Update: Target settles lawsuit over inaccessible web site

If you haven’t already heard,
Target has settled with the National Federation of the Blind
On the lawsuit brought by the disability rights group over the inaccessibility of the Target web site.

Target Corp. will revamp its Web site to make it more accessible for the blind and pay $6 million in damages to plaintiffs who joined a class action lawsuit against the retailer, under a settlement announced yesterday with the National Federation of the Blind.

The national retail giant did not admit any wrong in the settlement and company officials have stated that they made improvements to the Target web site after the filing of the lawsuit.

"The NFB is very hopeful that this will be sort of a wake-up call to companies to pay attention to the issue of accessibility and that it is in their best interest to make their Web sites accessible to the blind," said Chris Danielsen, an NFB spokesman.

Speaking as a person who uses a screen reader, I’m personally very pleased to see this whole matter settled. First, the matter illustrates how businesses that operate on the web impact the lives of blind and visually consumers. Secondly, the settlement means this has been resolved and we can move forward from here. Progress is being made, albeit one step at a time.

For me, “Do the right thing” is a personal mantra, one that I believe in and pass along wherever and however it applies. In this case, Target began by not doing the right thing, but by application of the proverbial stick, they’ve come to see the light and do the right thing. Unfortunately, it is going to cost them some money in the process. They should’ve tried to take the carrot approach and just done it right when they first found out their site was inaccessible.

Update: 09/02/08

Its been said that in a compromise, neither side is fully happy. Maybe that explains why, since the news of the Target settlement has had sufficient time to make the rounds on the internet, opinions of this case vary. To understand some of the contrast, here are two different takes on this matter.

First, in The LA Times article supporting
E-commerce for the blind,
the editors posit:

It's good business -- and it's the law -- for companies to make their websites fully accessible to the visually impaired.

And, to take a differing viewpoint, read
NFB/Target Settlement Falls Short
On Disability Nation, where the editor offers the following:

While the costs for providing training may be somewhat realistic, the payments that Target must make to the NFB over the next three years cause me to wonder about their real purpose for being involved in the case. Target is to pay the NFB $50,000 immediately and then another $40,000 within 12 months. This is followed by additional payments of $40,000 over the next few years. According to the settlement it appears the total of these payments will be $210,000. These payments are to cover the costs that the NFB will take on in monitoring the accessibility of the Target site. Combine this amount with the figure they will receive for providing Target employees with technical training on accessibility and you arrive at a figure likely at or above a quarter of a million dollars.

I’m certain more discussion of the accessibility issues and agreement between these two parties will come in time as the dust settles on this matter. And, I’m just as certain that even more dust will be stirred up in its wake as other sites fail to understand the legal implications of this suit.

Legal changes coming to refine definition of service animal

I’ve written here previously about the importance of colleges and universities acting proactively to enact policies between service animals and other types of assistance animals. I can personally recall the discussion we had at my college in regards to service versus therapy animals. Here's some reasons to compel your school to do the same.

If you were not aware, the U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the federal guidelines that govern access, including some proposed language changes in regards to the definition of a service animal.

My apologies for not getting this information up sooner. The deadline for action on this is Monday, August 18, 2008. So, please act quickly on this.

What follows is a letter that
The Seeing Eye, Inc.
sent to its more than 1,700 graduates, urging them to provide the DOJ with firsthand input from service dog handlers. It shows the sometimes subtle distinctions that a few words can make in proposals and policy.

The law will be tempered, so keep up on it. If your school has a policy in place, you will do well to stay abreast of this matter and keep your policy in line.

***

Dear Seeing Eye Family,

We need your help! The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking public comment on its newly proposed definition of a service animal. The Seeing Eye sent its own comments to the DOJ last Friday, and we urge you to join us by doing the same by the August 18 deadline.

Numbers count! It is vitally important that the DOJ hear as many comments as possible. In fact, this legislation is as significant as the early advocacy work that Morris Frank did for the dog guide movement decades ago. The fight isn't over, and our position needs to be heard. Submitting your comments is one of the most important things you, personally, can do for yourself and all other U.S. dog guide users.

The areas that seem to be most in need of revision are outlined in our letter below. Simply stated, we ask that the DOJ eliminate the phrase "minimal protection" in the new definition; require that the same behavior and training standards developed for dog guides be applied to all service animals; delete the "do work" wording by emphasizing task training as a defining factor in qualifying animals as "service animals;" and include a request that more guidance on taxi and private transportation access be added to the regulations. (See the Seeing Eye comments below to further illuminate these points, or to access a copy of the DOJ's Notice of Proposed Rule Making in either text or PDF format, you can go to
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648062a604

You can submit an electronic version of your comments at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648062a604
but you must do so by August 18.

