were deaf or hard of hearing.”
Less than 30% of shelters had access to American Sign Language interpreters
80% did not have TTYs
60% did not have TVs with open caption capability
Only 56% had areas were oral announcements were posted. “This meant that people who are deaf or hard of hearing had no access to the vital flow of information.”
(Report on SNAKE Project, Oct. 2005)
There are no estimates of the numbers of people with disabilities who were turned away from the shelters, those who were sent to nursing homes and institutions and those who were able to evacuate to locations other than shelters, sometimes further isolating them from the vital services they needed to protect their independence and their health.
Recently, when I asked people how much financial assistance they received from the Red Cross, 70% told me they had not received any assistance and of those who had, most reported receiving $360. The highest amount received was reported by one man who received $680.
And while thousands remain homeless and in need of financial assistance to cover mortgage payments, rent, utilities and basic necessities, just recently, I learned that $66,000 in foreign donations have been given by FEMA to the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) and the National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD).
The case management program, promises to “assist disaster survivors with unmet needs” but none of the $66M can be used to meet those unmet needs, rather the $66M will be used to hire paid staff who will hire volunteers to provide “case management” to 100,000 hurricane survivors. No efforts seem to have been made to reach out to disability service provider experts to participate in this project, and in fact, the website for the project and the instructions for responding to the RFP are not accessible, even though accessibility is required. Even the telephone is a problem for many as it is a New York number and there is no 800 or TTY line. I have to wonder if the $66M would have been better allocated to pay rent and child care so people can get back to work and get on with their lives instead of meeting with more volunteers. And, for people with disabilities, I wonder how skilled volunteers will be at navigating complicated systems that regularly confound experts. I have to wonder if this plan will decrease or increase unnecessary institutionalization!
Along with everyone else, I have learned over the past three and a half months that for all of the planning that has gone on, people with disabilities are not in good hands and without immediate and bold steps, their needs will remain entirely unmet just as soon as the next disaster strikes. I wish that generic systems were capable of holding the very specific and often complex needs of people with disabilities in the foreground as they make quick and sweeping decisions, but in a country that still thinks nursing home placement trumps community based care for people with disabilities on a sunny day, it is obvious that we can’t rely on generic decision makers to make smart decisions about the needs of people with disabilities in the midst of disaster.
We have learned that just as we can’t expect well-intentioned medical and public service personnel to adequately address the complex needs of people with disabilities in day-to-day situations, without a deep and thorough understanding of the tenets of independent living and self-determination or absolute clarity about the human and civil rights of people with disabilities, we also can’t expect these dedicated community members to understand the complexities of meeting the additional needs of people in the midst of disaster.
However, with some smart investments, not only can people with disabilities begin to trust that their needs will be better met in future disasters, taxpayers, generous donors and the general public can rest assured that we are maximizing limited resources and minimizing unnecessary waste.
In fact, amidst all of the projections of huge additional costs to meet the real needs of our citizenry in a disaster, there is clearly an opportunity for visionary policy makers to SAVE tax dollars while maximizing limited resources, now, who could possibly argue against that! Thanks to you Chairman Ramstad, the needs of people with disabilities, and the hope of visionary leadership hasn’t been lost. I know you will invite your colleagues to join you in prioritizing the needs of hurricane survivors with disabilities as next steps are taken.
Recommendations to the Red Cross
Issue additional guidance to shelters regarding their legal and ethical obligation to serve people with disabilities.
Establish an Office on Disability, and staff it with disability experts known to the disability community as strong leaders with a track record of meeting the additional needs of people with disabilities in a disaster. Give that Office direct access to the CEO of Red Cross, power and adequate funds, support staff and other resources.
The in-take forms used for people coming into shelters must be revised so that disability-specific information is collected.
Training and leadership is urgently needed to provide guidance to Red Cross employees and volunteers regarding their obligations to serve people with disabilities.
Actively pursue partnerships with disability related organizations.
Every shelter must have at least one volunteer on duty at all times who is knowledgeable about identifying individuals with disabilities when they arrive at the shelter, helping to identify that individual’s needs and then helping with or directing those individuals to appropriate assistance.
People with disabilities must be carefully tracked, and so must their equipment. When they leave a shelter, there must be information kept on file about where they were sent.
Nursing homes and institutions must be alternatives of last resort and never used for more than temporary shelter for previously independent people, and those receiving their supports and services in the community.
In the future, why not put all shelter services in the same building, rather than separating people with additional needs from their family and limiting natual supports tat may mean the difference between dependence and independence.
The American Red Cross needs to increase its capacity to use technology at all levels.
The very same housing crisis that has kept hundreds of thousands of people across the US in restrictive living environments is now putting previously independent and self-sufficient disaster survivors in hospitals and nursing homes for lack of appropriate housing that allows them to use a bathroom and sleep in a bed. We are still working to get to the tables where key decisions are being made about temporary and permanent housing. We have been trying to get to those tables with powerful housing non-profit organizations who have access to substantial funds for rebuilding. We are trying to talk about universal design, accessibility and visitability. We’ve been attempting this since it first became apparent that housing would be a critical need. Yet, even today, housing decisions are being made that will result in discrimination, further limited options and institutionalization of people who could and should be in our communities and in our workforce.
Additional Requests:
Please encourage the appropriate Committees in both the House and Senate to hold additional oversight hearings on topics within their jurisdiction. For example, Medicaid would be an important topic for an oversight hearing.
Many non-profit organizations that already operate without adequate resources have had to use their limited funds to address the needs of disaster survivors with disabilities as well as their usual constituency. Supplemental funds need to be given to these groups to support their continued viability to serve our communities now and in the future. These organizations, independent living centers, local chapters of national organizations, protection and advocacy systems, etc. are at the heart of the solution. We know this; let’s make sure we support what IS working.
PLEASE do not allow ANYONE to convince you to compromise the hard-won civil rights of people with disabilities. Our rights remain fragile even today, and these rights are easily overlooked or dismissed in a time of emergency. This is illegal but if that isn’t enough it’s also costly. Be good stewards of tax and donor dollars! Just say no to limiting or violating the civil rights of people with disabilities!
Hurricane survivors are afraid that the rest of us are getting “Katrina Fatigue”. I encourage you to join me in assuring our fellow citizens that while THEY are entitled to Katrina Fatigue, they can count on the rest of us to stay focused and keep things moving forward.
It is in Benilda’s memory and with deep appreciation towards those who have worked tirelessly over the past fifteen weeks in the Gulf States, in Washington, in cyberspace and around the country that I will close with the following Chinese proverb:
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Are You Planning To Go To A Red Cross Shelter? Concerns of People With Disabilities

