enforcing the ada · enforcing the ada - update 2 april-june 1998 enforcement /l itigation the...

ADA Litigation .................................................. 2Formal Settlement Agreements ......................... 9Other Settlements ............................................ 13Mediation ........................................................ 15Certification ..................................................... 17Technical Assistance ....................................... 18Other Sources of ADA Information ............... 20How to File Complaints .................................. 21

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Disability Rights Section

1998, Issue 2

Enforcing the ADAA Status Report from the Department of Justice

(April-June 1998)

INSIDE...

This Status Report covers the ADA activities of the Department of Justice during thesecond quarter (April - June) of 1998. This report, previous status reports, and a wide range ofother ADA information are available through the Department’s ADA Home Page on the WorldWide Web (see page 18). The symbol (**) indicates that the document is available on the ADAHome Page.

Enforcing the ADA - Update 2 April-June 1998

ENFORCEMENT/LITIGATION

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

I. Enforcement

Through lawsuits and both formal andinformal settlement agreements, theDepartment has achieved greater access forindividuals with disabilities in hundreds ofcases. Under general rules governing lawsuitsbrought by the Federal Government, theDepartment of Justice may not file a lawsuitunless it has first unsuccessfully attempted tosettle the dispute through negotiations.

A. Litigation

The Department may file lawsuits inFederal court to enforce the ADA and mayobtain court orders including compensatorydamages and back pay to remedydiscrimination. Under title III the Departmentmay also obtain civil penalties of up to$50,000 for the first violation and $100,000for any subsequent violation.

1. Decisions

Supreme Court Rules Asymptomatic HIV-infected Patient is Person with a Disability-- The Supreme Court decided in Bragdon v.Abbott that asymptomatic HIV-status is adisability under the ADA. Plaintiff, a dentalpatient in Bangor, Maine, infected with HIV, butwho had no outward symptoms of the disease,was denied treatment by a dentist. The patient

filed suit under the ADA, alleging that, as a resultof the virus, she was “disabled” and thereforeprotected by the Act. The U.S. Court ofAppeals for the First Circuit held that the patient’sasymptomatic HIV status constituted a disabilitybecause it was a physical impairment thatsubstantially limited the “major life activity” ofreproduction. The Supreme Court agreed withthe amicus brief filed by the Department of Justiceand upheld the court of appeals in a 5-4 decision,finding that asymptomatic HIV status met all therequirements under the statutory definition of adisability -- it is a physical impairment (from themoment of infection), it impairs the major lifeactivity of reproduction, and it “substantially limits”that activity. The court also emphasized that itsconclusion was consistent with the Department ofJustice’s views on this issue as expressed in itsregulations and technical assistance manual. As towhether the plaintiff’s HIV infection posed a“direct threat” to the dentist’s health, the SupremeCourt sent the case back to the court of appealsfor further review of the evidence.

Supreme Court Says ADA Clearly ProtectsPrison Inmates -- In a unanimous opinion theSupreme Court ruled in Pennsylvania Departmentof Corrections v. Yeskey that a motivational bootcamp operated for selected inmates by thePennsylvania State prison system is subject to therequirements of title II of the ADA. Prisoners

3 April-June 1998Enforcing the ADA - Update


who successfully complete the boot campprogram are entitled to a significant reduction intheir sentence. The Court agreed with theDepartment of Justice in ruling that the broadlanguage of title II clearly covers prisons andprovides no basis for distinguishing programs,services, or activities of prisons from thoseprovided by other public entities. It rejected theState’s arguments that the law is ambiguous andthat prisoners cannot be “qualified individuals withdisabilities” because they are not in prisonvoluntarily. The Department also received afavorable ruling on prison coverage in Westcott v.Garner in the U.S. District Court for the MiddleDistrict of Georgia.

State Must Consider Community-BasedServices -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for theEleventh Circuit ruled that the State of Georgiadiscriminated against two individuals with mentaldisabilities by confining them in a institution ratherthan providing services through a community-based program. In L.C. v. Olmstead theEleventh Circuit agreed with an amicus brief filedby the Department of Justice arguing that the titleII regulation requires States to provide services toindividuals with mental disabilities in the “mostintegrated setting appropriate to their needs.”The State’s treating professionals agreed that acommunity placement was appropriate for theplaintiffs. The case has been sent back to thelower court for a decision as to whether theState’s actions were justified because any addedfinancial burdens or policy modifications that areneeded to provide community placements wouldresult in a “fundamental alteration in the nature ofthe program.”

More Courts Find ADA is Constitutional --In Dickson v. Florida Department of Corrections(consolidated with Kimel v. Florida Board ofRegents) the U.S. Court of Appeals for theEleventh Circuit rejected arguments that the ADAis unconstitutional because the rights it creates arebroader than those of the FourteenthAmendment’s equal protection clause. Instead, it

concluded as urged by the Department in anamicus brief that Congress has ample authority tosubject States to lawsuits under the ADA becauseof the history of pervasive discrimination againstpeople with disabilities. A lower Federal court,the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania in Anderson v. PennsylvaniaDepartment of Public Welfare, also agreed with anamicus brief filed by the Department that it isconstitutional for the ADA to prohibit more thanjust intentional discrimination that would beprohibited by the Constitution.

Court Allows Challenge to Health InsuranceAIDS Cap -- As urged by the Department ofJustice in an amicus brief, the U.S. District Courtfor the Northern District of Illinois in Doe v.Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. ruled that title IIIprohibits discrimination in the terms and conditionsof a health insurance policy against persons withAIDS or Aids Related Complex (ARC). The suitchallenges a health insurance policy that contains amaximum lifetime benefit cap for expenses incurredfor covered services related to AIDS and ARC ofonly $25,000 or $100,000 (depending upon thepolicy) where the same policy provides benefits toa lifetime maximum of $1,000,000 in virtuallyevery other situation. The court, denyingdefendant’s motion to dismiss, ruled that singlingout individuals with AIDS or ARC for inferiorinsurance coverage stated a claim of discriminationunder the ADA.