Your comments can be as simple as, "I support The Seeing Eye's position on service animals," but even better is to write your own opinions on all or some of the issues addressed in our public comment.

You will have an option to insert comments directly into a field on the form or send your comments as an attachment. We advise you to write your comments first before logging onto the site because if you are on the web page too long, it will "time out" and you will have to start over again. You should also be aware that all comments, including your own, will be made available for public viewing online at
http://www.regulations.gov

The remainder of this email contains the text from The Seeing Eye's submitted comment. Thank you for joining us in this effort.

Sincerely,
Jim Kutsch

****

August 8, 2008

Dr. James A. Kutsch, Jr., President
The Seeing Eye, Inc.
P.O. Box 375
Morristown, NJ 07963-0375

Re: Revisions to Service Animal Definition
Docket ID: DOJ-CRT-2008-0015-0001

The Seeing Eye, the pioneers and innovators of dog guide services, has been providing specially bred and trained dog guides for blind citizens of the United States since 1929. Through the efforts of one of our founders, Morris Frank, and other early graduates of our program, The Seeing Eye was instrumental in gaining access to all places of public accommodation for people traveling with dog guides. Today, as more and more people turn to animals for improved health and quality of life, The Seeing Eye commends the U.S. Department of Justice for its efforts to clarify its present regulatory language regarding the use of service animals. We particularly welcome the emphasis on maintaining control of the service animal at all times in public settings, the requirement of housebreaking and the Department's effort to formalize its position on emotional support/comfort animals.

In response to the NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 17th, The Seeing Eye offers the following comments for the Department’s consideration:

1. In response to question 9, The Seeing Eye believes that providing "minimal protection" should be removed from the proposed definition of a service animal.

The Seeing Eye is in agreement with the concerns expressed by the Coalition of Assistance Dog Organizations (CADO). We also concur that alternative language can be substituted for "providing minimal protection" while still adequately representing the tasks of specific service animals. For instance, despite the fact that dog guides provide minimal protection to their handlers every day, e.g. stopping at changes in elevation or maneuvering around obstacles, the Department has successfully included this concept within the definition of the tasks under "guiding individuals with impaired vision." Thus, providing minimal protection is intrinsically stated within the tasks that the animal performs.

2. In response to question 10, The Seeing Eye believes that the Department should eliminate certain species from the definition of service animal.

The Seeing Eye agrees with the need for the Department to establish a practical and reasonable species parameter as part of its definition of a service animal. While we have no expertise in the breeding, training and placement of species other than dogs, The Seeing Eye believes that only animals that are capable of meeting or exceeding the same high training, behavioral and safety standards as that of Seeing Eye® dogs are suitable for public access. Some of these standards include the animal's ability to calmly, quietly and consistently perform its specialized tasks in public, to urinate and defecate on command and to lie quietly beside its handler without blocking aisles, doorways, or otherwise be obtrusive in public settings.

3. In response to Question 11, The Seeing Eye believes that the Department should not impose a size or weight limitation on service animals.

The Seeing Eye agrees with the comments submitted by CADO and further adds that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce such a regulation.

4. The Seeing Eye is opposed to retaining the term "do work" in the definition of a service animal and urges the Department to form the basis of the service animal definition on task training.

The Seeing Eye is aware that, over the last several years, more than half of the Department's settlement agreements involving the "reasonable modification" requirement under Title III involved a public accommodation's refusal to permit a service animal's entry in a place of public accommodation. These claims make evident the need for concise, measurable guidance for those seeking a distinction between legitimate service animals and those used for emotional comfort or support.

We appreciate the Department's attempt to provide the broadest feasible access to individuals with service animals by using the term "do work" in its definition. However, given the fact that this term has historically been the source of much confusion and misinterpretation, we respectfully ask that the Department eliminate this language from its newly proposed definition. The Seeing Eye believes that the newly added examples of tasks performed by service animals effectively and adequately expand the meaning of service animal to include the varied services provided by working animals on behalf of individuals with all types of disabilities. Moreover, task training elevates the animal's status from a non-task trained animal to a trained service animal that is more likely to consistently mitigate its owner's disability in public and be easily identified by the tasks it performs. Again, service animals that are suitable and appropriate for public access must be held to extremely high standards.