DOJ: Assistance with Transfer in a Shelter

DOJ: Shelter worker helps a person onto a cot using a portable lift provided by the shelter

Diagram of a Shelter in which beds are provided to people in wheelchairs. From A DOJ Technical Assistance Document.

As we undergo yet another hurricane season in Florida, people with disabilities are increaasingly worried. Do the Offices of Emergency Management in Florida comply with the mandates of the ADA? Does the Red Cross?


If you use a wheelchair, and plan to shelter at a Red Cross shelter, will you be able to get the services to which you are entitled?

According to the Justice Department: "Historically, great attention has been paid to ensuring that those shelters are well stocked with basic necessities such as food, water, and blankets. But many of these shelters have not been accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals using a wheelchair or scooter have often been able somehow to get to the shelter, only to find no accessible entrance, accessible toilet, or accessible shelter area."

While not all shelters have to be accessible (under title II of the ADA), those that are accessible should be identified as accessible:

DOJ: "Until all of your emergency shelters have accessible parking, exterior routes, entrances, interior routes to the shelter area, and toilet rooms serving the shelter area; you should identify and widely publicize to the public, including persons with disabilities and the organizations that serve them, the locations of the most accessible emergency shelters."

The Department of Justice says: "In some instances, people with disabilities have been turned away from shelters because of volunteers’ lack of confidence regarding the shelter’s ability to meet their needs. Generally, people with disabilities may not be segregated or told to go to “special” shelters designated for their use. They should ordinarily be allowed to attend the same shelters as their neighbors and coworkers."

Should the Red Cross provide beds in a reasonable number of shelters, to people in wheelchairs, as a reasonable modification of policy? Yes. Look at the drawing, (reproduced above), from the Justice Department's technical assistance material, in which an individual in a wheelchair is provided a bed that is at an accessible height.

Should assistance in transferring be provided? Yes, as a reasonable modification of policy, at a reasonable number of shelters. (See DOJ drawing, above).

Providing this assistance is the responsibility of the local Office of Emergency Management, as part of their title II responsibilities under the ADA. In addition, the Red Cross is required by title III to ensure that this service is provided. Both entities can be liable for the failure to ensure that this assistance is provided,

If you have comments, questions, or concerns, please contact Marc Dubin, Esq., at mdubin@pobox.com.

The views expressed above are those of the author, and do not represent the Florida Bar.

The author serves as Co-Chair of the Disability Law Committee, and served as a Senior Trial Attorney at the Justice Department from 1992-2005, in the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, in Washington, D.C. In that capacity, he was responsible for nationwide enforcement of the ADA on behalf of the United States.


