Enforcing the ADA: A Status Report July-September 2001

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Disability Rights Section

Enforcing the ADA:

October-December 2001

A Status Report from the Department of Justice

INSIDE...

ADA Litigation ................................... 2

Formal Settlement Agreements ............ 6

Other Settlements .............................. 9

Mediation ........................................ 11

Technical Assistance ........................ 13

Other Sources of ADA Information ..... 15

How to File Complaints ..................... 16

2001, Issue 4

This Status Report covers the ADA activities of the Department of Justice during the

fourth quarter (October - December) of 2001. This report, previous status reports, and a

wide range of other ADA information are available through the Department’s ADA Home

Page on the World Wide Web (see page 13). The symbol (**) indicates that the

document is available on the ADA Home Page.

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001

ENFORCEMENT/LITIGATION

I. Enforcement

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a comprehensive civil rights law for

people with disabilities. The Department of Justice enforces the ADA’s

requirements in three areas --

Title I: Employment practices by units of State and local government

Title II: Programs, services, and activities of State and local government

Title III: Public accommodations and commercial facilities

Through lawsuits and both formal and

informal settlement agreements, the

Department has achieved greater access

for individuals with disabilities in hundreds

of cases. Under general rules governing

lawsuits brought by the Federal

Government, the Department of Justice

may not file a lawsuit unless it has first

unsuccessfully attempted to settle the

dispute through negotiations.

A. Litigation

The Department may file lawsuits in

Federal court to enforce the ADA and may

obtain court orders including compensatory

damages and back pay to remedy

discrimination. Under title III the

Department may also obtain civil penalties

of up to $55,000 for the first violation and

$110,000 for any subsequent violation.

1. Decisions

Accessible Bathroom Door Requirement in

Newly Constructed Hotels Is Mandatory --

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit held in Long v. Coast Resorts, Inc.,

that a large, newly constructed Las Vegas

hotel and casino must redo bathroom doors in

over 800 guest rooms in order to comply with

the ADA’s 32-inch width requirement. Of the

839 hotel guest rooms, 819 included bathroom

doors that were only 28 inches wide.

Although the district court found that the

bathroom doorways were too narrow, it

refused to order any relief to correct the

violation, because it thought the “minimal”

inconvenience to people with disabilities was

outweighed by the expense of widening the

doorways. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the

Department’s amicus brief which argued that

the inaccessible doorways would seriously

impede access by persons with disabilities and

that the ADA does not allow courts to ignore

new construction violations. The Court also

agreed with the Department that each of four

slot change kiosks in the casino must comply

with the ADA. The hotel had argued that only

the casino’s main counter needed to comply.

Private Plaintiffs Have Right to Enforce

Title II Curb Cut Requirements -- The U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of

Ohio agreed with the Department’s amicus

brief and ruled in Ability Center of Greater

Toledo v. City of Sandusky that private

plaintiffs have a right to enforce the curb cut

requirements of the ADA title II regulation.

The plaintiffs alleged that Sandusky, Ohio,

failed to properly install curb cuts in streets

altered or constructed after the ADA went into

effect. The district court had earlier ruled that

the city violated the ADA. Soon after that

decision, the Supreme Court ruled in

Alexander v. Sandoval that plaintiffs do not

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001 3

ENFORCEMENT/LITIGATION

have a private right of action to enforce

regulations issued under title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 that prohibit neutral

policies or practices that have discriminatory

effects. (Title VI prohibits discrimination on

the basis of race, color, or national origin in

programs that receive financial assistance

from the Federal Government and was earlier

interpreted by the Supreme Court to prohibit

only intentional discrimination.) Because of

the Sandoval decision, the defendants in

Sandusky asked the district court to reconsider

its decision and dismiss the case. They

argued that plaintiffs did not have the right to

file a suit against Sandusky for enforcement of

the curb cut regulations because the curb cut

requirements target effects-based, rather than

only intentional, discrimination.

In response, the Department’s

brief asserted that the curb-cut

regulations may be enforced by a

private suit because they fall

squarely within the scope of the ADA, which

was meant to address not only intentional

exclusion but also a much broader range of

discrimination including the effects of

architectural, transportation, and

communication barriers.

Court Finds U.S. Suit Challenging

Employment Discrimination Barred by

Sovereign Immunity -- The U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

dismissed the Department’s lawsuit on behalf

of a cadet with diabetes who allegedly was

expelled from the Mississippi State patrol

training academy because of his disability.