Court Allows U.S. Attorney to Continue SuitAgainst Day Care Providers for HIVDiscrimination -- The U.S. District Court forthe Western District of Wisconsin, denyingdefendants’ motions for summary judgment,allowed three Department of Justice lawsuits toproceed against day care centers who deniedadmission to a three-year old child (L.W.) withHIV infection. Defendants in U.S. v. HappyTime Day Care, U.S. v. Kiddie Ranch, and U.S.v. ABC Nursery, claimed that L.W. does nothave a disability under the ADA because his HIVis “asymptomatic,” and because defendants did not



regard L.W. as having been substantially limited ina major life activity. The district court agreedwith the United States Attorney’s Office for theWestern District of Wisconsin that damage to thechild’s immune system may render himsubstantially limited in the major life activity ofcaring for himself, including fighting offcommunicable diseases. The court also held thatplaintiff proved that defendants’ general fear ofHIV led them to exclude L.W. from child care,thereby substantially limiting him in the major lifeactivity of learning. The court rejecteddefendants’ argument that plaintiff needs to provethat the defendant believed L.W. to besubstantially limited in a particular major lifeactivity. However, the Court held that HIV doesnot substantially limit a three-year-old child in the major life activityof procreation, disagreeing withthe Department of Justice on thatpoint. The court also held thatmitigating measures, such as AZTand other treatments, should not be consideredwhen determining whether a person with HIV hasa disability. Two of the three cases have sincebeen settled by consent decrees (see “ConsentDecrees”).

Third Circuit Rejects Challenge to Long-Term Disability Plan -- In Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp. the U.S. Court of Appeals for theThird Circuit rejected a suit brought by a formeremployee under titles I and III of the ADAagainst her employer and an insurance company inNew Jersey. The suit challenged a long-termdisability (LTD) insurance plan under whichemployees can receive benefits until age 65 if theybecome totally disabled due to physicalimpairments but can collect benefits for no longerthan 24 months if their impairments are mental innature. Plaintiff’s LTD benefits were terminatedafter 24 months because hers was a mental, not aphysical, disability. The Department filed anamicus brief in the Third Circuit arguing that titleIII prohibits unjustified discrimination in the termsand conditions of insurance coverage, and that

title III’s coverage is not limited to denials ofphysical access to public accommodations. TheDepartment did not address title I issues orwhether the LTD plan’s distinction between mentaland physical impairments is disability-baseddiscrimination. The Third Circuit held that plaintiffwas entitled to bring a suit challenging the planeven though she was no longer working.However, the court concluded that the LTDplan’s distinction between mental and physicaldisabilities was not discriminatory because everyemployee was offered the same insurance plan.The court also rejected plaintiff’s title III claimagainst the insurance company. It held that,because the insurer did not deal directly with theplaintiff in issuing the employee coverage, the

insurer did not act as a place ofpublic accommodation. The ThirdCircuit also rejected theDepartment’s argument that titleIII covers the substance ofinsurance policies.

NCAA Operates Places of PublicAccommodation -- The U.S. District Court forthe District of New Jersey ruled that the NationalCollegiate Athletic Association is a publicaccommodation covered by title III and refused todismiss a lawsuit challenging the NCAA’sprocedures for determining athletic eligibility forstudent-athletes with learning disabilities. TheNCAA has since agreed to modify its policies inanother case resolved by a consent decreeentered into with the Department of Justice (see“Consent decrees”). The court concluded inBowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Associationthat, while the NCAA is not itself a “place” ofpublic accommodation, it “operates” places ofpublic accommodation such as stadiums and teamtraining, dining, living, playing, practice, andmeeting facilities. The Department filed an amicusbrief in this case urging the court to find title IIIcoverage.

Decisions



2. New lawsuits

The Department initiated or intervened inthe following lawsuit.

Titles II and III

Connecticut Association of the Deaf v.Middlesex Memorial Hospital -- TheDepartment intervened in this suit brought by theOffice of Protection and Advocacy in Connecticutagainst 10 acute care hospitals for failing toprovide sign language and oral interpreters forpersons who are deaf or hard of hearing. All theparties in the case asked the court to approve aproposed consent decree negotiated by theDepartment, the original plaintiffs, and thedefendant hospitals. In addition, all twenty-twoother acute care hospitals in Connecticutintervened as defendants to join in the proposedagreement and protect themselves from futureliability. If the U.S. District Court for the Districtof Connecticut approves the proposed agreement,the hospitals will --

l set up a state-wide on-call system toprovide interpreters 24 hours a day,seven days a week, for persons who aredeaf or hard of hearing (the system willrespond to most requests in urban areaswithin an hour, and in rural areas withinone hour and fifteen minutes);

l use sign language pictogram flash cardsthat will be developed by theDepartment of Justice to assist incommunication when sign languageinterpreters are not available;

l provide TTY’s throughout the hospitals’public areas and in patient rooms, whenrequested;

l install visual alarms where audible alarmsare provided;

l provide other auxiliary aids and serviceswhen necessary for effectivecommunication, including computerassisted real-time transcription services,closed caption decoders for televisions,captioning of hospital-generated videos,qualified notetakers, assistive listeningdevices and systems, and writtenmaterials;

l train employees and volunteers aboutissues relating to communication withpersons who are deaf or hard ofhearing, including special training foremergency department personnel,psychiatric personnel, social workers,and other key personnel;

l offer training to all affiliated physicians;and

l pay $333,000 in compensation to thenamed plaintiffs and individuals who filedcomplaints with the Department ofJustice.

3. Consent Decrees

Some litigation is resolved at the time thesuit is filed or afterwards by means of anegotiated consent decree. Consent decreesare monitored and enforced by the Federalcourt in which they are entered.

Title III

** United States v. Ellerbe Becket, Inc. -- TheEllerbe Becket architectural firm agreed that all ofthe new sports stadiums and arenas that it designsin the future will be designed to providewheelchair seating locations with a line of sightover standing spectators. The agreementspecifically applies to any facility with more thanfour fixed seats and in which spectators can beexpected to stand for all or any part of an event .The consent decree resolves the Department’slawsuit alleging that Ellerbe had violated the ADA



by repeatedly designing new sports stadiums andarenas that violated the ADA new constructionrequirement for comparable lines of sight forwheelchair seating locations. Ellerbe argued thatthe court should dismiss the case becausearchitects are not covered by title III of the ADAand because lines of sight over standingspectators are not required. The court disagreedwith both of these arguments and allowed thecase to continue.