To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

Special Education Law Discriminates against Children with Surgical Implants

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act denies services to children with disabilities who have cochlear implants or other surgically implanted devices. The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) reports that as of 2005 approximately 15,000 children in the U.S. have cochlear implants, and with the advancement of bio-technology, the number is rapidly growing. A leading scientific report states: "Cochlear implants could potentially affect the auditory rehabilitation of an estimated 200,000 United States children with advanced levels of deafness . . ."

What are cochlear implants? They are not hearing aids. NIDCD states: "Hearing aids amplify sounds so they may be detected by damaged ears. Cochlear implants bypass damaged portions of the ear and directly stimulate the auditory nerve." The NIDCD describes the implant as having "an external portion that sits behind the ear and a second portion that is surgically placed under the skin."

The Act excludes surgically implanted medical devices as "related services" or as a "assistive technology device." The Act reads: "The term does not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of such device." Related services are the variety of services that the Act requires schools to provide children "to benefit from special education." What is the difference if a medical device is above the skin or below the skin? If a non physician can provide the service, anatomical topography, the location of the device, should not be relevant to whether the service is a related service. Nevertheless, the Act excludes services required for children with surgical implants as a related service.


To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

U.S. Access Board: Advisory Committee Presents Report on Courthouse Access

The Courthouse Access Advisory Committee, which the Board organized to promote accessibility in the design of court facilities, presented its recommendations at a meeting of the Board on November 15. The Committee’s report provides design guidance and best practice recommendations for achieving access in courthouses, including courtrooms. It also includes outreach and educational strategies for disseminating this information most effectively to various audiences.

Over the course of its two-year charter, the Committee examined design issues in depth, toured different types of courthouses across the country, and crafted solutions that ensure access without compromising traditional features essential to courthouse design.

A leading focus of the Committee was access to courtrooms, which feature a variety of elevated spaces, including witness stands, jury boxes, and judges’ benches. The report includes detailed recommendations on providing access to these and other courthouse spaces. This guidance is applicable to all types of courthouses at all levels of government. While focused on the design of new facilities, the report also can be used as a resource in the retrofit of existing facilities.

The Committee’s 35 members included courthouse architects, disability groups, members of the judiciary, court administrators, representatives of the codes community and standard-setting entities, government agencies, and others with an interest in the issues to be explored. Committee representatives, including Co-Chairs Eve Hill of the Disability Rights Legal Center and Sam Overton, Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, outlined key findings and recommendations of the report in a presentation to the Board.

Access to courthouses remains a problem, even in the design of new facilities, due to a lack of information and awareness. Design features essential to courthouses, particularly courtrooms, pose challenges to access that are not adequately addressed by existing resources. The Committee’s report, according to Board Chair and Deputy Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) David L. Bibb, promises to positively influence the next generation of courthouses by demonstrating how access for all users can be easily met. “I am confident, thanks to the work of this Committee, that future courthouses will fulfill the promise that justice for all means access for all,” Bibb noted.

The Committee’s recommendations will supplement accessibility guidelines the Board maintains under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Barriers Act. Although these guidelines contain provisions specific to courtrooms, many have sought further guidance on how access can best be achieved. The report also contains an outreach and education plan for the Board’s use in disseminating this new guidance and promoting greater awareness.

The Committee held meetings in Phoenix, Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, Boston, and Washington, D.C. In developing its recommendations, the Committee followed a consensus-based model according to protocols governing Federal advisory committees. Three subcommittees organized by the Committee covering courtrooms, courthouse spaces other than courtrooms, and education and outreach met extensively in between quarterly committee meetings.



Courtroom Mock-Up
In addition to receiving the Committee’s report, the Board visited a full-scale courtroom mock-up organized by GSA and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOC). The mock-ups, which were based on sample courtroom plans prepared by AOC, provided a means to test and evaluate some of the Committee’s recommendations. Board and Committee members toured a mock-up of a standard district courtroom, which was reconfigured to represent a special proceedings courtroom.

Report Highlights
The Committee’s report includes recommendations that address:

Integrating accessibility into all stages of courthouse design and planning;
Courthouse and courtroom entrances, including automated devices that facilitate access through heavy or monumental doors;
Access solutions to judges’ benches that preserve the security and dignity afforded justices;
Effective and economical solutions for providing access to raised witness stands, jury boxes, and clerks’ stations without disruption to court proceedings;
Assistive listening technologies that discretely enhance audio output for people who are hard of hearing;
Wheelchair seating in spectator areas;
Incorporating access solutions into standard design plans for various types of courtrooms, including jury, bankruptcy/ hearing, magistrate, appeals, special proceeding;
Signage and wayfinding systems that facilitate access throughout courthouses for people with vision impairments;
Counters and other elements of public service areas;
Jury deliberation rooms and jury assembly rooms;
Secured areas, including judges’ chambers and suites;
Holding cells serving courtrooms; and
Outreach and education strategies for disseminating this information and raising awareness.