The court ruled in

U.S. v. Mississippi

Department of Public Safety that, because the

Department’s suit was based upon an

individual charge filed by the cadet with the

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, the government was barred by

sovereign immunity from suing the State for

money damages – just as the individual would

be barred if he brought his own private

lawsuit against the State. The Department

unsuccessfully argued that a State is not

protected by sovereign immunity from suits

by the Federal Government and that the

Attorney General, in bringing a suit based on

an EEOC charge, is not merely representing

the individual, but also the broader public

interest in Federal enforcement of Federal

employment discrimination laws. The

Department has filed a notice of appeal.

Persons at Risk of Institutionalization May

Challenge Denial of State Home Health

Care Services -- The U.S. District Court for

the Middle District of Tennessee ruled in

Newberry v. Menke that individuals who

reside in the community, but who are at risk

of institutionalization, have “standing” to

challenge aspects of the Tennessee Medicaid

program that allegedly create incentives for

institutionalization in violation of title II’s

integration requirement. The

plaintiffs allege that they have

been denied home health care

services as a result of certain

financial incentives in the

TennCare system and that, without home

health care services, plaintiffs’ only

alternative is to enter nursing homes despite

the fact that the care they require is more

appropriately provided in the community.

The Department filed an amicus brief

opposing the State’s argument that only

people who are currently institutionalized are

entitled to sue. The brief successfully urged

the court to allow not just those who are in

institutions, but also those at risk of

institutionalization, to challenge the

Tennessee program.

Court Rejects Flawed Department Store

Class Action Settlement -- In response to

objections filed by the Department and

disability rights advocates, the U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of Florida

refused to approve a proposed nationwide

class action settlement agreement in

Access

Now v. The May Department Stores

Company. The proposed agreement

addressed the physical accessibility of store

aisles, check-out counters, bathrooms, and

fitting rooms at over 350 May-owned

department stores nationwide, including those

of the Filene’s, Hecht’s, Foley’s, Lord and

Decisions

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001

ENFORCEMENT/LITIGATION

Taylor, and Robinson’s-May chains. The

Department objected to the agreement for a

number of reasons, including an overly broad

class definition, a lack of an “opt out”

provision for class members, and expansive

language protecting defendants from future

claims. Together, these provisions would

have made it difficult or impossible for people

with disabilities or the Department to bring

future ADA claims challenging barriers and

discriminatory policies at May-owned stores,

including even those barriers or policies that

were not addressed by the proposed

agreement. The court ordered the May

Company to make accessibility modifications

to its six department stores located in Florida.

District Court Dismisses U.S. Suit for

Accessible “Stadium-Style” Theaters -- The

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

Ohio ruled in U.S. v. Cinemark USA, Inc. that

the ADA’s requirement for comparable lines

of sight only requires stadium-style movie

theaters to provide unobstructed views of the

screen and does not require accessible seating

within the tiered, stadium portion of the

theater. The Department filed suit against

Cinemark alleging that three of Cinemark’s

Ohio theaters, as well as its 68 other stadium-

style theaters across the country, violated the

ADA by providing accessible seating only on

the flat portion of each theater in front of the

stadium-style seating, offering an inferior and

uncomfortable line of sight for wheelchair

users. The Department has filed a notice of

appeal.

2. New lawsuits

The Department intervened in the

following lawsuit.

Title II

Department Defends Constitutionality of

Private Title II Damages Suits -- The

Department intervened in Thomas v. Nakatani

in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit in order to defend the constitutionality

of private ADA lawsuits for damages against

State agencies. The case involves a suit

brought by a deaf inspirational speaker, who

uses a hearing guide dog, against a Hawaii

State agency and State official challenging the

State’s animal quarantine laws. The

Department argued that title II is appropriate

legislation to enforce equal protection rights

in light of the long history of widespread

discrimination against people with disabilities

and therefore that damages suits against States

are consistent with the Constitution. The brief

also argues that, even if a damages suit were

not permitted, the plaintiff could still proceed

against the State official in his official

capacity to seek an injunction to change the

State’s policy.

3. Consent Decrees

Some litigation is resolved at the time

the suit is filed or afterwards by means of

a negotiated consent decree. Consent

decrees are monitored and enforced by the

Federal court in which they are entered.

Title III

Bell v. Captain D’s, Inc. -- The U.S.

Attorney for the Western District of

Tennessee intervened in, and resolved by

consent decree, Bell v. Captain D’s, Inc. and

Shoney’s, Inc., a private lawsuit alleging that

a person who uses a service animal and her

husband and son were evicted from a Captain

D’s restaurant in Memphis, Tennessee,

because of her service animal. The

defendants -- Captain D’s, Inc., the current

owner of the restaurant in which the incident

occurred, and Shoney’s, Inc., the parent

corporation of Captain D’s and previous

owner of the restaurant at issue -- agreed to

provide employee training and post signs

welcoming persons with their service animals

throughout the 570 franchiser-owned

Shoney’s and Captain D’s restaurants in 28

states. They also agreed to pay $8,000 in

compensatory damages to the private plaintiff.