United States v. Happy Time Day Care Centerand United States v. Kiddie Ranch -- The U.S.Attorney’s Office for the Western District ofWisconsin entered into consent decrees resolvinglawsuits filed against two child care centers inBeloit, Wisconsin, for allegedly refusing to admit athree-year-old boy because he had tested positivefor the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).Happy Time and Kiddie Ranch each agreed toadmit the child and to ensure that their admission

** NCAA Will Revise Eligibility Requirements to Accommodate Student-Athletes withLearning Disabilities -- Under a landmark consent decree, the National Collegiate AthleticAssociation will modify policies that each year prevented hundreds of students with dyslexiaand other learning disabilities from playing college sports and receiving athletic scholarships.The agreement in United States v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, which was filed inthe U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, stems from a series of complaints lodgedwith the Department by student athletes alleging that the NCAA’s initial-eligibility academicrequirements discriminate against student-athletes with learning disabilities. The agreementrequires the NCAA to modify its policies while at the same time enabling it to maintain itsacademic standards. The NCAA agreed to --

l Revise its rules so that classes designed for students with learning disabilitiescan be certified as core courses if the classes provide students with thesame types of knowledge and skills as other college-bound students;

l Allow students with learning disabilities who are unable to meet the initialeligibility rules when they graduate from high school to earn a fourth year ofathletic eligibility if they complete a substantial percentage of their degreework and maintain good grades;

l Direct its committees that evaluate applications filed by students who do notmeet the requirements but are seeking a waiver to consider a broad rangeof factors in reviewing the student’s high school preparation andperformance when deciding whether to grant a waiver and not to use aminimum qualifying test score on the SAT or ACT;

l Include experts on learning disabilities on the committees that evaluatewaiver applications.

In addition, the consent decree requires the NCAA to undertake efforts designed to preventfurther violations of the ADA, including designating one or more employees as an ADAcompliance coordinator to serve as a resource to NCAA staff and as a liaison with students withlearning disabilities; providing training to its staff regarding the new policies; and publicizing theterms of the agreement to high schools, students, parents, and member colleges and universities.The NCAA also agreed to pay a total of $35,000 in damages to four student-athletes.



policies will not discriminate against children withdisabilities. The two centers also agreed that achild with HIV infection is an individual with adisability under the ADA and that such a childcan be admitted into a child care center withoutcausing a significant risk to the safety of otherchildren and staff. The centers will sponsor andparticipate in a seminar later this year forinterested child care providers, staff, and parentsto discuss the ADA and concerns people haveregarding children with HIV. The U.S. Attorney’slawsuit against a third child care center, ABCNursery, Inc., involving similar issues is continuing.

** DeVinney v. Maine MedicalCenter -- The U.S. Attorney forthe District of Maine, a privateplaintiff, and the Maine MedicalCenter entered into a consentdecree requiring the medical centerto provide qualified sign languageinterpreters, assistive listening andtelecommunication devices, captioned televisionsand other similar aids and services to personswho are deaf or hard of hearing. Maine MedicalCenter, which is Maine’s largest hospital, alsoagreed to publish and distribute a new writtenhospital policy directing its employees to offer aninterpreter whenever staff has any reason tobelieve a patient is deaf or hard of hearing. Theinterpreter will be made available by the medicalcenter “as soon as possible and no later than onehour after the receipt of a request for aninterpreter.” The hospital has also agreed toprovide the same services including interpreters todeaf family members, relatives, companions andfriends who visit or accompany a patient. Thehospital will require all of its clinical directors anddepartment heads, as well as its supervisors,nurses and other patient-contact personnel, toparticipate in mandatory and comprehensive in-service training regarding the proper use and roleof interpreters and other communication needs ofpersons who are deaf or hard of hearing. MaineMedical Center will also produce an educational

video and distribute materials to all physicians withhospital privileges regarding the ADA rights ofpersons who are deaf and hard of hearing. Thehospital agreed to pay a civil penalty of $10,000and $25,000 in damages to the plaintiff.

Miller v. District of Columbia -- The District ofColumbia agreed to pay $15,000 each incompensatory damages to two deaf individualswhose repeated TDD calls to the D.C. 9-1-1system went unanswered. This consent decreeresolves the Department’s suit against the Districtof Columbia for operating a 9-1-1 telephoneemergency system that failed to provide direct,effective access to persons with disabilities who

use telecommunications devices forthe deaf (TDD’s). The agreementleaves in place an earlier courtorder finding that the District hadviolated the law and requiring it totake action to bring the 9-1-1system into compliance.

United States v. Town of Tatum, New Mexico-- Tatum, New Mexico agreed to pay $40,000 inback pay and compensatory damages to resolve aretaliation suit brought by the Department onbehalf of a former town employee. The lawsuitalleged that the town discharged the individualfrom his position as an emergency medicaltechnician in retaliation for his having obtained afavorable monetary settlement in a lawsuit hepreviously had filed against the town under title Iof the ADA. The Equal Employment OpportunityCommission referred this charge to theDepartment after a finding of reasonable causeand an unsuccessful effort to conciliate by thatagency. The town also agreed to post a noticeabout ADA rights and remedies on townproperty, and provide ADA training to townemployees and elected officials.

ConsentDecrees



4. Amicus Briefs

The Department files briefs in selectedADA cases in which it is not a party in orderto guide courts in interpreting the ADA.

Title I

Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp. --The Department filed an amicus brief in theSupreme Court arguing that an employee can filean ADA lawsuit charging employmentdiscrimination even if the job is covered by acollective bargaining agreement that requiresarbitration of employee grievances. Both theFederal district court in South Carolina and theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuitruled that the agreement to arbitrate meant thatthe employee had given up his right to bring anADA suit.

Title II

Padilla v. Ryan -- The Department filed anamicus brief in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California in support of aclass action lawsuit challenging policies andpractices at the Santa Clara County jail thatdiscriminate against persons who are deaf or hardof hearing by denying them access to signlanguage interpreters, TTY’s, and other auxiliaryaids and services. Because of the absence ofauxiliary aids, detainees have allegedly beenforced to endure delays of several days in releasefrom custody prior to being convicted of anycrime; and inmates have been forced into isolationand denied equal access to programs andservices, such as medical treatment, rehabilitation,and communication with family members. TheDepartment’s brief in support of the plaintiffs’motion for a preliminary injunction argued that theplaintiffs are qualified individuals with disabilities,that the ADA requires the provision of auxiliaryaids to ensure effective communication, and that

the provision of auxiliary aids in this case wouldnot compromise safety or effective prisonadministration or otherwise result in undue financialand administrative burdens.

