Information and Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act 
Spring 2000 Volume 4, Number 3

This Issue Highlights Information and Resources Regarding State Government.

What's Inside?

Feature Stories

• Supreme Court Won't Hear Title II Cases This Term
• States Receive Olmstead Letter From HHS

Access Board News
DOJ Update
Employment Update
Regional News
Publications
Frequently Asked Questions
Great Web Sites
Building Your Rolodex
Events/Announcements

FEATURE STORIES

SUPREME COURT WON'T HEAR TITLE II CASES THIS TERM

Advocates for persons with disabilities, fearing that the Supreme Court was poised to narrow the scope of ADA by determining the constitutionality of Title II, were relieved when two cases scheduled to be heard by the justices of the high court were settled in early March. The two cases, Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle and Florida Department of Corrections v. Dickson, were removed from the Supreme Court docket and no new Title II cases will be argued during this term.

Disability rights attorneys believed the Court might take up another Title II case, but the Court decided not to do that and the earliest a Title II case can be heard by the Court is next fall. Scholars and historians who were preparing a brief showing the history of discrimination intend to continue their work; a Title II case will sooner or later go before the Supreme Court, they say.

Originally, the justices had agreed to hear the cases in order to decide whether states can be sued for bias against people with disabilities. The legal issue in the cases was whether states can be sued under the ADA for excluding people with disabilities from state jobs or other public benefits. States generally have 11th Amendment immunity from suit in federal court, and lower courts are split over whether Congress has lifted that immunity to protect individuals with disabilities.

The law regarding the Eleventh Amendment is convoluted. It is useful to keep two features of this law in mind: (1) generally, you can't sue a state for money damages, unless you are suing under a civil rights statute that Congress enacted under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, but (2) generally, you can sue for an injunction against a state official to stop the official's violation of a civil rights statute, if the statute under which you are suing is within Congress' power to enact.

Why have states suddenly backed away from the Title II ADA constitutionality fight? Disability rights attorneys and activists say that Arkansas Attorney General, Mark Pryor, was concerned about being "saddled" with taking a case to the Supreme Court that might have gutted ADA. Pryor's father, a U.S. Senator in 1990, voted to pass the ADA. Similar concerns, say activists, prompted Florida Governor Jeb Bush to decide that the Dickson case must be settled. There were a lot of people who questioned Jeb Bush on seeking to overturn George Bush's "greatest" presidential achievement.

Legal Theories Behind State Challenges to Title II Constitutionality

The legal theories behind state challenges to Title II are complex. At their core, they all challenge Congress' power under the Constitution to impose on states broad bans on disability discrimination. Congress may legislate only when the Constitution provides a specific grant of power to do so. In enacting the ADA, Congress invoked two of its powers: (1) the power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "through appropriate legislation" -- a power specifically granted in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The Question is: Did Congress exceed the limits of its powers when it passed Title II?

The Fourteenth Amendment
The argument that Congress exceeded its power under the Fourteenth Amendment enacting Title II is based on the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to enact civil rights statues only if (a) the statute is designed to remedy a history of unconstitutional conduct and (2) the remedy contained in the statute -- for example, requiring states to make reasonable accommodations -- is "proportionate" to the history of constitutional violations.

Relying on City of Boerne, states have argued that Title II is not designed to remedy a record of unconstitutional discrimination by states against people with disabilities. According to opponents, there may have been discrimination, but the discrimination did not violate the constitution or was not widespread. Moreover, even if there was a record of unconstitutional discrimination, the ADA is not a "proportionate" response. Congress "went overboard" and imposed "excessive" obligations on states.

Although this argument has failed in most federal appeals courts, it has succeeded in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Arkansas. In a recent case, that court declared Title II unconstitutional on grounds that Congress lacked authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to impose on states a broad ban on disability discrimination. In addition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, covering Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and North and South Carolina, recently held part of Title II unconstitutional.

At present, it is unclear how the Supreme Court will rule when it hears its first case questioning the constitutionality of Title II. However, even if Title II is ultimately struck down, many states will still have antidiscrimination statutes protecting the rights of people with disabilities. For more information about existing state laws, contact a local independent living center, your state human rights commission or office on disability, or an ADA state coordinator (See Building Your Rolodex).