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001 5

ENFORCEMENT/LITIGATION

4. Amicus Briefs

The Department files briefs in selected

ADA cases in which it is not a party in

order to guide courts in interpreting the

ADA.

Title I

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal -- The

Department filed an amicus brief in the U.S.

Supreme Court urging the Court to uphold an

ADA title I regulation issued by the U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

that permits an employer to deny employment

to individuals with disabilities whose

performance of a job would pose a direct

threat to their own health or safety. Mario

Echazabal, who has hepatitis C, worked at a

Chevron oil refinery as an employee of

various maintenance contractors for more than

twenty years. When he applied to work

directly for Chevron, he was denied

employment on the ground that exposure to

the liver-toxic chemicals at the refinery could

Baltimore City Schools Agree to Pay Blind Teacher $55,000 to Settle Title I

Discrimination Suit -- The Baltimore City Public School System agreed to pay

$55,000 as part of a consent decree to resolve a disability discrimination charge filed

by a blind elementary school teacher who uses a service animal. She alleged that the

school system offered her a teaching position after two interviews during which she

had used a cane. After she mentioned that she would soon be picking up her new

service animal, the school principal allegedly withdrew the offer rather than allow her

to bring a dog in the building. The charging party later found employment as a teacher

with another school system. Under the consent decree in U.S. v. Baltimore Public

School System, the system will ensure that all personnel who participate in

employment decisions are trained in the requirements of the ADA. The school system

will also designate an employee to serve as an ADA coordinator for employment

matters and to serve as a liaison with people with disabilities. The coordinator will

attend annual ADA training. The school system will also post notices about the ADA in

every school or other location in which its employees work. The United States Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission’s regional office in Baltimore investigated the

employee’s ADA charge, found reasonable cause to believe that the school system had

violated the ADA, attempted to conciliate the matter, and then referred it to the

Department of Justice.

seriously endanger his health or even be fatal.

He sued under title I claiming that Chevron’s

action violated the ADA. The U.S. District

Court for the Central District of California

ruled in favor of Chevron but the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed.

The Ninth Circuit held that the EEOC

regulation allowing the employer to use a

direct threat to the employee’s own health or

safety as a defense was inconsistent with the

language of the statute, which only mentions

direct threat “to others.” The Department’s

brief in the Supreme Court argues that the

EEOC regulation is a reasonable interpretation

of the statute because the employer has a

legitimate interest in protecting employees

from a significant risk of injury or death,

because the employee is protected from

paternalism by the requirement that the

employer engage in an individualized and

objective assessment of the risk in each case,

and because the “threat to self” provision is

consistent with earlier court and EEOC

interpretations of the Rehabilitation Act.

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001

ENFORCEMENT/FORMAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS

Title III

Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of America et

al. v. Regal Cinemas, Inc. -- The Department

filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arguing that the

viewing angles for wheelchair users in

stadium-style movie theaters must be

comparable to those offered to the general

public. The plaintiffs alleged that the

wheelchair seating locations provided at

several Regal stadium-style theaters are very

close to the screen and require wheelchair

users to look up at the screen at sharp angles,

often resulting in a blurry or distorted image

and severe discomfort. They also alleged that

because the wheelchair locations are not

located in the stadium-style portion of the

theaters, wheelchair users are effectively

segregated from most other patrons. The

district court held that the ADA regulation’s

requirement for comparable “lines of sight”

means only that the wheelchair users must

have an unobstructed view of the movie

screen. The court also concluded that failing

to place the accessible wheelchair seating in

the stadium portion of the theaters does not

violate the regulation’s requirement that

wheelchair areas “be an integral part of any

fixed seating plan.” On appeal, the

Department argued in its amicus brief that

both rulings are incorrect and that the ADA

regulations require that wheelchair users be

provided lines of sight within the range of

viewing angles offered to most of the patrons

of the cinema and that wheelchair seating be

integrated into the elevated, stadium portion

of the theater.

Karr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- The

Department filed an amicus brief in the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of

Alabama, Northern Division arguing that the

plaintiff, who has Tourette Syndrome (TS), is

a person with a disability within the meaning

of title III of the ADA. The lawsuit alleges

that Wal-Mart violated title III of the ADA

when it forcibly removed plaintiff from its

store. Plaintiff alleges that while shopping at

Wal-Mart she experienced manifestations of

her TS, including uncontrollable vocal and

body tics. In response to these manifestations

of her TS, a Wal-Mart employee allegedly

summoned a security guard to remove

plaintiff from the store. Wal-Mart argued that

the case should not be allowed to go forward

because she is not substantially limited in any

major life activity and therefore is not a

person with a disability. The Department

disagreed and argued in its amicus brief that,

because of her TS, plaintiff is substantially

limited in the major life activities of

interacting with others and working.