Title III

Wai v. Allstate Insurance Co. -- TheDepartment filed an amicus brief in support oflandlords who wanted to rent houses toorganizations that would operate them as grouphomes for persons with disabilities but wererefused standard landlord property and casualtyinsurance. They were told by the insurancecompanies that they must obtain more expensivecommercial insurance for those houses. Theinsurance companies asked the U.S. District Courtfor the District of Columbia to dismiss the claimsunder the Fair Housing Act and the ADA. TheDepartment’s brief argues that the ADA prohibitsdiscrimination in the terms and conditions ofinsurance policies, not just physical access tophysical facilities; and that the landlords should beallowed to bring this suit because they claim tohave suffered discrimination as a result of theirrelationship with organizations that serve peoplewith disabilities.

Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Insurance, Co. -- TheDepartment filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the Second Circuit supportingplaintiffs in a suit in which they allege that Allstaterefused to sell them a life insurance policy becausethey have mental disabilities. The Department’sbrief argues that title III’s ban on discriminationcovers a refusal to sell insurance coverage to aperson because of his or her disability, thatAllstate was acting as an owner or operator of aplace of public accommodation under title IIIwhen it rejected the Pallozzi’s application for lifeinsurance, and that the insurance company has theburden of producing evidence that the plaintiffs’posed an unacceptable insurance risk.


ENFORCEMENT/FORMAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS

Caruso v. Blockbuster-Sony MusicEntertainment Centre -- The Department filedan amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Third Circuit in support of plaintiffs who claimthat the design of a newly-constructed performingarts amphitheater in Camden County, New Jersey,violates the ADA Standards for AccessibleDesign. The lower court had ruled that the ADAdoes not require lines-of-sight over standingspectators. Because this is a facility whereaudiences are expected to stand frequently duringevents, the Department argued in its brief onappeal that the requirement for “comparable linesof sight” for wheelchair locations means that a lineof sight over standing spectators must beprovided.

Gilbert v. Eckerd Drugs; Kellet-Breed v.Coastal Bank -- It is not necessary to first notifya State or seek State administrative remediesbefore filing a Federal lawsuit under title IIIaccording to amicus briefs filed in Gilbert v.Eckerd Drugs in the Eastern District of Louisianaand in Kellet-Breed v. Coastal Bank in theDistrict of Maine. In Gilbert, the drug storedefendant withdrew its motion to dismiss after theDepartment filed its brief.

Leonard F. v. Israel Discount Bank of NewYork -- Title III covers the terms and conditionsof insurance policies and regulates more than justphysical access to insurance offices, according toan amicus brief filed by the Department in thiscase in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the SecondCircuit. Plaintiff filed suit against his employer andan insurance company, challenging a long-termdisability insurance plan under which employeescan receive benefits until age 65 if they becometotally disabled due to physical impairments, butcan collect benefits for no longer than two years iftheir impairments are mental in nature. Plaintiff’slong-term benefits were terminated after 24months because he had a mental, not a physical,disability. The U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York dismissed the titleIII claims ruling that the ADA is not intended to

regulate the content of insurance policies andsuggesting that title III only guarantees physicalaccess to the goods and services offered byplaces of public accommodation. The employersettled the title I claims against it by agreeing toequalize coverage. Only the title III claims againstthe insurance company are before the court ofappeals.

B. Formal Settlement Agreements

The Department sometimes resolves caseswithout filing a lawsuit by means of formalwritten settlement agreements.

Title II

Prince George’s County, Maryland -- ThePrince George’s County Police and FireDepartment agreed to provide people withdisabilities an equal opportunity to volunteer asemergency medical technicians. The agreementresolves complaints filed with the Department ofJustice charging that the county violated the ADAby refusing to certify two qualified applicants withhearing impairments. Under the terms of theagreement, the county will no longer automaticallyreject volunteer firefighter or volunteer rescuetechnician applicants solely on the basis ofdisability. Instead, it will evaluate on an individualbasis every applicant’s ability to perform theessential functions of the position. The county willtrain all personnel, including medical personnel,involved in making decisions on volunteerapplication decisions on how to properly reviewapplications under the ADA. It also offered toreevaluate the rejected applications of thecomplainants.

Oakland, California -- The Oakland PoliceDepartment agreed to take the necessary steps toensure that members of the public who are deafor hard of hearing can communicate effectivelywith police officers during law enforcementsituations ranging from traffic stops to arrests tocriminal interrogations. The agreement resolves



three complaints involving three separate incidentsbetween 1994 and 1997 where the OaklandPolice allegedly failed to provide appropriateauxiliary aids and services to arrestees withhearing impairments. In one instance, anindividual was denied pencil and paper with whichto communicate with jail staff. In another, a deafindividual who had borrowed an automobile froma friend was unable to make a telephone call forapproximately seven hours (because no operableTDD was available) to clear up charges that hehad stolen the automobile. Under the agreement,the police department will adopt policies forproviding effective communicationand publish and publicize them asofficial operating procedures. It willpurchase at least one more TDD,train jail personnel on how tooperate TDD’s, and initiate a testingprogram to ensure the TDD’s arefunctioning properly. The OaklandPolice will also ensure that one of the jail cellsthat provides a television set has closed captioningcapability. All of the approximately 700 officerswho deal with the public will receive extensiveADA training on how to implement the ADA’seffective communication requirements in typicalpolice situations. This instruction will be providedduring annual police academy training that allofficers are required to attend.

Citrus County, Florida -- Citrus County agreedto provide raised and Brailled characters on signsdesignating permanent rooms and spaces in itscourthouse and to renovate the restrooms so thatat least one men’s toilet room and one women’stoilet room is fully accessible. Each toilet roomwill have visual alarms and at least one accessiblelavatory, mirror, and dispenser.

Natchez, Mississippi -- The Department enteredinto a settlement agreement with the City ofNatchez, Mississippi, to resolve access problemsat the county library and violations of the ADAStandards for Accessible Design in theconstruction plans for a new convention center

and visitors bureau. The city agreed to providevan-accessible parking, companion seating, and a36-inch alternative accessible stall in addition tothe standard accessible stall in one of therestrooms at the convention center and visitorsbureau. The city also took lead responsibility forinstalling a ramp to make the entrance to thecounty library accessible.