(Sources: Washington Post, "2 Appeals Involving Disabilities Act Voided," Joan Biskupic and Al Kamen, March 2, 2000, page A10. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, "Legal Theories Behind State Challenges to Constitutionality of Title II of the ADA (and Section 504)," Ira Burnim and Jennifer Mathis, http://www.madnation.org/freedom/challenges.htm.)

Back to top

STATES RECEIVE OLMSTEAD LETTER FROM HHS

In mid-January, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent a letter to all state Medicaid directors that offered an initial approach and outlined a framework for states to implement plans for compliance with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Olmstead v. L.C.

The Supreme Court held that under the provisions of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990:

• states must provide services, programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified people with disabilities;
• unjustified isolation of people with disabilities is discrimination;
• confinement in institutions severely diminishes the everyday life activities of people with disabilities; and
• states are required to provide eligible people with community-based services if state treatment professionals determine that it is appropriate and can be reasonably accomplished with available resources.

However, the Court held that states do not have to provide unlimited community-based services, and the ADA does not require states to provide services to institutionalized people who cannot handle or would not benefit from living in their communities.

The HHS letter spelled out key principles that states should follow. States should:

• develop and implement comprehensive, effective working plans to provide services to eligible individuals with disabilities in more integrated, community-based settings;
• provide an opportunity for individuals with disabilities and their representatives, to be integral participants in plan development and follow-up;
• take steps to prevent or correct current and future unjustified institutionalization of individuals with disabilities;
• ensure the availability of community-integrated services; and
• ensure quality assurance, quality improvement and sound management practices are implemented.

The letter also noted that HHS's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) will apply these principles when conducting investigations and compliance reviews. Although HHS will provide technical assistance during implementation, the federal agency has not established a deadline for nationwide implementation of plans.

Because the regional Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) offices represent several states, which each have separate requirements, coordination will be difficult. Therefore, a team from the national OCR office will provide technical assistance to regional HCFA offices which are the primary contacts for any changes to state plans and waivers. OCR is working with HCFA to provide preliminary data on the numbers of people in institutions and their potential to move into a more integrated setting.

In a conference call on January 18, advocates were assured that a state cannot deny community-based services because it has not implemented a plan. They were urged to bring to OCR's attention institutionalized people who want community services or people who are in imminent danger of institutionalization.

If a state denies community-based services to people with disabilities in violation of Title II of the ADA, individuals or their representatives should file a complaint with the appropriate HHS OCR regional office. A copy of the complaint also should be sent to OCR headquarters in Washington, D.C. If a quick response is required, OCR can be reached at (800) 368-1019 (v); (800) 537-7697 (tty).

Resources

• HHS Letter to State Medicaid Directors: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/olms0114.htm
• HHS Sample Letter to State Governors: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/olmstgov00.htm
• HHS Regional Office for Civil Rights:

  Caroline Chang, Regional Manager
  Office for Civil Rights
  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  Government Center
  JFK Federal Building - Room 1875
  Boston, Massachusetts 02203
  (617) 565-1340 (voice)
  (617) 565-3809 (fax)
  (617) 565-1343 (TTY)

(Source: The Disability News Service, Inc., "State Plans Key to Compliance With Supreme Court Decision," Leye Jeannette Chrzanowski, http://www.disabilitynews.com)

Back to top

ACCESS BOARD NEWS

UPDATE ON ACCESS BOARD RULEMAKING

On November 16, 1999, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to revise and update its accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA). The comment period was scheduled to close on March 15, 2000, but has been extended until May 15, 2000 to allow the public additional time to prepare comments on the proposed rule. Also, available from the New England ADA & Accessible IT Center is a summary of the major changes in the proposed rule from the current ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).

The current proposal to update the ADA/ABA Accessibility Guidelines is not the only rulemaking the Board has underway. Guidelines are being developed in several areas, including recreation facilities, play areas, and outdoor developed areas. Two advisory committees are working to develop information that will be used to develop guidelines for passenger vessels and public rights-of-way.

Published rules and committee reports are posted on the Board's web site: www.access-board.gov. Copies can be ordered by contacting the Board at (800) 872-2253 (v) or (800) 993-2822 (TTY) or pubs@access-board.gov (e-mail).