B. Formal Settlement

Agreements

The Department sometimes resolves

cases without filing a lawsuit by means of

formal written settlement agreements.

Title I

** Arizona State Compensation Fund --

The Arizona State Compensation Fund agreed

to pay $150,000 in compensatory damages to

resolve a charge that was filed with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission by a

former employee with severe depression and

referred to the Department of Justice for

litigation. The complainant alleged that the

Fund unlawfully terminated her after failing to

grant her the reasonable accommodation of

additional leave without pay that she needed

in order to stabilize her condition. The former

employee, who worked with the State Fund

for a number of years while managing her

depression, took three months of unpaid leave

under the Family and Medical Leave Act

(FMLA) to recover from a severe episode of

depression. The employee stayed in

communication with her supervisor while on

leave and, toward the end of that leave, after

consulting with her doctor, advised her

supervisor that she planned to return to work

soon. The complainant alleged that shortly

after the expiration of her FMLA leave, the

State Fund terminated the employee instead of

granting her a brief additional period of

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001 7

ENFORCEMENT/FORMAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS

unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation.

The employee’s termination came just one

day after she submitted to her employer a

release from her physician clearing her to

return to work the following week.

Title II

Deschutes County, Oregon -- The

Department entered into a settlement

agreement with the Deschutes County

Sheriff’s Office resolving a complaint filed by

a deaf individual who alleged that the sheriff’s

office failed to provide effective

communication when he was arrested. The

county agreed to provide auxiliary aids and

services, including qualified interpreters,

when necessary to ensure effective

communication and to instruct its employees

on the provisions of its new policy.

Saguache County, Colorado -- The

Department and Saguache County, Colorado,

entered an agreement resolving a complaint

that the county courthouse is not accessible to

individuals with mobility impairments. The

county agreed to make physical modifications

to its entrances and restrooms and to install an

elevator to provide access to services on the

second and third floors. The county also

agreed to ensure that all services are offered at

alternative accessible locations until

modifications have been completed.

Minnesota Board of Law Examiners, St.

Paul, Minnesota -- A law school graduate

complained that the Minnesota Board of Law

Examiners refused to recommend his

admission to the Minnesota Bar because of his

history of mental illness, even though he had

passed the bar examination and provided the

board with evidence of his recovery. The

board agreed to reconsider the individual’s

application under the same criteria that apply

to all other applicants without requiring him to

complete a new application or retake the bar

examination.

** More Project Civic Access Agreements

-- The Department has signed four additional

agreements under the Department’s Project

Civic Access initiative, a wide-ranging effort

to ensure that cities, towns, and villages

comply with the ADA. Project Civic Access

is dedicated to removing barriers to all aspects

of civic life, including courthouses, libraries,

polling places, police stations, and parks. The

new agreements cover --

Seaside, California

Kaua’i, Hawaii

State of Delaware

Robertsdale, Alabama

Forty-four agreements have been signed to

date. They require communities, depending

on local circumstances, to --

l Improve access to programs at city and

town halls, police and fire stations,

sheriff’s departments, courthouses, health

care delivery centers, childcare centers,

teen and senior activities centers,

convention centers, animal shelters,

libraries, baseball stadiums, golf course

clubhouses, and parks (including ice

skating rinks, skateboard rinks, public

pools, playgrounds, ball fields and

bleachers, and band shells);

l Alter polling places and provide curbside

or absentee balloting;

l Upgrade 9-1-1 emergency services for

people who use TTY’s;

l Install assistive listening systems in

legislative chambers, courtrooms, and

municipal auditoriums; and

l Provide delivery systems and time frames

for providing auxiliary aids, including sign

language interpreters and materials in

Braille, large print, or on cassette tapes.

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001

ENFORCEMENT/FORMAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS

Borough of Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania --

In response to a complaint that it had failed to

provide a sign language interpreter in an arrest

situation, the Borough of Hollidaysburg

agreed to adopt a written policy for providing

appropriate auxiliary aids and services to

ensure effective communication. It also

agreed to publish notice of this policy in the

local newspaper and train its employees on

the ADA.

Polk County, Georgia -- A deaf

individual complained that a

Georgia county sheriff’s

department failed to provide

effective communication during

his arrest. The sheriff’s

department adopted and

implemented a policy ensuring

effective communication with

individuals who are deaf or hard

of hearing, including procedures for providing

on-call, qualified sign language interpreter

services when necessary, and making

available a TTY at department headquarters.