East Providence, Rhode Island -- The City ofEast Providence has agreed to pay damages forfailing to carry out two earlier agreements with theDepartment of Justice. Those agreements

required it to alter its municipalstadium, Pierce Field, to make theseating and the restrooms accessibleto people with mobility impairmentsand to install accessible signage tothese areas. In light of theseprevious failures and the length oftime it has taken to bring Pierce

Field into compliance, the city agreed to pay$2,000 to a group representing people withdisabilities in Rhode Island, and, if the city did notcomplete the required renovations by May 1,1998, it agreed to pay any group on the same list$200 per day for each day after that date thatrenovations were not completed. The city missedthe deadline by 12 days and paid $2,400.

** Northampton County, Pennsylvania -- TheDepartment entered into a settlement agreementwith the County of Northampton, Pennsylvania,resolving a complaint about the county’s grievanceprocedures. The complainant alleged that thecounty did not have an ADA coordinator, that hemade several attempts to file an ADA grievancewith officials of the county, and that he was notable to locate the ADA coordinator and waseventually referred to a local independent livingcenter. The county agreed to adopt and post awritten policy statement indicating procedures tofollow to obtain reasonable modifications topolicies, practices and procedures. In addition,the county will adopt and publish a procedure forproviding prompt and equitable resolution of

FormalSettlementAgreements



complaints, including the name, telephone number,and office address of the ADA coordinator. Thecounty also agreed to provide copies of the policystatement and grievance procedures to all countyemployees and train all staff to ensure that peoplewith disabilities are treated in a nondiscriminatorymanner.

** San Bernardino, California -- The SanBernardino City Council reached an agreementwith the Department in which it agreed to providethe auxiliary aids necessary to ensure effectivecommunication at city council meetings withindividuals who are deaf or hard of hearing orwho have impaired vision. The city agreed toprovide, when appropriate, sign languageinterpreters, assistive listening devices, and writtenmaterials in alternative formats. The city alsoagreed to provide ADA training to its employeesand to include a notice on its agenda to informmembers of the public of its policy with regard toeffective communications and how to obtainauxiliary aids.

Moore County, North Carolina -- TheDepartment entered into a settlement agreementwith the Board of Commissioners of MooreCounty, North Carolina, resolving a complaintalleging that the Commissioners held publicmeetings on the top floor of thehistoric county courthouse buildingin Carthage, a location accessibleonly by stairs. The Departmentfound that the battery-operated,tractor-type device purchased bythe board to provide access to thatfloor was inadequate because it didnot permit independent access and operation, andbecause it did not provide access for people whouse “scooter” type wheelchairs or for individualswith mobility disabilities who do not usewheelchairs. The board agreed to relocate publicmeetings to an accessible location, if requested todo so, until a planned elevator is installed. It willalso adopt a written policy statement on how toobtain reasonable modifications in policies,

practices and procedures and a written procedurefor resolving complaints, including the name,telephone number and office address of the ADAcoordinator.

Virginia Department of Health -- TheDepartment reached an agreement with theCommonwealth of Virginia Department of Healthresolving a complaint alleging that emergencymedical technician training provided by Virginiawas not accessible to people who are deaf orhard of hearing. The department of health agreedto provide sign language interpreters in trainingprograms that require interaction with programmoderators. It will provide written transcripts intraining programs that only require the trainee toview a video. The department of health willpublicize the availability of interpreters andtranscripts and will provide them free of charge topeople with hearing impairments.

Title III

Fremont YMCA, Fremont, Nebraska -- TheDepartment entered into a settlement agreementwith the Fremont YMCA resolving a complaintalleging violations of the ADA Standards forAccessible Design in a new addition andrenovations project as well as violations of the

barrier removal requirement forexisting facilities. The YMCA is amulti-story facility and, althoughthere was an existing elevator shaft,it was not large enough toaccommodate an elevator thatcomplied with the ADA Standards.Under the agreement, the YMCA

agreed to enlarge the elevator shaft and install anew elevator. The YMCA also agreed to makechanges to the parking, men’s locker room,women’s pool locker room, fitness studio,signage, doors, and ramps in order to make thefacility accessible to and usable by people withdisabilities.




Best Western Motel, Mequon, Wisconsin --A newly constructed Best Western Motel inMequon, Wisconsin, agreed to remedy violationsof the ADA Standards for Accessible Design andchange its pricing policy for accessible rooms.The complaint alleged that, when a wheelchairuser called the motel to make lodgingreservations, he was told the budget room ratewas $77. However, when he told the managerthat he would need a room that was wheelchairaccessible, he was allegedly informed that anaccessible room would cost $160 because theonly accessible rooms were deluxe rooms withwhirlpools. Under the agreement, the motel willmake four rooms accessible. Onewill be a budget room and threewill be luxury rooms. Because themotel offers more budget roomsthan luxury rooms, the motel agreedto charge individuals needing budgetaccessible rooms the budget rate forthe three luxury accessible rooms.It also agreed to hold open one luxury accessibleroom and the one budget accessible room until allother rooms have been rented, and to hold openthe two other luxury accessible rooms until allother nonaccessible luxury rooms have beenrented. In addition, the motel will make changesto provide the correct number of accessibleparking spaces, an accessible path of travel to theentrance, and accessible restroom/shower facilitiesin the indoor pool area. Finally, the motel gavethe complainant a free one-night stay in a luxuryroom.

** Vasquez Funeral Home, Chicago, Illinois --The Department signed a settlement agreementwith a Chicago funeral home resolving a complaintalleging that the funeral home charged higher feesfor persons who died of AIDS-relatedcomplications. The complaint alleged that thehome required a family to pay a surcharge of$100 for embalming the remains of their fatherbecause he died of AIDS. The funeral homeagreed to stop charging extra fees for personswho have died from AIDS-related complications

and other infectious diseases, appoint an employeeto be responsible for ensuring compliance with theADA, train all employees who handle humanremains in the use of universal precautions, andpay damages of $3,000 to the family.

Menard, Inc., Eau Claire, Wisconsin -- TheDepartment concluded a settlement agreementwith Menard, Inc., a home improvement retailchain, to resolve a complaint filed by an individualwho is legally blind. She alleged that one ofMenard’s stores in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,violated the ADA because its staff refused toaccept her state-issued identification card in place

of a driver’s license when shepurchased items with a check. Sheclaimed that store staff insulted herand required her husband toproduce his driver’s license beforethe store would accept her check.The store did in fact have a writtenpolicy in place at the time of the

incident stating that State ID’s would beacceptable identification for persons who do notdrive because of a disability. The agreementrequires Menard to train employees at its over115 stores in carrying out the policy; to post anotice of the policy at all cash registers; and topay the complainant $1,000 and issue her awritten apology.