Further information on the committee is available on the committee page.



To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

Are You a Boater? DOT Seeks Comment on New Regulations for Vessel Operators

The U.S. Department of Transportation has proposed new regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to ensure access to vessels for passengers with disabilities. Published on January 23, the proposal, which is available for public comment for three months, ensures access to programs and services provided by vessel operators and prohibits discriminatory practices and policies. The regulations would apply to vessels of all types and sizes that provide transportation or other services to the public, including cruise ships, ferries, water taxis, gaming and excursion boats and other types of craft.

The rule bans practices that discriminate on the basis of disability, such as denial of service, program restrictions, and price discrimination, and specifies conditions upon which certain policies, such as advance notice of the need for accessible accommodations, would be considered acceptable. It also covers responsibilities for ensuring access to vessel services and programs, including accommodation of mobility aids, assistive devices and service animals, as well as access to landside facilities serving vessels, such as terminals and floating docks. The rule highlights certain issues and questions where public feedback is sought. Comments on DOT’s rule are due by April 23, 2007. Additional information, including received comments, is posted on DOT’s site at http://dms.dot.gov/reports/fr.htm (see “ADA - Passenger Vessels” under the heading “OST”).

The proposed rule does not include design requirements for vessels, which are currently under development by the Board. As explained in the notice, DOT plans to incorporate the Board’s future guidelines for vessels into its rule. The Board is preparing a proposed version of the guidelines that will be published for public comment at a future date.

Comments are due by April 23rd.


To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

Should Parents Be Allowed to Represent Themselves and Their Children to Enforce IDEA Rights?

NCD Speaks Out on Supreme Court Winkleman v. Parma City School District Case
NEWS RELEASE

NCD #07531
February 26, 2007
Contact: Mark S. Quigley
202-272-2004
202-272-2074 TTY

National Council on Disability Speaks Out
on Supreme Court Winkleman v. Parma City School District Case

WASHINGTON, D.C. National Council on Disability (NCD) chairperson John R. Vaughn today released the following statement regarding the United States Supreme Court oral argument, which will be heard on February 27, on whether parents may, without a lawyer (pro se), file a lawsuit to enforce their child's rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

The case of Winkleman v. Parma City School District (No. 05-983) addresses a split among circuit courts, one circuit deciding that there are no limitations on the parents' ability to prosecute pro se an IDEA case in federal court, several circuits ruling that under IDEA parents can only represent pro se their own interests and not those of their child, and the Sixth Circuit said in Winkleman that parents cannot represent themselves or their kids in court under IDEA.

As an independent federal agency that is statutorily charged with the responsibility of promoting disability laws and programs, NCD is concerned about maintaining the ability of parents to obtain the rights and benefits guaranteed to their children under IDEA.

Jacob Winkleman is a student with autism whose parents disagreed with the school district's individualized education program (IEP) for Jacob. After administrative hearings affirmed the IEP, Jacob's parents chose to place him in a private school at their own expense and petitioned a federal district court for reimbursement.
The district court denied their request. At that point, the Winklemans had spent three years and $30,000 in legal fees on a household income of less than $40,000 per year. When the Winklemans appealed the federal district court decision, they sought to argue the case themselves because they could no longer afford legal representation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the suit finding that IDEA does not expressly provide for the right of a parent to represent the interests of his/her child in federal court. The circuit court also ruled that non-lawyer parents cannot represent themselves either, because IDEA provides for the rights of the child, not the parents. Based on the circuit court holding, the Cleveland Bar Association initiated an investigation into whether the Winklemans engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in attempting to pursue the matter in federal court.

At stake is the extent of access to IDEA rights and protections for seven million children and youth with disabilities. NCD affirms that in the nearly three decades that NCD has monitored IDEA, it is clearly established that parents are a main enforcement vehicle for ensuring compliance with IDEA. The statutory scheme of IDEA makes parental involvement and access to legal services integral to the protection of a child's rights under IDEA. In conducting its series of evaluative studies on education, NCD has consistently received reports from parents about their inability to find or afford lawyers to assist them with receiving the full benefits of IDEA for their children. NCD also has found through its research that families with children with disabilities are overrepresented among poor populations. NCD notes that there is a severe shortage in Ohio of attorneys with expertise in IDEA, and that the Ohio Legal Rights Service accepts a small percentage of requests by families for legal representation. Thus, it is critical to maintain the ability of parents like the Winklemans to pursue on their own legal recourse if they disagree with administrative decisions regarding the education of their child and cannot find or afford an attorney.
NCD also appreciates the position of the U.S. Solicitor on the matter, who has submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Sixth Circuit holding is "inconsistent with the plain language, structure, and purposes of IDEA."