Title III

Drawbridge Estate Hotel, Fort Mitchell,

Kentucky -- An individual whose child has a

mobility impairment complained that the

Drawbridge Estate Hotel refused to allow

access to the hotel’s airport shuttle bus

because the child uses a wheelchair. The

hotel agreed to provide accessible

transportation services for guests who use

wheelchairs, to train its employees on

carrying out this new policy, and to notify the

public of the availability of the accessible

services in its publications.

** Georgetown University Hospital,

Washington, D.C. -- A wheelchair user

complained that the Georgetown University

Hospital did not assist her in

transferring from her wheelchair

to an examination table at a

gynecological examination for

possible uterine cancer. The

hospital agreed to pay the

complainant $15,000 in

compensatory damages and to

pay the United States a civil

penalty of $10,000.

** PSINet Stadium, Baltimore, Maryland --

The Department signed two settlement

agreements to resolve a complaint from a man

with a mobility impairment who alleged that

the parking lot at the PSINet Stadium was not

accessible during football games. The

Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership agreed

to modify its existing policy to allow people

with disabilities who have club level or suite

seating to reserve accessible parking spaces in

advance in the same manner as people

** Las Vegas Hotel and Casino Agrees to Comprehensive Access Agreement --

The New York-New York Hotel & Casino entered a wide ranging agreement with the

Department of Justice to provide accessibility throughout its Las Vegas facility. The

agreement resolves a compliance review that began prior to the hotel’s construction and

took place over a two-year period. Under the agreement the hotel and casino will be

fully accessible in all respects, including accessible bathroom doors in all of its 2,023

guest rooms. New York-New York also agreed to provide 84 accessible guestrooms and

suites; accessible penthouse suites; in-suite accessible Jacuzzi tubs; lifts into the outdoor

swimming pool and Jacuzzi; accessible hydrotherapy tub for women and an accessible

Jacuzzi for men in the spa; accessible restaurant seating and Braille menus; state-of-the-

art assistive listening systems in all theaters, bars, and meeting rooms; accessible gaming

tables and slot machines; sign language interpreters upon request for live performances

and gaming lessons; and an accessible roller coaster.

Formal

Settlement

Agreements

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001 9

reserving other spaces and to provide training

to Ravens employees in carrying out this

policy. In a separate agreement, the Maryland

Stadium Authority agreed to ensure that the

“accessible” parking at the stadium actually

complies with the ADA. It agreed to restripe

spaces and add signage, as appropriate,

maintain the accessible spaces, and perform a

weekly inspection of the parking area during

the football season.

Tri State Coach Lines, Gary, Indiana --

The Department entered into a settlement

agreement with Tri State Coach Lines, Inc.,

an airport shuttle bus company, resolving a

complaint that Tri State refused to allow an

individual with a mobility impairment to ride

one of its buses with his service animal. Tri

State agreed to change its policy and to

welcome individuals with disabilities and

their service animals. Tri State also agreed to

train its employees on the new policy and to

pay the complainant $3,000 in damages.

C. Other Settlements

The Department resolves numerous

cases without litigation or a formal

settlement agreement. In some instances,

the public accommodation, commercial

facility, or State or local government

promptly agrees to take the necessary

actions to achieve compliance. In others,

extensive negotiations are required.

Following are some examples of what has

been accomplished through informal

settlements.

Title II

l An individual who has a hearing

impairment complained that an Oklahoma

county sheriff’s department failed to

provide effective communication. The

sheriff’s department adopted a policy for

providing effective communication,

including the use of a sign language

interpreter agency and a local sign language

interpreter on an on-call basis and making a

TTY available at headquarters.

l A wheelchair user who was a candidate for

city council was unable to independently

access a Texas city council platform to

address citizens. The city agreed to

acquire a portable ramp for the platform.

l The mother of a deaf student complained

that a local Ohio drivers’ training school

would not provide a sign language

interpreter to allow her daughter to

participate in drivers’ education. The

driving school adopted a written policy of

nondiscrimination with respect to hearing

impaired students, prominently posted a

notice of the policy in all of its locations,

and met with all staff to ensure that they

are aware of and follow this policy.

l A North Carolina Medical Center that

failed to provide effective communication

during an emergency room visit purchased

two TTY’s, entered into a contract with an

interpreter service agency, obtained a list

of freelance interpreters in the immediate

area, and adopted a policy ensuring

effective communication with individuals

who are deaf or hard of hearing or who

have speech impairments.

l An individual who uses a wheelchair

complained that an Oklahoma computer

lab in a city-run program was not

accessible. The city provided an

accessible route to the computer lab,

trained its employees on ADA

requirements for accessibility, installed an

accessible computer table in the lab, and

provided assistive technologies.