** Andy Williams’ Moon River Theater,Branson, Missouri -- An agreement with MoonRiver Enterprises will improve accessibility forpatrons of the Andy Williams’ Moon River theaterin Branson, Missouri. The agreement requires theowner to nearly triple the number of accessibleseats in the theater, install additional signs directingpatrons to accessible routes, lower the publictelephones, and install visual alarms and alternatestalls in the bathrooms.



ENFORCEMENT/OTHER SETTLEMENTS

Carmike Cinemas Inc., Washington, D.C. --The Carmike Cinema chain, which operates 510theaters with over 2700 screens in 36 states, hasagreed to initiate a nationwide process of barrierremoval. The agreement resolves a complaintalleging that certain theaters operated by Carmikein Des Moines, Iowa, were not accessible toindividuals who use wheelchairs. Carmike agreedto remove barriers at the Des Moines theaters,including barriers related to inaccessible entrances,restrooms, ticket windows, lobby areas,concessions, wheelchair seating, and parking.Carmike also agreed to conduct a nationwidereview of all of its theaters to identify barriers toaccess. It developed a twenty-page survey thatwill be completed by theater managers at eachtheater, and the results will guide the company’sbarrier-removal program.

C. Other Settlements

The Department resolves numerous caseswithout litigation or a formal settlementagreement. In some instances, the publicaccommodation, commercial facility, or Stateor local government promptly agrees to takethe necessary actions to achieve compliance. Inothers, extensive negotiations are required.Following are some examples of what hasbeen accomplished through informalsettlements.

Title II

A Louisiana town completed a schedule formaking the changes listed in its transition plan.

A municipal police department in Illinois formallyadopted a written policy for ensuring effectivecommunication with persons who are deaf or hardof hearing and will train its staff in carrying out thepolicy.

U.S. Attorneys Achieve More 9-1-1 Agreements -- In a continuing nationwide complianceeffort, U.S. Attorney’s offices entered written agreements to ensure direct, equally effectiveaccess for TDD users to 9-1-1 emergency systems in twenty-two additional localities --

Childersburg, Alabama Gulfport, MississippiEtowah County, Alabama Wilkes County, North CarolinaLincoln, Alabama Ardmore, OklahomaSylacauga, Alabama Durant, OklahomaSt. Claire County, Alabama Muskogee, OklahomaTuscaloosa County, Alabama Dekalb County, TennesseeEast St. Louis, Illinois Giles County, TennesseeCanyon County, Indiana Hickman County, TennesseeGary, Indiana Jackson County, TennesseeKoontenai County, Indiana Overton County, TennesseePlaquemines Parish, Louisiana Southside Place, Texas

The agreements require each 9-1-1 center to have TDD capability at each call-taker position,to query every “silent call” with a TDD, and to thoroughly train each call taker in handlingTDD calls.


A county board of commissioners in Georgiaagreed that all future meetings will be held eitheron the first floor of the courthouse, which isaccessible, or, if a large crowd is present, themeeting will be moved to another accessiblelocation.

A parish in Louisiana completed items listed in itstransition plan to make its courthouse accessible,including installing grab bars in the restroom,providing a cup dispenser at the water fountain,and posting signs indicating whom to contact ifassistance is required.

A western State highway patrolagreed to provide additionalinstruction at its training academyabout individuals with speechdisabilities. The highway patrol has also agreedto provide training for all incoming clerical staffregarding the ADA.

An inmate at a northeastern State prison who wasremoved from his job in the institution’s kitchenbecause he uses a cane to assist him was offeredreinstatement.

A Michigan county courthouse completedalterations to its annex in compliance with theADA standards and completed a self-evaluationand a transition plan.

A Virginia municipality made numerousaccessibility improvements, including installingTTY’s, training staff on the requirements of the

ADA, providing accessible parking and restrooms,and adding a wheelchair lift to the swimming pool.The city also adopted a transition plan and acompleted self-evaluation. In addition, the citywill provide accessible seating at the city stadium.

An Illinois town agreed to purchase, install, andmaintain an assistive listening system; designate anADA coordinator; post notices as to how toobtain reasonable modifications in policies,practices, and procedures; provide written minutesof all public meetings; and conduct a

comprehensive review of its policiesand procedures, in consultation withpersons with disabilities, to ensurethat all programs, services andactivities are accessible.

A correctional institution in Ohio installed grabbars and a shower seat in the maximum securitysection of the facility.

An Indiana theater agreed to add additionalaccessible seating to its newly altered facility.

Title III

A franchised quick-service restaurant in Georgiaredesigned its accessible parking and installed aramp to comply with the ADA Standards.

A bank in southwestern Virginia agreed to makeits newly installed automated teller machine (ATM)more accessible by providing instructions onBrailled panels attached to each ATM.

OtherSettlements

ENFORCEMENT/OTHER SETTLEMENTS


II. Mediation

Through a technical assistance grant fromthe Department, The Key Bridge Foundation isaccepting referrals of complaints under titles IIand III for mediation by professional mediatorswho have been trained in the legalrequirements of the ADA. More than 350professional mediators are available to mediateADA cases in **45 States. Over 80 percent ofthe cases in which mediation has beencompleted have been successfully resolved.Following are recent examples of resultsreached through mediation.

l A person with a physical disability who uses aservice animal complained that a Massachusettsrestaurant initially refused to serve her, claimingthat it only permitted guide dogs for blindpersons. The restaurant’s policy was based onmisinformation provided by a local healthorganization. The director of the healthorganization apologized to the complainant forunintentionally misinforming the restaurant ownerabout the ADA and for the humiliation thatresulted. The director agreed to write anarticle about the ADA and service animals fora state health organization publication and toinform all restaurant owners in the local area ofthe rights of people who use service animals.The director also agreed to enclose aninformational flyer in all license renewal noticesin the next year. The restaurant ownerapologized to the complainant for thediscomfort that was caused and agreed tochange the restaurant policy to comply with theADA. The owner also agreed to purchase aneducational video and to utilize it to train theentire staff at the restaurant.

l A California restaurant and a Michigan officebuilding agreed to install accessible parkingspaces.

l An Ohio hotel, an Arkansas jewelry store, anda Utah retail store agreed to install accessibleramps.