NCD urges that the resolution of the Winkleman case give full effect to the educational guarantees of IDEA by supporting the rights of parents to pursue the interests of their children regardless of whether they have a lawyer to assist them.

Recent NCD information regarding IDEA issues includes the
following:

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Burden of Proof: On Parents or Schools?
www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/burdenofproof.htm

Lessons for All of Us: Protecting the Right to Education for Persons with Disabilities, www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/lessons.htm

Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities, www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/educationoutcomes.htm

People with Disabilities and Postsecondary Education, www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/education.htm

People with Disabilities on Tribal Lands: Education, Health Care, Vocational Rehabilitation, and Independent Living, www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/tribal_lands.htm

School Vouchers and Students with Disabilities, www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/vouchers.htm

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Reauthorization: Where Do We Really Stand?
www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2002/synthesis_07-05-02.htm
and Back to School on Civil Rights,
www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2000/backtoschool_1.htm

For more information, contact Mark Quigley or Jeff Rosen at
202-272-2004 or 202-272-2074 TTY.

# # #

Note: NCD is an independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.


Source: Mark S. Quigley
Director of Communications
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, NW Suite 850
Washington, DC 20004
________________________________________________________________

For more education news issues, see:
http://www.aapd.com/News/education/indexeducation.php







To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

Patients With Psychiatric Disabilities and Strip Searches

Lawsuit filed over forced strip search
(August/September 2006 Issue)


By Pamela Berard

A 50-year-old Massachusetts woman with psychiatric disabilities filed a federal lawsuit against Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in June, alleging she was forcibly undressed by five male security guards last year during a visit to the emergency department for migraine treatment.

Cassandra Sampson, who says she pleaded to keep her pants on because of a history of sexual abuse, charges she was physically bruised, emotionally devastated and became suicidal after the incident.

The lawsuit seeks more than $1 million in damages and a change in the hospital policy regarding disrobing of people with psychiatric disabilities, in particular, forcible stripping by security guards.

According to the lawsuit, Sampson went to Beth Israel's Emergency Department on March 22, 2005, for migraine treatment at the referral of her primary care physician. Sampson, who has a history of self-injury, was moved to the psychiatric portion of the department after admitting to a triage nurse that she had struggled with safety issues, although she was not suicidal, did not have any desire to injure herself and had never attempted to injure herself in an emergency department.

The lawsuit alleges the nurse asked her to completely disrobe prior to her psychiatric evaluation. Sampson said she asked to keep her pants on.

"(Sampson) offered to take off her shirt, her shoes and give them her purse," explains Susan Stefan, a lawyer for the Center for Public Representation, and one of the lawyers representing Sampson. "She did submit to a thorough pat down with security guards present, which found nothing." She also repeatedly asked for a patient advocate, and even though one was on the premises, she was denied that request, Stefan says.

Sampson alleges she was forcibly stripped by five male security guards as she cried out that she was being raped and sobbed.

Jerry Berger, director of media relations for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, says the center has decided to refrain from any comment on this pending legal matter.

Stefan says the policy that mandatory disrobing is expected of patients on the psychiatric unit is discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act, by treating people with psychiatric disabilities disadvantageously with exaggerated fears.

"In most cases, the only increase is the psychiatric crisis. It increases the chance of injuries to others, it increases the chance of danger to the patients themselves and many hospitals don't do this without compromising patient safety," Stefan says. "One of our messages is that what hospitals believe increases safety isn't really what feels safe to patients when it comes to having to take their clothes off. Many, many people with psychiatric disabilities have histories of terrible sexual abuse, like our client. And she felt like she was being raped."

Stefan has written a book, "Emergency Department Treatment of the Psychiatric Patient: Policy Issues and Legal Requirements."

"We did a survey for this book, and mandatory disrobing was a huge issue in response to our survey," she says.

"We're very sympathetic" to hospitals, Stefan said. "I want to be very clear; we understand that hospitals need to be safe places.

"Our contention is that doing this makes hospitals less safe. I think they do it with the best of intentions, but I don't think that they understand that for example, stripping a struggling patient is a recipe for injury."

"We're not arguing for a policy that would ban request for clothing removal," she adds. "We're only saying that before you require a person with psychiatric disability to remove his/her clothing or forcibly remove the clothing, there should be a thorough assessment by a psychiatric professional that documents that the risk involved in allowing the patient to keep her clothes is greater than the risk to the patient and others by forcibly stripping.

"As a general matter, those kinds of experiences in emergency departments of being stripped haunt women and increase their chances of self-injury," Stefan says.

Mary Jean Murk, director of psychiatric central services for Maine Medical Center, says its center's general practice is to request patients (psychiatric or not) put on a patient gown in the emergency department. However, she says the policy is currently in the modification phase. She says some consumers had stated concern about the policy. "We're trying to maintain the same level of safety and not have to get into change or not change into gowns," she says.