Upcoming:

• Electronic and Information Technology -- An advisory committee submitted its report to the Board in May 1999.
  Next Action: Board to propose standards for public comment based on the committee's report.
• Outdoor Developed Areas -- A regulatory negotiation committee submitted its report to the Board in September 1999.
  Next Action: Board to propose guidelines for public comment based on the committee's report.
• Passenger Vessels -- An advisory committee created in August 1998 is exploring access to various types of vessels.
  Next Action: Advisory committee to submit a report to the Board in late 2000.
• Public Rights-of-Way -- An advisory committee established by the Board in October 1999 is addressing issues in this area.
  Next Action: Advisory committee to submit a report to the Board in 2001.

Proposed:

• Play Areas -- Guidelines proposed on April 30, 1998 were available for public comment until July 29, 1998.
  Next Action: Board to publish final guidelines.
• Recreation Facilities -- Guidelines proposed on July 9, 1999 for sports facilities, places of amusement, golf, boating and fishing facilities and pools were available for public comment until December 8, 1999.
  Next Action: Board to review comments, revise guidelines, and publish them in final form.

Back to top

DOJ UPDATE

INTERVENTIONS DEFENDING ADA'S CONSTITUTIONALITY

The Department intervened in four cases where states argued that it is unconstitutional for Congress to permit ADA lawsuits directly against state governments. DOJ intervened in the following cases to argue that ADA is constitutionally appropriate legislation to remedy the history of pervasive discrimination against people with disabilities:

Walker v. Washington (7th Circuit) -- Title II suit challenging prison surcharge for providing an auxiliary aid.

Hallen v. Union Beach Board of Education (District of New Jersey) -- title II suit challenging the failure to place 20-year-old plaintiff with autism in the most integrated setting appropriate.

New Jersey Protection and Advocacy v. Waldman (District of New Jersey) -- title II suit challenging institutional placement of nine individuals with developmental disabilities.

Stephens v. University of Tennessee (Eastern District of Tennessee) -- employment suit under titles I and II alleging that employer failed to promote plaintiff because she has Hepatitis C and Graves Disease.

DOJ also filed amicus briefs in selected cases in which it is not a party in order to guide courts in interpreting the ADA.

Schaefer v. State Insurance Fund -- The Department argued in a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that an individual who takes medication to control type 2 diabetes is not automatically excluded from ADA protection under the Supreme Court's recent rulings on mitigating measures in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., and Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. In determining whether an individual has an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, courts should consider the effect of mitigating measures such as eye glasses or medications.

Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners -- The Department filed an amicus brief in support of a New York bar applicant with dyslexia who seeks accommodations including extra time for taking the New York State Bar Examination. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit earlier ruled that, because of her dyslexia, the applicant's ability to decode words in a timely fashion was significantly restricted as compared to the average person and therefore that she was a person with a disability. The court did not take into account the applicant's history of self-adjustments, which allowed her to achieve roughly average reading skills on some measures, in determining whether her dyslexia substantially limited the major life activities of reading or learning. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court which returned the case to the Second Circuit for review in light of the Supreme Court's 1999 rulings on "mitigating measures."

(Source: Enforcing the ADA: A Status Report from the Department of Justice, October - December 1999.)

Back to top

EMPLOYMENT UPDATE

COURT ISSUES CONTROVERSIAL DIRECT THREAT DECISION

In 1989, when the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground, it was being piloted by a chief officer who had a history of alcoholism. After the accident, the company adopted a policy permanently removing any employee who had undergone treatment for substance abuse from certain safety-sensitive positions.

The EEOC challenged the policy in court, claiming that the blanket exclusion of rehabilitated substance abusers violated the ADA. The agency claimed that the policy was inconsistent with ADA's requirement for employers to conduct individualized assessments of job candidates and employees.

The EEOC's position is that an employer must show the existence of a direct threat when it imposes a safety qualification standard. Exxon has argued that it could defend its policy as a business necessity. A District Court agreed with the EEOC, granting the agency's motion for partial summary judgement with respect to the direct threat issue. Exxon appealed to the 5th Circuit Court.