l In Mississippi, a person with a visionimpairment complained that a restaurant deniedher access and service because she used aservice animal. The owner agreed to display asign in the establishment stating that serviceanimals are welcome and agreed to instruct allhis employees that people who use serviceanimals are to be welcomed, seated, andserved in the same manner as all customers.

l In California, a wheelchair user complained thata hotel had no rooms with accessiblebathrooms. The owner agreed to make threeguest rooms fully accessible with accessiblebathrooms, apologized to the complainant forthe inconvenience caused, and paid thecomplainant $500.

l A wheelchair user complained that a Californiarestaurant did not have an accessible restroom.The owner agreed to remodel the restrooms.Additionally, the owner agreed to create asports program for people with disabilities andto pay the complainant $6,000.

l In Iowa, a wheelchair user complained that anauction house was not accessible. The owneragreed to build a ramp to the bleachers and toprovide a wheelchair accessible seatinglocation.

l The mother of a four-year-old boy with asthmaand anaphylaxis food allergy to milk proteinscomplained that her son had been deniedadmission to an Illinois preschool because ofhis disabilities. The school director agreed toinclude a statement of nondiscrimination in the

MEDIATION


parent handbook, in the school brochure, andin a monthly newsletter and to create writtenprocedures for staff regarding interaction withchildren with disabilities. The director agreedto train all appropriate staff and to maintainrecords of the training and make the recordsavailable to parents. The director also agreedto write a letter to the boy apologizing for notadmitting him to the school and to pay thecomplainant $650.

l In Massachusetts, a person who uses a canecomplained that a bar was not accessible anddid not have an accessible restroom becausethe path of travel was blocked by the stageand a band’s set-up. The owner agreed tomaintain a clear path into the bar from theaccessible entrance, to ensure that the stagedoes not block the door to the accessiblerestroom, and to maintain a clear path to therestroom. The owner agreed to train the staffduring the staff meetings on how to interactwith and assist people with disabilities.

l In North Carolina, a wheelchair usercomplained that a recreational train was notaccessible and did not have an accessiblerestroom at the ticketing and boarding area.The owner agreed to provide an accessiblepath of travel between the ticket office and thetrain door and to provide an accessibleentrance to board the train. The owner alsoagreed to make a restroom accessible and tochange the height of a drinking fountain tocomply with the ADA.

l A person who is deaf complained that a NorthCarolina doctor refused to pay for the servicesof a qualified sign language interpreter foroffice visits. The doctor agreed that he has aresponsibility to pay for interpreter services andthe complainant agreed that the doctor has theright to have input into who the interpretershould be.

l In Ohio, a person with a hearing disabilitycomplained that three theaters did not haveeffective assistive listening systems. All theaterowners agreed to install new infrared assistivelistening systems.

l A wheelchair user complained that an Ohiotheater did not have an accessible restroom.The owner agreed to make the restroomsaccessible.

l In Pennsylvania, a person who is deafcomplained that two doctors refused to pay forthe services of qualified sign languageinterpreters for office visits. The doctorsagreed to comply with the ADA’s requirementsfor effective communication. They will developa previsit questionnaire for use by all patientswho are deaf or hard of hearing. One of thequestions on the form will be whether thepatient believes a qualified sign languageinterpreter is necessary for effectivecommunication during the office visit. Thedoctors also agreed to develop an exit form forpatients to evaluate the effectiveness of thecommunication during the office visit. Thedoctors agreed to instruct the appropriate staffmembers on the use of these forms and toattend training to increase sensitivity towardpeople who are deaf or hard of hearing and toconvey this information to staff members. Thedoctors also apologized for any lack ofeffective communication.

l In Texas, the parents of a four-year-old boywith atypical autism complained that auniversity-affiliated nursery school expelled theirson after the school refused to provide himcare that he needed because of his disability.The school agreed to conform its policy to theADA and include the policy in its handbook.The board also agreed to pay the complainants$3,800.

MEDIATION


III. Certification of State and Local Building Codes

The ADA requires that newly constructedor altered facilities comply with the ADAStandards for Accessible Design (Standards).The Justice Department is authorized to certifybuilding codes that meet or exceed the ADAStandards. In litigation, an entity thatcomplies with a certified code can offer thatcompliance as rebuttable evidence ofcompliance with the ADA.

In implementing its authority to certifycodes, the Department works closely with Stateand local officials, providing extensivetechnical assistance to enable them to maketheir codes equivalent to the ADA. Inaddition, the Department responds to requestsfor review of model codes and providesinformal guidance to assist private entities thatdevelop model accessibility standards to makethose standards equivalent to the ADA.

The Department has certified the accessibilitycodes of the States of Washington, Texas, Maine,and Florida, and has pending requests forcertification from New Mexico, Minnesota, NewJersey, Maryland, California, the Village of OakPark, Illinois, and the County of Hawaii. TheDepartment is also reviewing model codessubmitted by the Building Officials and CodeAdministrators, International; and the SouthernBuilding Code Congress, International. Recentcertification activity includes --

Florida -- Acting Assistant AttorneyGeneral Bill Lann Lee and Governor LawtonChiles held a joint press conference inTallahassee, Florida, to announce that theDepartment of Justice certified that the FloridaAccessibility Code for Building Construction meetsor exceeds the requirements of the ADA. Thisdecision was the result of a three-year effort inwhich the State officials worked closely with theDepartment to ensure that the new Florida codeis consistent with the ADA. Before thecertification became final, the Department solicitedpublic comment on its preliminary determinationand held public hearings in Orlando, Florida, andWashington, D.C.

Nationwide -- In conjunction with thecertification of the Florida Code, Acting AssistantAttorney General Bill Lann Lee wrote to theGovernors of each State that has not yetrequested ADA certification of its accessibilitycode to encourage them to make their Stateaccessibility codes ADA-equivalent and to seekcertification. In these letters, Mr. Lee emphasizedthe benefits of certification — “By meshing localand Federal requirements, certification willincrease the number of accessible buildings anddecrease the need for costly litigation.”

CERTIFICATION


TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The ADA requires the Department ofJustice to provide technical assistance toentities and individuals with rights andresponsibilities under the law. TheDepartment encourages voluntary complianceby providing education and technicalassistance to businesses, governments, andmembers of the general public through avariety of means. Our activities includeproviding direct technical assistance andguidance to the public through our ADAInformation Line, developing anddisseminating technical assistance materials tothe public, undertaking outreach initiatives,operating an ADA technical assistance grantprogram, and coordinating ADA technicalassistance government-wide.