In any case, "We would not force somebody to change. If we were worried about weapons or other things we would deal with (those issues), not with the changing of the clothes," she says.

Joyce Brennan, media relations coordinator of Southcoast Health System, which has hospitals in the Massachusetts communities of New Bedford, Fall River and Wareham, says patients who go to the emergency department are asked to put on a patient gown only if it's appropriate to their care. "For example, a hand injury probably would not require wearing a patient gown, but an abdominal complaint would," she says.

"If the patient is not comfortable with putting the gown on the health care provider would work toward a comparable solution," she says.





To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

What Kinds of Questions Are Prohibited During a Job Interview?

From the EEOC:

The ADA prohibits employers from asking questions that are likely to reveal the existence of a disability before making a job offer (i.e., the pre-offer period). This prohibition covers written questionnaires and inquiries made during interviews, as well as medical examinations. However, such questions and medical examinations are permitted after extending a job offer but before the individual begins work (i.e., the post-offer period).


Here are some examples of questions that an employer cannot ask on an application or during an interview:

Do you have a heart condition?

Do you have asthma or any other difficulties breathing?

Do you have a disability which would interfere with your ability to perform the job?

How many days were you sick last year?

Have you ever filed for workers' compensation?

Have you ever been injured on the job?

Have you ever been treated for mental health problems?

What prescription drugs are you currently taking?

May the employer ask me these questions after making a job offer?

Yes. An employer can ask all of the questions listed above, and others that are likely to reveal the existence of a disability, after it extends you a job offer as long as it asks the same questions of other applicants offered the same type of job.

In other words, an employer cannot ask such questions only of those who have obvious disabilities. Similarly, an employer may require a medical examination after making a job offer as long as it requires the same medical examination of other applicants offered the same type of job.



To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

Guidance material for use by state and local governments in complying with the ADA.

Justice Department Publishes Guidance on ADA Compliance

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is preparing guidance material for use by state and local governments in complying with the ADA. The “ADA Best Practices Tool Kit” provides guidance on identifying barriers to access in government programs, services, activities, and facilities and how to correct them. The first installment, released in December, provides an overview of the ADA and relevant regulations. A second section covers notice and grievance procedures and includes a compliance checklist and sample notices and policies. The information is posted on DOJ’s website at www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/pcatoolkit/abouttoolkit.htm. Additional installments will be posted throughout the year as they become available.


To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

New EEOC Publication Addresses Employment of Health Care Workers with Disabilities

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Monday, Feb. 26, 2007

CONTACT: Charles Robbins
David Grinberg
(202) 663-4900
TTY: (202) 663-4494

New EEOC Publication Addresses Employment of Health Care Workers with Disabilities

Latest Q&A Fact Sheet Explains How Americans with Disabilities Act Applies to Employment in the Health Care Industry

Washington, D.C. - Naomi C. Earp, Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), today announced the issuance of a new question-and-answer (Q&A) fact sheet on the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to job applicants and employees in the health care industry. The new publication, part of a series of Q&A documents about specific disabilities in the workplace and specific industries, is available on the EEOC's web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/health_care_workers.html.

Health care is the largest industry in the American economy. The health care industry provided more than 13 million jobs in 2004 and is expected to account for 19 percent of all new jobs created between 2004 and 2014 -- more than any other industry. In addition, the health care industry has a high incidence of occupational injury and illness. Health care jobs may involve potential exposure to airborne and bloodborne infectious disease, injuries from syringes, and other dangers; many health care jobs can also be physically demanding and mentally stressful.

The new Q&A fact sheet provides practical information about applying ADA employment rules in health care jobs, in a variety of settings - from public and private hospitals and nursing care facilities to doctors' and dentists' offices and diagnostic laboratories. The occupations within the health care field are many and varied, including not only physicians, surgeons, dental hygienists and nurses, but social workers, physical therapists, medical records clerks, laboratory technicians, paramedics, home health aides, and custodial and food service workers in medical facilities.

"We should be mindful that disability does not mean inability, and that every individual deserves the freedom to compete on a fair and level playing field," said Chair Earp in announcing the issuance of the new document. "People with disabilities represent a vast pool of untapped talent for employers, particularly in an industry that is growing as rapidly as the health care industry."

Although the rules under Title I of the ADA are the same for employers and individuals with disabilities in all industries, this fact sheet explains how the ADA applies to some unique situations that may arise in the health care setting. Many of the real-life examples in the fact sheet are based on cases that have been decided by courts or settled by the EEOC.