In a decision written by Judge Patrick Higginbotham, the appeals court framed the issue this way: "whether an employer may defend the questioned personnel decision as based on a standard justified as a business necessity or must demonstrate a 'direct threat' in each circumstance." It rejected EEOC's contrary guidance and held that employers need not establish the existence of a direct threat in individual cases in order to justify the application of a safety-based qualification standard. In doing so, it distinguished "across-the-board rules" from standards imposed on particular individuals.

"In cases where an employer has developed a general safety requirement for a position, "Higginbotham wrote, "safety is a qualification standard no different from other requirements defended under the ADA's business necessity provision."

Thus, the court held that an employer need not prove direct threat in order to successfully defend a general safety-based qualification standard that applies to all employees in a given class. Determining whether a safety-based qualification standard is a business necessity, the court said, involves measuring the magnitude of potential harm and the likelihood of its occurrence.

The Exxon decision is significant because it opens a door for employers forced to defend the application of a safety-based qualification standard. Exxon is perhaps the first case to directly address whether an employer can save a safety-based qualification standard without having to show the existence of a direct threat.

(Source: National Disability Law Reporter, "5th Circuit Case Shows Limits on Judicial Deference to EEOC's Guidelines Issued Under Title I of ADA," Volume 17, Issue 2, pp. 1 and 6, March 9, 2000.)

Back to top
 

REGIONAL NEWS

Filene's Sued In New Hampshire

Concord, NH - Four individuals with disabilities filed a lawsuit in the U. S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire against Filene's department store, a subsidiary of The May Department Stores Company. The suit charges that Filene's has denied individuals with mobility disabilities equal access to goods, services and facilities.

"Over a six year period these individuals have tried to work with Filene's to improve the architectural layout and display of merchandise," said Lee Perselay, an Attorney with the Disabilities Rights Center, Inc. "However, rather than utilize these recommendations to improve access within their stores, Filene's has decided to ignore them and deny access to individuals with disabilities who require the use of a wheelchair or scooter. We just would like to see Filene's take an active role to ensure that the plaintiffs have the same shopping experience that every other person has at their stores."

The four individuals have a variety of disabilities including cerebral palsy, spina bifida and multiple sclerosis. Each requires the use of a wheelchair or scooter in order to maintain an independent and active life.

The Filene's department stores, located in Manchester, Salem and Nashua, have refused to systematically alter their manner of positioning merchandise on the selling floor. As a result the plaintiffs are unable to access merchandise within store departments and are further hampered by the placement of merchandise at the end of aisles, which narrows aisle space significantly. An additional obstacle to individuals with mobility disabilities is the placement of tables in perimeter aisles and the use of floor length drapes on tables, which often get caught in wheelchair spokes.

Sears Improves Access

In January 1999, after specific access issues in the Manchester Sears store had been raised by RAC members, Sears agreed to work on increasing access for persons with physical disabilities, and designated the Manchester store as their model store for ADA compliance. Sears agreed to use the store to test out new accessible fixtures and other accessible design concepts, and to meet with RAC representatives on an ongoing basis to see to what extent these ideas resulted in improved access at the store.

Some of the changes to date at the Manchester store have included:

• Making sure that there were 36-inch aisles within store departments,
• Making sure that there was sufficient turning radius for persons who use wheelchairs, particularly at the end of aisles,
• Redesigning aisle tables in order to increase access within the store's perimeter aisles, and
• Using new fixtures, tables, and shelving to increase independent, accessible shopping by persons with disabilities.

As a result of these efforts, access at the Manchester Sears store is vastly improved. Sears is planning to implement these accessibility ideas in over 100 other Sears stores throughout the country during the next year.

This is one example of how individuals with disabilities can be an effective force in achieving ADA compliance within their own communities through the NH Regional Action Committee project. This project is made possible through the support of the New Hampshire Developmental Disabilities Council. If you, or anyone you know would like to become a RAC member please contact Lee Perselay at 1-800-834-1721 or email: leep@drcnh.org.

Adaptive Environments News

Arizona Training
On January 21st, Kathy Gips, Director of Training, and Peter Stratton of Steven Winter Associates in Norwalk, Connecticut conducted a training on multi-family housing, the ADA and the Federal Fair Housing Act. The training occurred in Arizona and was the result of a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against an Arizona-based architectural firm. The consent order included a requirement for 8 hours of training on the ADA and FHAA.