5. The Seeing Eye urges the Department to include specific language about denial of service by private transportation providers to people who use service animals in its regulatory language.

One of the most common complaints we receive involves taxicab drivers who refuse to transport our graduates and their Seeing Eye dogs. Many drivers claim to have allergies, fears or religious beliefs that prohibit them from allowing dogs into their vehicles.

We realize that this issue is not addressed in the NPRM, but, nevertheless, we ask that the Department consider incorporating text into the proposed regulation guidance that specifies that allergies, religious beliefs and fear of animals are not valid excuses for denying access to passengers with service animals.

The Seeing Eye appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed service animal revisions. We applaud the Department for its outstanding work and believe that with the incorporation of the comments noted above, the revised regulations will promote the responsible use of access rights and prevent the erosion of societal tolerance for dog guide and other service animal teams in places of public accommodation.

More news about Springfield MO woman with monkey: Therapy or service animal status is main point in question

I’ve previously written here about
Debby Rose,
The Springfield, Missouri woman with a real monkey of a problem.

Rose has agoraphobia and a panic disorder and travels with a monkey at her side, which she claims is a service animal. She made national news headlines last year when the local health department sent 1,000 letters to local businesses, instructing them that her monkey is considered a therapy animal, and not a service animal as Rose has contended, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Director of Health said that by that definition, businesses and establishments governed by the ADA do not have to admit Rose with her monkey named Richard. He stated that the monkey’s presence would violate food and health codes. Rose argued that point in a well-publicized effort, but I’d not heard any more on this matter until recently.

There’s been some news lately on Rose’s on-going battle with the Springfield-Grene County Health Department.

She is challenging the health department’s assertion in court. Just this week,
Rose filed a civil suit
against not only the health department, but also Wal-Mart and Cox Health, where she attempted to attend nursing school

She contends that the letters sent out by the health department stopped her from going to public places, but also denied her from getting an education.

Many businesses quit letting Rose and Richard in after the health department sent out the letters to ban the monkey because of food and health codes.

Rose says she was stopped before she could go into the Wal-Mart on Kansas Expressway.

Rose says, “A manager walked in with the letter in his hand laughing saying you’re not getting in here.”

Rose says she and Richard can’t go anywhere that serves food including her daughter’s soccer game, Wal-Mart and even nursing school at Cox Health.

One of the biggest sticking points that the health department cites is the lack of training for the monkey. Even though Rose asserts that Richard is registered as an assistance animal with three different organizations, and is even a required restriction for her driver’s license, she has not convinced the health director of any formal training process that her animal assistant has undergone.

I’m just wondering about that little matter of that driver’s license restriction, wherein Rose says she was told by the state licensing agency that she could not drive without her “service animal due to her disability.” If that is found as a credible and valid point, will that validate Rose’s case?

This matter again brings to light the important legal difference between a therapy animal and assistance animal under the ADA. It also illustrates the reason why colleges and universities need to be proactive in developing a service animal policy.

Latest news regarding ADA Restoration Act of 2007

There seems to be some stirring on the legal front regarding the ADA Restoration Act of 2007.

According to this Human Resources Executive Online article,
a compromise is in the works
between advocates for disability rights and the business community. These represent the two factions in the legal tug of war that has been going on in Congress as the lawmakers attempt to retool the Americans with Disabilities Act.

While the fine points are still subject to change, it is good to see that things are progressing. Two of the biggest sticking points for employers have been the language of the proposed change in defining the criteria for a qualified disability and the use of mitigating devices, such as hearing aids . I'm glad to see that these have apparently been worked out.

The following information is from the article:

The proposed language, which could still change, would redefine "disability" to be any actual, past or perceived physical or mental impairment that "substantially limits a major life activity" and then defines this phrase to mean "materially restricts a major life activity," according to details released by the American Association of People with Disabilities.

The proposal also includes a non-exhaustive list of covered major life activities, and defines the operation of major bodily functions as a covered major life activity.

According to the language released, the proposed compromise:

* States that mitigating measures should not be considered when determining whether an impairment materially restricts an individual's major life activity, including medical devices, assistive technology, behavior adaptations, reasonable accommodation or auxiliary aids. This would reverse the ruling in the Sutton vs. United Airlines decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that "mitigating measures" should be taken into account when determining whether a plaintiff is disabled.

* Excludes minor impairments and impairments with an actual or expected duration of six months or less as disabilities.