Title III

l A shopping mall owner in Massachusetts

replaced improperly mounted signage for

accessible parking following a complaint

from a wheelchair user.

ENFORCEMENT/OTHER SETTLEMENTS

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001

l An individual who is deaf complained that

a franchise hotel in Arkansas did not have

a TTY or a visual smoke alarm or door

knocker. The hotel owner purchased an

additional communication kit that includes

the required devices.

l An individual who is deaf complained that

a South Dakota medical clinic refused to

use a relay service to provide her with

effective communication. The clinic

adopted a policy on effective

communication, including instructions on

using the relay system, interpreter services,

and written communications to ensure

effective communication.

l A wheelchair user complained that a

California grocery store lacked accessible

check-out aisles. The grocery store made

three of its nine check-out aisles

accessible.

l A deaf individual complained that a North

Carolina software company refused to

provide her with the auxiliary aids and

services necessary to provide effective

communication during a conference for

software users. The company agreed to

provide accommodations for participants

with disabilities.

l An individual with a mobility impairment

was unable to gain access to a Texas

restaurant. The restaurant added two

accessible spaces, including a van-

accessible space, to its parking lot and

installed a curb ramp to complete an

accessible route from the designated

spaces to the accessible front entrance of

the restaurant.

l An individual with multiple sclerosis who

uses a service animal filed a complaint

against a shopping mall in Montana

because the shopping mall manager

required her to divulge her disability in

order to remain in the mall with her service

animal. The mall adopted and

implemented a written policy regarding

service animals and trained its

management employees on their ADA

obligations.

The U.S. Attorneys obtained informal

settlements in the following cases --

District of Arizona

A product retailer with representatives in

multiple states agreed to provide an interpreter

at its marketing meeting, to implement a

written ADA policy on providing reasonable

accommodations, to incorporate a notice in its

marketing materials that reasonable

accommodations will be provided to persons

with disabilities upon request, and to train its

employees on ADA policy.

A county superior court judge agreed to

provide an individual who is deaf with a real

time court reporter at a civil trial and to train

all court judges on the requirements of the

ADA.

Southern District of Mississippi

A health care licensing board will now require

applicants for a nursing license to declare

their competency to perform required tasks

rather than certify the absence of disability.

ENFORCEMENT/OTHER SETTLEMENTS

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001 11

II. Mediation

Under a contract with the Department of

Justice, The Key Bridge Foundation

receives referrals of complaints under titles

II and III for mediation by professional

mediators who have been trained in the

legal requirements of the ADA. An

increasing number of people with

disabilities and disability rights

organizations are specifically requesting the

Department to refer their complaints to

mediation. More than 450 professional

mediators are available nationwide to

mediate ADA cases. Over 75 percent of

the cases in which mediation has been

completed have been successfully

resolved. Following are recent examples of

results reached through mediation.

l In Arizona, a person with a mobility

impairment complained that she was

unable to access her town’s services

because many offices were located in the

basement of the town building and the

building had no elevator. The town

agreed to construct a new accessible office

complex. In the interim, the town agreed

to install an intercom for persons with

mobility impairments to use to call for

services, to make town forms available in

the accessible foyer of the town building,

and to hold town meetings in an accessible

room at the library.

l An individual who is severely hard of

hearing complained that she was not

allowed to bring her service animal with

her into the offices of a Georgia eye

doctor. The doctor agreed to place signs

at the building entrance and at the front

desk welcoming persons with service

animals, to train his staff about service

animals and how to ensure effective

communication with patients who are deaf

or hard of hearing, and to maintain a list of

qualified sign language interpreters. The

doctor also agreed to write an article for

his professional organization’s newsletter

MEDIATION

outlining the obligations of doctors under

the ADA and to recommend that a

disability advocate make a presentation on

service animals at the organization’s next

meeting. Finally, the doctor agreed to

make a donation to Dogs for the Deaf.

l A wheelchair user complained that the

third floor of an Arkansas county

courthouse was not accessible. The

county agreed to install an elevator. The

county also agreed to provide access to

court services at an alternative, accessible

location until the elevator is installed.

l A wheelchair user complained that a

Maryland automobile dealership refused

to install hand controls in a car for him to

test drive. The company agreed to

provide hand controls for test driving upon

request. In addition, the company offered

the complainant the opportunity to

purchase a vehicle at cost within the next

two years.

l A person who is deaf complained that a

Mississippi hospital did not provide TTY

access to public pay phones and that the

hospital refused to provide a sign language

interpreter when she was a patient. The

hospital agreed to provide qualified

interpreters for deaf persons and their

immediate family members upon request,

to periodically review policies and

procedures to make sure that effective

communication is provided, and to

improve staff training on ADA

requirements. The hospital also agreed to

provide TTY access to public pay phones

on the premises.

l In Maryland, a wheelchair user

complained that vehicles often block the

curb ramp leading to a restaurant entrance.