Public Schools Video
A 20-minute video on ADA and public schools is in the works and should be available in May. The was shot at Westport, Framingham, Natick and Cambridge Massachusetts schools. The Massachusetts Corporation for Educational Telecommunications (MCET) is producing the video for Adaptive Environments.

Trainings Available from the Center
Contact Kathy Gips (kgips@adaptiveenvironments.org, 800-949-4232 v/tty), Director of Training, to schedule a training for your organization or business. Cost is $35 an hour plus travel expenses. Current trainings include:

• ADA Standards for Accessible Design: Common Errors and Omissions, Future Guidelines (AIA continuing ed. HSW credits)
• ADA Standards for Accessible Design and the Massachusetts' Architectural Access Board Regulations: Understanding the Differences (AIA continuing ed. HSW credits)
• Disability Awareness and ADA Obligations: Making Your Business More Customer Friendly
• Updates for State and Local Governments: Recent Court Decision and Trends
• ADA Employment: the Next Generation: A Case Study-based Training on Definition of Disability, Disability-Related Questions and Medical Exams, Reasonable Accommodation/Undue Hardship and Direct Threat
• ADA/Section 504 and Public Schools
• ADA/Section 504 and Post-Secondary Schools

DESIGNING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY II: An International Conference on Universal Design
Adaptive Environments is sponsoring an international gathering on universal design. Scheduled for June 14-18, 2000, DESIGNING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY II will bring approximately one thousand participants from nearly thirty countries together to showcase universal designs in education and practice.

The Conference will be co-sponsored by HalfthePlanet.com, an AdaptZ.com company, in cooperation with the Center for Universal Design at the State University of North Carolina at Raleigh and the Rehabilitation Engineering Resource Center on Universal Design at SUNY Buffalo. The Rhode Island School of Design is the host partner.

Universal design is a worldwide movement that aims to make products, environments and communication usable to the greatest extent possible by the broadest spectrum of users. Sometimes called "design for life," or "lifespan design," universal design is not a style but an orientation to design based on principals that the design be inclusive, flexible, simple and understandable.

The conference will be divided into three parts. The pre-conference, which starts June 14th, includes eighteen intensive sessions taught by experts from around the world. The Core Conference begins on Thursday, June 15th, at 1:00 PM and will continue through Saturday, June 17th. The Post-Conference on Sunday June 18th features the Global Universal Design Education Project Forum.

There will be seven plenary sessions, six blocks of concurrent sessions, working groups, poster sessions, and program exchanges. All sessions have been categorized into topics including Arts/Culture; Aging; Business/Marketing; Children; Learning Environments; Recreation/Nature; Design Education; Public Places/Urban Design; Residential; Products; Information; and many more.

Keynote speakers for the plenary sessions represent an international Who's who in the practice of universal design: Roger Coleman, Designage/RCA, UK; Natasha Drabbe, Cultural Connections, Netherlands; William Hudnut, Urban Land Institute, USA; Yoshi Kawauchi, Access Project, Japan; William Kennard, Federal Communications Commission, USA; Satoshi Kose, Ministry of Construction, Japan; Patricia Moore, Bresslergroup, USA; Bruce Nussbaum, Business Week, USA; Adolf Ratzka, Institute on Independent Living, Sweden; John Salmen, Universal Design Newsletter, USA; and others.

The Conference will include an exhibit hall on Friday and Saturday featuring designers, manufacturers and organizations that will display and demonstrate universal design, and highlight universal design as a sensible business choice. Passes for the exhibit will also include the conference bookstore. The anticipated attendees range from students to leaders in the development, practice, education, marketing and advocacy of universal design around the world. To learn more about the conference, please visit http://www.adaptiveenvironments.org/21century or contact Adaptive Environments at 617-695-1225 x 26 (v/tty).

Back to top

PUBLICATIONS

These publications are available from our Center by calling 800-949-4232 V/TTY.