* States that employers would not need to provide reasonable accommodations to employees they regard as disabled.

* Includes a section with examples of major life activities such as caring for oneself, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating and working. The high court, in Toyota vs. Williams, ruled a disability must "substantially limit [an individual's] daily life activities," not just abilities at work. The case involved the inability of an assembly worker with carpal tunnel syndrome to do her job.

Both Michael Layman, manager of employee and labor relations for the Society for Human Resources Management, and Michael Imparato, AAPD CEO and president, say technical details are still being worked out, but they are confident a compromise will be reached soon, possibly within two weeks.

"We know the clock is ticking and we want to move forward with a deal," Layman says. "We are close to coming up with a proposal that will be fair to both employers and employees."

Court says U.S. Treasury Department discriminates against blind people

I think change is in the air.

And, I’m not talking about loose change. Its bigger than that. The change of which I speak is concerning our paper money here in the United States. You see, an appeals court judge has just ruled that our current system of
paper money discriminates against blind people.

Whether you agree with the lawsuit brought by the
American Council of the Blind
(ACB), or not, the legal arguments made in the suit requesting change are valid.

Of all the major developed countries in the world, only the U.S. has nothing in place to make possible tactile discrimination between different denominations of our paper money. So, the Treasury Department cannot argue that it isn’t possible. Nor, due to the constantly reworkings almost every bill has received in recent years by this department, can they argue undue hardship. And, the legal argument striking down the Treasury Department’s defense of the current system due to the adaptability of most blind people having a way to cope are just as strong.

From the Associated Press article:
“The court ruled 2-1 that such adaptations were insufficient. The government might as well argue that, since handicapped people can crawl on all fours or ask for help from strangers, there's no need to make buildings wheelchair accessible, the court said.”

I may be wrong, but I expect that the Treasury Department will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. Even if they choose to accept the current ruling as the right thing to do and quit appealing, change will be slow in coming. Still, I do believe change is in the air.

Disability rights advocate Bender speaks up for passage of ADA Restoration Act

There is an interesting article by Joyce Bender, titled
The waiting Game Must End for People with Disabilities,
which was just published in
The Cutting Edge News.

In this well-crafted opinion piece, Bender draws upon the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. to link the civil rights movement to the disability rights movement. Once that connection is established, she skillfully transitions to make the argument for people with disabilities to be active participants in seeing through passage of the ADA Restoration Act of 2007.

Her call to action reads:
“In his book, “Why We Can’t Wait,” Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “the Negro had been an object of sympathy and wore the scars of deep grievances, but the nation had come to count on him as a creature who could quietly endure, silently suffer, and patiently wait. He was well trained in service and, whatever the provocation, he neither pushed back or spoke back.” This sounds familiar to me. This is the attitude of many of us in the disability community. We in the disabilities community just sit back and wait. We have waited now for almost 20 years. “

She then strongly encourages the affected population to find their voice by getting registered to vote, as well as contacting their Representatives and Senators in Washington D.C., to promote passage of the ADA Restoration Act.

Joyce Bender, a widely recognized disability rights advocate, is the President and CEO of
Bender Consulting,
A technology consulting firm, specializing in creating competitive employment and career opportunities for people with disabilities.

NFB suit against Target will have ripples regarding web accessibility

There is an interesting article titled
Slow motion wake-up call for web accessibility,
Which reflects upon and highlights some of the aspects of the lawsuit by the National Federation of the Blind against Target stores. The article is published in
Network World, Inc.
an online publication for Information Technology (IT) professionals, and is written by Scott Bradner, the Technology Security Officer at Harvard University.

In the article, the author compares what it means to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, comparing Section 508 against the W3C standards.

Perhaps, most interesting, is his prognostication for the result of that lawsuit:
“The Target case is proceeding slowly, but still should be seen as a wake-up call for Web site operators. The handwriting is on the wall and it seems there is no small chance that the courts will rule for the NFB and even if they do not, Congress might not be far behind in fixing any lack. Of course, there is no requirement to wait until the courts rule; it is just fine to get a start now — in fact, it just might be the right thing to do. “

Did you notice that last sentence? A suggestion for doing the right thing. Boy, it is great to see somebody in the IT field that thinks about doing the right thing.

Now, wouldn't it be great if we could cause Mr. Bradner's attitude to be contagious among his peers in regards to web accessibility.