In addition to increasing the width of the

curb ramp to ensure it could not be

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001

MEDIATION

Mediation

blocked by legally parked vehicles, the

restaurant also agreed to adjust the closers

on the entrance and restroom doors, to

remove the vestibule door, to provide

wheelchair access to the food order line

and the dining tables, and to remove a

partition in the restroom to increase

access.

l A wheelchair user complained that a

basement conference area at a North

Carolina resort hotel was not accessible.

When it was determined that an accessible

ramp could not be fit into the space, the

hotel installed a wheelchair

lift.

l A disability advocacy group

filed a complaint on behalf of a

wheelchair user alleging that a

California bowling alley, which was in the

process of being sold, was inaccessible.

Both the current and prospective owners

participated in mediation and restriped the

parking lot to provide van accessible

parking and appropriate signage, installed

a wheelchair lift to the bowling lanes,

created an accessible unisex restroom, and

installed directional signage. In addition,

the advocacy group researched and

provided the respondent with information

about methods for cleaning or covering

some wheelchair tires to protect the

hardwood bowling lanes and about how to

interact appropriately with customers with

disabilities.

l In California, an individual complained

that his family was denied seating at a

restaurant because his daughter uses a

service animal. The restaurant reaffirmed

its policy of serving customers with

service animals and instituted an ongoing

training program for all of its employees

on this policy. The restaurant promised

that it would never exclude service

animals again and offered the family a

complimentary meal.

l A person who is deaf complained that a

Maryland restaurant repeatedly refused to

accept phone orders by TTY. The

restaurant reaffirmed its policy to respond

to TTY calls in the same manner as all

customer calls and informed the

complainant that the employees involved

in the denial of service had been fired.

The restaurant agreed to inform

all employees of the TTY policy

and offered to donate food to an

organization with which the

complainant is associated.

l In Virginia, a person who is deaf

complained that a doctor did not provide

interpreter services upon request. In

mediation, the doctor agreed to provide

such services.

l In New York State, a person with a

mobility impairment complained that

certain areas of a town hall, including the

court and the office of the town clerk,

were inaccessible. The town agreed to

install a van accessible parking space in

front of the town hall and directional

signage inside and outside the facility, to

remodel the public restrooms, to install an

accessible writing surface in the town

clerk’s office, and to create an accessible

route to the town meeting room. In

addition, the town agreed to install

accessible playground equipment at

designated parks and make the entrance to

the senior center accessible to persons

with mobility impairments.

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001 13

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The ADA requires the Department of

Justice to provide technical assistance to

businesses, State and local governments,

and individuals with rights or

responsibilities under the law. The

Department provides education and

technical assistance through a variety of

means to encourage voluntary compliance.

Our activities include providing direct

technical assistance and guidance to the

public through our ADA Information Line,

ADA Home Page, and Fax on Demand,

developing and disseminating technical

assistance materials to the public,

undertaking outreach initiatives, and

coordinating ADA technical assistance

governmentwide.

ADA Home Page

An ADA home page is operated by the

Department on the Internet’s World Wide

Web (www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm).

The home page provides information about --

l the toll-free ADA Information Line,

l the Department’s ADA enforcement

activities,

l the ADA technical assistance program,

l certification of State and local building

codes,

l proposed changes in ADA regulations

and requirements, and

l the ADA mediation program.

The home page also provides direct access to --

l electronic versions of the ADA Standards

for Accessible Design, including

illustrations and hyperlinked cross-

references,

l ADA regulations and technical assistance

materials (which may be viewed online

or downloaded for later use),

l online ordering of the ADA Technical

Assistance CD-ROM,

l Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ADA

materials, including technical assistance

letters, and

l links to the Department’s press releases and

Internet home pages of other Federal

agencies that contain ADA information.

ADA Information Line

The Department of Justice operates a toll-free

ADA Information Line to provide information

and publications to the public about the

requirements of the ADA. Automated

service, which allows callers to listen to

recorded information and to order

publications, is available 24 hours a day,

seven days a week. ADA specialists are

available on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,

and Friday from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.

and on Thursday from 1:00 p.m. until 6:00

p.m. (Eastern Time). Spanish language

service is also available.

To obtain general ADA information, get

answers to technical questions, order free

ADA materials, or ask about filing a

complaint, please call:

800-514-0301 (voice)

800-514-0383 (TTY)

III. Technical Assistance

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

ADA Fax On Demand

The ADA Information Line Fax Delivery

Service allows the public to obtain free ADA

information by fax 24 hours a day, seven days

a week. By calling the number above and

following the directions, callers can select

from among 32 different ADA technical

assistance publications and receive the

information, usually within minutes, directly

on their fax machines or computer fax/

modems. A list of available documents and

their code numbers may also be ordered

through the ADA Information Line.