• ADA/ABA Accessibility Guidelines - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Approx. 400 pp., no cost
• TITLE II: State and Local Governments:
  • Title II Technical Assistance Manual w/ Supplements
  • Title II State and Local Government Regulations
  • How to File a Title II Complaint
  • Self-Evaluation Guide for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools - $21
  • Title II Action Guide for State and Local Governments - $24
  • Title II Highlights - $1
  • Commonly Asked Questions About Title II of the ADA
  • Law Enforcement Q & A Sheet - $1
  • Opening Public Agency Doors: Title II of the ADA and People with Mental Illnesses
  • Telephone Emergency Service Q & A Sheet
  • Accessible Rights-of-Way: A Design Guide - $10
• ADA National Access for Public Schools Project's Q&A sheets:
  • Nondiscrimination and Effective Communication
  • Employment
  • Program Accessibility
  • Private Schools
  • Transportation
  • General and Miscellaneous
• The following new documents can be downloaded from the Department of Justice website: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508docs.html
  • Software Accessibility Checklist
  • Web Page Accessibility Checklist
  • Information Technology Machines (ITMs) Accessibility Checklist
  • Information Technology (IT) Equipment Accessibility Checklist

Back to top

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Questions and Answers about Olmstead v. L.C.

Q: Who are Olmstead, L.C and E.W? Why did their case get decided by the Supreme Court?

A: L.C. and E.W. are two women who have mental illness and mental retardation and were confined in a Georgia state psychiatric hospital. L.C. and E.W. wanted to receive services in the community and live outside of the state hospital. Their doctors agreed that the women were ready for discharge to the community. However, the state already maintained a long list of qualified persons waiting for one of the state's few community placements to became available. As a result, L.C. and E.W. remained institutionalized for years. L.C. and E.W. filed suit against Tommy Olmstead, the Commissioner of Georgia's Department of Human Resources. That lawsuit, now referred to as Olmstead v. L.C., charged that Olmstead violated the ADA integration mandate by failing to provide L.C. and E.W. services in the most integrated setting appropriate to meet their needs, which in their case was the community not an institution.

Q: What is the "ADA integration mandate" referred to by the Supreme Court?

A: When Congress passed the ADA it included a prohibition of discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the provision of public services by state and local governments. Specifically, Section 12132 of Title II of the ADA states:

"…no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of his disability, be excluded from participation in, or be denied benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."

Q: Does the Olmstead v. L.C. decision establish that all institutionalization constitutes discrimination prohibited by the ADA integration mandate?

A: No. The decision establishes that the ADA integration mandate requires the state to place persons with disabilities in community settings if the community, not an institution, is the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The Supreme Court set up a two part test to demonstrate that a community is the most integrated setting appropriate. First, the state's treating professionals should determine that community placement is appropriate for the individual. Second, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting should not be opposed by the affected individual. If that two-part test is met, then that person is presumed to be unnecessarily institutionalized, unless the state can establish certain defenses.

Q: Unnecessary institutionalization is considered unlawful under the ADA integration mandate unless the state can establish certain defenses. What are those defenses?

A: The Supreme Court makes clear that unnecessary institutionalization is presumed to be discrimination under the ADA and is therefore illegal. However, the Court does offer states a defense to lawsuits challenging states' failure to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the individuals needs. The Court held that a state is not required to transfer an unnecessarily institutionalized person to the community if doing so would "fundamentally alter" the state program that the lawsuit is challenging.

(Source: "Questions and Answers about the Olmstead v. L.C. Decision," National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, http://www.protectionandadvocacy.com/sumforpacket.htm)

Back to top

GREAT WEB SITES

http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/fmla.htm
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) website established by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Site contains an FMLA factsheet, compliance guide, full text of the act, DOL regulations implementing the law and an FMLA poster. Information can also be obtained through the Department of Labor's FMLA "800" telephone number 1-800-959-FMLA (3652) (v).

http://halftheplanet.com/
HalfthePlanet.com is a website that serves as the leading Internet gateway for people whose personal and professional lives are touched by disability. It's designed to offer a wide range of online services to people with disabilities, their families, friends and associates. To facilitate adaptation, HalfthePlanet.com provides everything from e-commerce, editorial content, classified advertising and bulletin boards to a news bureau on disability-related topics, a mentor center and legislative updates.

http://www.edlaw.net/
The EDLAW Center was established to provide assistance on a systemic level to attorneys who represent parents of children with disabilities. It is premised on the recognition that, while securing an appropriate education for any single child with a disability is important, changes on a systemic level are necessary to enable all children with disabilities to obtain the free appropriate public education promised them by the law.

http://lcweb.loc.gov/nls/
National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS)
A free national library program of braille and recorded materials for blind and physically disabled is administered by the Library of Congress. Under a special provision of the U.S. copyright law and with permission of authors and publishers of works not covered by the provision, NLS selects and produces full-length books and magazines in braille and on recorded disc and cassette. Established by an act of Congress in 1931 to serve blind adults, the program was expanded in 1952 to include children, in 1962 to provide music materials, and again in 1966 to include individuals with other physical impairments that prevent the reading of standard print.