ADA Home Page

An ADA home page is operated by theDepartment on the Internet’s World Wide Web(http://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 enforcementactivities,

l the ADA technical assistance program,

l certification of State and local buildingcodes,

l proposed changes in ADA regulations andrequirements, and

l the ADA mediation program.

The home page also provides direct access to:

l ADA regulations and technical assistancematerials (which may be viewed online ordownloaded for later use), and

l links to the Department’s press releases,ADA Bulletin Board, and Internet homepages of other Federal agencies that containADA information.

** Justice Issues New 9-1-1 Questions & Answers -- The Department has issuedupdated guidance for 9-1-1 and other telephone emergency service providers, entitled ADAAccess for 9-1-1 and Telephone Emergency Services. This document replaces “CommonlyAsked Questions Regarding Telephone Emergency Services,” the Department’s earlierguidance on this issue. It outlines ADA requirements for access to emergency telephoneservices for persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have speech impairments andwho use TTY’s (text telephones, also referred to as “TDD’s” or “telecommunications devicesfor deaf persons”). It offers guidance on, for example, the number and types of TTYequipment telephone emergency providers must have; required procedures for recognizingand handling TTY calls; and recommended measures for training and testing staff. ADAAccess for 9-1-1 and Telephone Emergency Services is available through the ADAInformation line, the ADA Fax on Demand System (document number 3304), and the ADAHome Page.

IV. Technical Assistance


TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

ADA Information Line

The Department of Justice operates a toll-free ADA Information Line to provide informationand publications to the public about therequirements of the ADA. Automated service,which allows callers to listen to recordedinformation and to order publications, is available24 hours a day, seven days a week. ADAspecialists are available on Monday, Tuesday,Wednesday and Friday from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00p.m. and on Thursday from 1:00 p.m. until 6:00p.m. (Eastern Time). Spanish language service isalso available.

To obtain general ADA information, getanswers to technical questions, order free ADAmaterials, or ask about filing a complaint, call:

800-514-0301 (voice)800-514-0383 (TDD)

ADA Fax On Demand

The ADA Information Line’s Fax DeliveryService allows the public to obtain free ADAinformation by fax 24 hours a day, seven days aweek. By entering the appropriate documentcode number, callers can select from among 25different ADA technical assistance publicationsand receive the information, usually within minutes,directly on their fax machines or computer fax/modems. A list of available documents and theircode numbers may be ordered through the ADAInformation Line.

Publications and Documents

Copies of the Department’s ADA regulationsand publications, including the TechnicalAssistance Manuals for titles II and III, andinformation about the Department’s technicalassistance grant program, can be obtained bycalling the ADA Information Line or writing to theaddress listed below. All materials are available

in standard print as well as large print, Braille,audiotape, or computer disk for persons withdisabilities.

Disability Rights SectionCivil Rights DivisionU.S. Department of JusticeP. O. Box 66738Washington, D.C. 20035-6738

Copies of the legal documents and settlementagreements mentioned in this publication can beobtained by writing to:

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act BranchAdministrative Management SectionCivil Rights DivisionU.S. Department of JusticeP.O. Box 65310Washington, D.C. 20035-5310Fax: 202-514-6195

Currently, the FOI/PA Branch maintainsapproximately 10,000 pages of ADA material.The records are available at a cost of $0.10 perpage (first 100 pages free). Please make yourrequests as specific as possible in order tominimize your costs.

The FOI/PA Branch also provides access toADA materials on the World Wide Web at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/records.htm. A link tothis website is provided from the ADA HomePage.

ADA regulations and technical assistancematerials can also be downloaded from theDepartment’s ADA Bulletin Board System (ADA-BBS). The ADA-BBS, which includes selectedADA documents from other agencies, can bereached by computer modem by dialing 202-514-6193 or accessed on the Internet throughwww.fedworld.gov using telnet software. TheADA Home Page also provides a link to thefedworld website.


The U.S. Department of Transportationthrough the Federal Transit Administrationoffers technical assistance to the public concerningthe transportation provisions of title II and title IIIof the ADA.

Toll Free ADA Assistance Line888-446-4511 (voice/relay)

ADA documents and general questions202-366-1656 (voice/relay)

ADA legal questions202-366-4011 (voice/relay)

ADA information, questions or complaints202-366-2285 (voice)202-366-0153 (TDD)

Project ACTION800-659-6428 (voice/relay)202-347-3066 (voice)202-347-7385 (TDD)

The U.S. Architectural and TransportationBarriers Compliance Board, or Access Board,offers technical assistance to the public on theADA Accessibility Guidelines.

ADA documents and questions800-872-2253 (voice)800-993-2822 (TDD)

The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) isa free telephone consulting service funded by thePresident’s Committee on Employment of Peoplewith Disabilities. It provides information andadvice to employers and people with disabilitieson reasonable accommodation in the workplace.

Information on workplace accommodation800-526-7234 (voice & TDD)

V. Other Sources of ADA Information

The Equal Employment OpportunityCommission offers technical assistance to thepublic concerning title I of the ADA.

ADA documents800-669-3362 (voice)800-800-3302 (TDD)

ADA questions800-669-4000 (voice)800-669-6820 (TDD)

The Federal Communications Commissionoffers technical assistance to the public concerningtitle IV of the ADA.

ADA documents202-857-3800 (voice)202-293-8810 (TDD)

ADA questions202-418-1098 (voice)202-418-0484 (TDD)

The National Institute on Disability andRehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the U.S.Department of Education has funded centers inten regions of the country to provide technicalassistance to the public on the ADA.

ADA technical assistance nationwide800-949-4232 (voice & TDD)

OTHER SOURCES OF ADA INFORMATION


HOW TO FILE COMPLAINTS

VI. How to File Complaints

Title I

Complaints about violations of title I(employment) by units of State and localgovernment or by private employers should befiled with the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission. Call 800-669-4000 (voice) or 800-669-6820 (TDD) to reach the field office in yourarea.

Titles II and III

Complaints about violations of title II by unitsof State and local government or violations of titleIII by public accommodations and commercialfacilities should be filed with --

Disability Rights SectionCivil Rights Division

U.S. Department of JusticePost Office Box 66738

Washington, D.C. 20035-6738