Topics discussed in the new publication include:

* When someone is an "employee" covered by the ADA (as opposed to
an independent contractor);

* When someone is an "individual with a disability" under the ADA;

* How to determine if a health care applicant or employee with a
disability is qualified for ADA purposes;

* What types of reasonable accommodations health care workers with
disabilities may need and the limitations on a health care
employer's obligation to provide reasonable accommodation;

* When an employer may ask health care applicants or employees
questions about their medical conditions or require medical
examinations; and

* How a health care employer should handle safety concerns about
applicants and employees.

The EEOC's latest ADA publication helps to advance the goals of the New Freedom Initiative, President Bush's comprehensive strategy for the full integration of people with disabilities into all aspects of American life. The New Freedom Initiative seeks to promote greater access to technology, education, employment opportunities, and community life for people with disabilities. An important part of the New Freedom Initiative strategy for increasing employment opportunities involves providing employers with technical assistance on the 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, and the Rehabilitation Act's prohibitions against disability discrimination in the federal government. In addition, the EEOC enforces other federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, and age. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: EEOC



To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

How Do I File a Complaint with the EEOC?

Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination

Who Can File a Charge of Discrimination?

Any individual who believes that his or her employment rights have been violated may file a charge of discrimination with EEOC.

In addition, an individual, organization, or agency may file a charge on behalf of another person in order to protect the aggrieved person's identity.

How Is a Charge of Discrimination Filed?

A charge may be filed by mail or in person at the nearest EEOC office.

Individuals who need an accommodation in order to file a charge (e.g., sign language interpreter, print materials in an accessible format) should inform the EEOC field office so appropriate arrangements can be made.

Federal employees or applicants for employment should see Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing.

What Information Must Be Provided to File a Charge?

The complaining party's name, address, and telephone number;

The name, address, and telephone number of the respondent employer, employment agency, or union that is alleged to have discriminated, and number of employees (or union members), if known;

A short description of the alleged violation (the event that caused the complaining party to believe that his or her rights were violated); and
The date(s) of the alleged violation(s).

Federal employees or applicants for employment should see Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing.

What Are the Time Limits for Filing a Charge of Discrimination?

All laws enforced by EEOC, except the Equal Pay Act, require filing a charge with EEOC before a private lawsuit may be filed in court. There are strict time limits within which charges must be filed:

A charge must be filed with EEOC within 180 days from the date of the alleged violation, in order to protect the charging party's rights.

This 180-day filing deadline is extended to 300 days if the charge also is covered by a state or local anti-discrimination law. For ADEA charges, only state laws extend the filing limit to 300 days.

These time limits do not apply to claims under the Equal Pay Act, because under that Act persons do not have to first file a charge with EEOC in order to have the right to go to court. However, since many EPA claims also raise Title VII sex discrimination issues, it may be advisable to file charges under both laws within the time limits indicated.

To protect legal rights, it is always best to contact EEOC promptly when discrimination is suspected.

Federal employees or applicants for employment should see Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing.


Continued on site

You may also consider contacting the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc., Florida's Protection and Advocacy Program for people with disabilities, which has a very active employment discrimination program.

Contact Corey Hinds at c.hinds@advocacycenter.org or Steve Howells at SteveH@advocacycenter.org.

You may also wish to contact the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which investigates job discrimination complaints:

Florida Commission on Human Relations or
Human Relations Commission

2009 Apalachee Parkway
Suite 100
Tallahassee, FL 32301
1-800-342-8170
850-488-7082

The Florida Bar refers to attorneys statewide who specialize in employment discrimination law:
The Florida Bar - for Lawyer Referral List
650 Apalachee Pkwy.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
1-800-342-8060
(850) 561-5600



To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

Technical Assistance Materials from the EEOC

The EEOC has published specialized technical assistance materials:


Questions and Answers about Deafness and Hearing Impairments in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Blindness and Vision Impairments in the Workplace and the ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act's Association Provision

Diabetes in the Workplace and the ADA

Epilepsy in the Workplace and the ADA

Persons with Intellectual Disabilities in the Workplace and the ADA

Cancer in the Workplace and the ADA


To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

Did you know that in Fiscal Year 2006, the EEOC received 15,625 charges of disability discrimination?

In Fiscal Year 2006, EEOC received 15,625 charges of disability discrimination. EEOC resolved 15,045 disability discrimination charges in FY 2006 and recovered $48.8 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation).

source: http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html


To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

DOJ Settlement with City Cab Company in Crestview, FL re blind passenger with service animal.

City Cab Company, Crestview, Florida -- The Department signed an agreement with City Cab resolving a complaint alleging that the taxi provider denied services to a blind passenger because the passenger was accompanied by a service animal. City Cab agreed to adopt a policy requiring all drivers to transport individuals accompanied by service animals and to provide the complainant with complimentary taxi services for a period of one year.