Back to top

BUILDING YOUR ROLODEX

State ADA Coordinators

Connecticut:

Ed Mambruno
Department of Mental Retardation
460 Capital Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
(860) 418-6047 (v)
(860) 524-7354 (v)
(860) 418-6079 (tty)
ed.mambruno@po.state.ct.us

Maine:

Laurel Shippee
Bureau of Human Resources
4 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-4425 (v)
(207) 287-4537 (tty)
laurel.j.shippee@state.me.us

Massachusetts:

Lorraine Greiff
Massachusetts Office on Disability
One Ashburton Place, Room 1305
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 727-7440 (v/tty)
(800) 322-2020 (v/tty)
lgreiff@modi.state.ma.us

New Hampshire:

Mike Jenkins
Governor's Commission on Disability
57 Regional Drive
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-2773 (v/tty)
(800) 852-3405 (v/tty)
mjenkins@gov.state.nh.us

Rhode Island:

Bob Cooper
RI Governor's Commission on Disabilities
Howard Center
41 Cherry Dale Court
Cranston, RI 02920-3049
(401) 462-0102 (v)
(401) 462-0101 (tty)
bcooper@doa.state.ri.us

Vermont:

David Sagi
Vermont Vocational Rehabilitation
190 Asa Bloomer Building
Rutland, VT 05701
(802) 786-5865 (v)
(802) 786-5866 (tty)
daves@dad.state.vt.us

Back to top

EVENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS

Designing for the 21st Century
Second International Conference on Universal Design
June 14-18, 2000
Providence Convention Center, Providence, RI
Sponsored by Adaptive Environments and the Center for Universal Design
For additional information, contact Valerie Fletcher at (617) 695-1225 ext. 26 or visit the conference website: www.adaptiveenvironments.org/21century

ADA The Next Generation - Case Study Model - full day
June 6, 2000
Disability in the Workplace - Awareness & Sensitivity - half day
May 18, 2000
Hartford, CT
Sponsored by Connecticut Department of Administrative Services
Contact: Suzanne Liquerman at (860) 713-5057 or Suzanne.Liquerman@po.state.ct.us

The ADA and Libraries 10 Years Later
June 14, 2000
Newington, CT
Sponsored by the Connecticut State Library
Contact: Mary Louise Jensen at (860) 566-2712 or mjensen@cslib.org

Massachusetts Community Access Monitor Trainings
May 9-10: Somerville
June 7-8: Fall River
September: Holyoke
October 24-25: Pittsfield
November 8-9: Greenfield
Sponsored by the Massachusetts Office on Disability
Contact: Myra Berloff at (800) 322-2020 (v/tty), (617) 727-7440 (v/tty) or mberloff@modi.state.ma.us

Promoting Healthy Lifestyles for People with Psychiatric Disabilities
June 15, 2000; 9:30am - 4:30pm
Boston, MA 02215
Sponsored by the Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation/Boston University
Contact: Blanca Yanulis at (617) 353-3549 (v), (617) 353-7701 (tty) or byanulis@bu.edu

Look for the Summer issue of Access New England.

Attention Subscribers!
Are you interested in receiving our newsletter via e-mail? Send us a message at adaptive@adaptiveenvironments.org and we'll drop Access New England directly into your e-mail letterbox. Moved recently? Changed your name? No longer interested in receiving our newsletter? Let us know so we can keep our mailing list up-to-date and effective. Call us at 800-949-4232 V/TTY or drop us a line at 374 Congress Street, Suite 301, Boston, MA 02210. Questions about the ADA? Call us at 800-949-4232 V/TTY for answers and guidance.

Back to Top

Back to Previous Page