Publications and Documents

Copies of the Department’s ADA regulations

and publications, including the Technical

Assistance Manuals for titles II and III, can be

obtained by calling the ADA Information

Line, visiting the ADA Home Page, or writing

to the address listed below. All materials are

available in standard print as well as large

print, Braille, audiotape, or computer disk for

persons with disabilities.

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Disability Rights Section - NYAV

Washington, D.C. 20530

New Video Addresses Law Enforcement -- The Department announced a new

videotape entitled “Police Response to People with Disabilities” and distributed 150

copies at the annual convention of the International Association of Chiefs of Police in

Toronto in October. This training videotape will educate law enforcement officers about

the ADA and how to respond appropriately to people with disabilities. The videotape

addresses situations involving people who have mobility impairments, mental illness,

mental retardation, epilepsy or seizure disorders, speech impairments, deafness or

hearing impairments, blindness or vision impairments or other disabilities. Produced

through a contract with the Law Enforcement Resource Center of Milwaukee,

Wisconsin, it is available as a one-hour videotape for classroom training and as an eight-

part series intended for roll-call training. Over the next few months, this video and other

pertinent technical assistance materials will be distributed to 8,000 law enforcement

agencies, training academies, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices nationwide.

Some publications are available in foreign

languages. For further information please call

the ADA Information Line.

Copies of the legal documents and settlement

agreements mentioned in this publication can

be obtained by writing to --

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

FOIA Branch, NALC Room 311

Washington, D.C. 20530

Fax: 202-514-6195

Currently, the FOI/PA Branch maintains

approximately 10,000 pages of ADA material.

The records are available at a cost of $0.10

per page (first 100 pages free). Please make

your requests as specific as possible in order

to minimize your costs.

The FOI/PA Branch also provides access to

ADA materials on the World Wide Web at

www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/records.htm. A link

to search or visit this website is provided from

the ADA Home Page.

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001 15

OTHER SOURCES OF ADA INFORMATION

IV. Other Sources of ADA Information

The Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission offers technical assistance to the

public concerning the employment provisions

of title I of the ADA.

ADA publications

800-669-3362 (voice)

800-800-3302 (TTY)

ADA questions

800-669-4000 (voice)

800-669-6820 (TTY)

www.eeoc.gov

The Federal Communications Commission

offers technical assistance to the public

concerning the communication provisions of

title IV of the ADA.

ADA publications and questions

888-225-5322 (voice)

888-835-5322 (TTY)

www.fcc.gov/cib/dro

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Federal Transit Administration

ADA Assistance Line for regulations

and complaints

888-446-4511 (voice/relay)

www.fta.dot.gov/office/civ.htm

The U.S. Architectural and Transportation

Barriers Compliance Board, or Access

Board, offers technical assistance to the

public on the ADA Accessibility Guidelines.

ADA publications and questions

800-872-2253 (voice)

800-993-2822 (TTY)

www.access-board.gov

The Disability and Business Technical

Assistance Centers are funded by the U.S.

Department of Education through the National

Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation

Research (NIDRR) in ten regions of the

country to provide resources and technical

assistance on the ADA.

ADA technical assistance

800-949-4232 (voice & TTY)

www.adata.org

Project ACTION is funded by the U.S.

Department of Transportation to provide ADA

information and publications on making

transportation accessible.

Information on accessible transportation

800-659-6428 (voice/relay)

202-347-3066 (voice)

202-347-7385 (TTY)

www.projectaction.org

The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is

a free telephone consulting service funded by

the U.S. Department of Labor. It provides

information and advice to employers and

people with disabilities on reasonable

accommodation in the workplace.

Information on workplace accommodation

800-526-7234 (voice & TTY)

www.jan.wvu.edu

ENFORCING THE ADA -- UPDATE • OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2001

V. How to File Complaints

Title I

Complaints about violations of title I

(employment) by units of State and local

government or by private employers should be

filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission. Call 800-669-4000 (voice) or

800-669-6820 (TTY) to reach the field office

in your area.

Titles II and III

Complaints about violations of title II by

units of State and local government or

violations of title III by public

accommodations and commercial facilities

should be filed with --

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Disability Rights Section - NYAV

Washington, D.C. 20530

If you wish your complaint to be

considered for referral to the Department’s

ADA Mediation Program, please mark

“Attention: Mediation” on the outside of the

envelope.

The Attorney General has determined that publication of this periodical is necessary in

the transaction of the public business required by law of the Department of Justice.

HOW TO FILE COMPLAINTS