To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

DOJ: Largest Pizza Hut Franchisee Agrees to Nationwide Accessibility

Largest Pizza Hut Franchisee Agrees to Nationwide Accessibility --

The Department signed an agreement with NPC International Inc. that will make NPC’s Pizza Hut restaurants accessible nationwide to people with disabilities. NPC, which operates approximately 800 Pizza Hut restaurants in 25 states, is the largest single franchisee of Pizza Hut restaurants in the United States. Whether existing, altered, or newly constructed, these restaurants will have the following accessible features at a minimum:

Parking areas will have two accessible parking spaces, including one accessible to vans. They will be on the shortest accessible route to an accessible entrance and marked with appropriate signage.

An accessible entrance will connect to all accessible spaces within the site through an accessible route that is free of obstructions. The doors will not be too heavy and will have hardware that is easy to operate.

Dining, food service, and customer service areas will include at least one accessible table or booth, an accessible counter surface or check-writing area where payment is made, and signs stating that service will be provided upon request (for example, where self-service food areas are difficult to reach or manage) to customers with disabilities.

Public rest rooms will be accessible. Either accessible stalls in multistall rest rooms or accessible unisex rest rooms will be provided unless the Department and NPC agree (under specific terms in the agreement) that is it not reasonable or feasible to do so. The accessible rest rooms will have grab bars, a lavatory that can be operated easily, and other accessibility features.

In addition, NPC will survey and evaluate all NPC-owned facilities that were subject to the ADA’s new construction or alterations standards at the time of their construction or alteration and bring them into compliance with the standards that were in effect at the time. At the 180 NPC-operated outlets that are dedicated solely to delivery and carry-out, that have no in-restaurant dining, and that are owned by a party other than NPC, NPC will make its best efforts to work with landlords to ensure accessibility. NPC will also build all future facilities in compliance with ADA Standards for Accessible Design, designate a compliance officer, and train all personnel involved in implementing the agreement.


To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

How is Medicaid Reform in Florida Affecting People with Disabilities and Their Families?

Florida is undertaking an effort to "reform" Medicaid. It has done so in two counties - Broward and Duval - and during the 2005 Special Session, the Legislature authorized the expansion of Medicaid Reform to Baker, Clay, and Nassau Counties. The expansion of Medicaid Reform is expected to take place during July 2007 in these counties.

How is the experiment affecting people with disabilities?

See comments of the ADA Working Group.
See comments of the Advocacy Center.
See remarks of the Florida Developmental Disabilities Council

We want to hear from you.


To join the Disability Law Committee, contact Austin Newberry at the Bar, at anewberry@flabar.org.

Resource: ADA Information Line at the US Department of Justice

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information Line U.S. Department of Justice

800-514-0301

TTY 800-514-0383

Application Form to Join Public Interest Law Section

To become a member of the Disability Law Committee, you must be a member of the Public Interest Law Section of the Florida bar. Please fill out the application form and ask to be on the Disability Law Committee.

The Public Interest Law Section of The Florida Bar

The Public Interest Law Section (PILS) defines its mission as a forum to advocate for the legal needs of people who are generally disenfranchised, under represented or lack meaningful access to traditional public forums.

The Public Interest Law section is an organization within The Florida Bar open to all members in good standing and non-Bar members, who have a common interest in advocacy and enhancement of constitutional, statutory or other rights which protect the dignity, security, justice, liberty, or freedom of the individual or public. Continued on site.

Welcome to the Blog of the Disability Law Committee of the Florida Bar

Thank you for visiting our Blog. The Disability Law Committee is a Committee of the Public Interest Law Section of the Florida Bar.

The Committee focuses on a wide range of issues affecting people with disabilities, including, but not limited to the following:

- Discrimination on the basis of disability in employment;

- Discrimination on the basis of disability in housing;

- Discrimination on the basis of disability by businesses;

- Discrimination on the basis of disability by state and local governments;

- Violations of the Air Carrier Access Act;

- Guardianship;

- Civil rights of children with disabilities;

- The criminal justice system and people with disabilities;

- IDEA - civil rights of children in school;

- Service animals and people with disabilities;

- Emotional support animals and condominiums;

- Transition of nursing home residents into the community;

- Money Follows the Person;

- Transportation issues experienced by persons with disabilities;

- Sign language interpreter issues;

- Architectural barrier issues;

- Medicaid Reform in Florida and its effect on people with disabilities;

- Implementation of Olmstead;

- Emergency evacuation and sheltering and people with disabilities.

Please tell us of other issues and concerns on which you believe attorneys should be focusing.

Members of the Florida Bar who are members of the Public Interest Law Section are eligible to join the Committee. If you are interested in joining, please contact Co-Chairs Marc Dubin (mdubin@pobox.com) or Paolo Annino (pannino@law.fsu.edu).