Not everybody is working for passage of the ADA Restoration Act of 2007

Just because you feel passionately about the Americans with Disabilities Act and are optimistic about the passage of the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 doesn’t mean that somebody isn’t out there working against what you are hoping will be passed into law.

If you’ve not been keeping up, there are organized efforts working just as hard to stop the passage of H.R. 3195. Some of this work is very direct, while other work is a bit more subtle.

The Washington D.C. conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation just published a position paper outlining why they feel that the
ADA Restoration Act undermines the employer-employee relationship.

Also, the Society for Human Resource Managers
(SHRM) has called the ADA Restoration Act a bad idea
and has sent out an action alert to its members. This alert is calling for SHRM members to contact their representatives and urge them to vote against the resolution.

If you watched the Republican debate on CNN last night, then you might have noticed that SHRM was one of the sponsors. Remember what I said about the Republican View in my post yesterday? It seems that SHRM noticed it too and is working to promote the cause through the sponsorship of the debate.

George Lenard, A St. Louis labor and employment lawyer
challenges SHRM’s alarmist alert
on his blog and also offers a seasoned labor attorney’s perspective on the pending bill.

There are more web sites than these out there taking a stand against the ADA Restoration Act, but I wanted to share these to point ut that the passage of this legislation is not a slam dunk by any means. While it may make perfect sense to you and I, the conservative, pro-business side is fighting it tooth and nail. Rest assured that there are organized steps being pursued to follow up on their wishes. That means you need to do more than just sit back and pray that this bill will pass. Take action. If you want to see this pass, then you need to contact your representative and let him/her know how you feel.

House committee reviews case of ADA Restoration Act of 2007

If you didn’t already know, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Education and Labor had a hearing on the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 (H.R. 3195) yesterday. For details of the hearing, go to the
committee’s official press release site.

The committee hearing is part of the review process of the legislation, which is seeking to reaffirm the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Included in the report are testimony excerpts from Carey McClure, Andrew Imparato, and Robert Burgdorf.

McClure spoke about how General Motors revoked their initial job offer to him, due to his muscular dystrophy. The courts supported GM’s position, citing that McClure had adapted his activities of daily living sufficient enough so that he was no longer considered disabled, and thus, not covered by the ADA.

Imparato is the president and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities and spoke on the progressive trend of courts stripping away the beacon of hope that the original ADA was to people with disabilities.

Burgdorf is a law professor at the University of the District of Columbia and addressed the factual statistics that support Imparato’s allegations.

For party contrast, you may also want to review the
Republican view,
As the tone of that press release leans in a different direction than that which is in the first report.

It is good to finally see this legislation working its way through the system. We can only hope that the good and common sense of Congress triumphs over the prevailing system of Washington lobbyists dollars being used to push their agendas.

On Segways, Veterans, and Disney

There’s an interesting article in a recent edition of
USA Today
About the non-profit group
Segs4Vets
and their Program which Grants Segway personal transporters to disabled veterans.

I thought the scenario the article opened with was interesting. Attempting to give a personal application of the segway’s benefits , the article notes that one man who lost a leg in Iraq used to avoid walking around the amusement park with his wife and 2-year old son, because it was too much for him. Now the man says, with the Segway, he can now stay at the amusement park.

I don’t know which amusement partk that was, but I don’t believe it would be a Disney park. If you don’t already know,
Disney has banned the use of Segways in their parks.

According to the above-linked MSNBC article concerning the Disney ban,
“Disney World isn't the only place to restrict the use of Segways. They're also prohibited at Disney's California parks _ Disneyland and California Adventure. Sea World Orlando says it doesn't allow them for safety reasons and San Francisco last year outlawed them on its sidewalks.”

However, the article notes that Universal Orlando, the resort city’s other major theme park has no policy on the transporters.

Personally, I don’t think that the park should be in the business of telling anybody with a disability what kind of assistive device they can use. While the FDA has not yet classified the Segway as an approved medical device, the machine has developed a niche following among folks with neurological disabilities, such as Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and spinal cord injuries, each of which can make it difficult for the impaired person to walk.

Instead of outright banning the segways, the parks could look at creating a policy which would be designed to regulate their usage. If the park is concerned because the top speed is faster than most motorized wheelchairs, then I feel certain that their legal eagles could wrangle some legal language to state just how fast they would be restricted to travel. Additionally, they could limit their use to just those with disabilities, indicated by the disabled parking decal or placard they display. The parking attendants could issue a permit to these people when they enter the parking facility.

Disney does not have to allow anybody the use of a Segway in their parks, and until made to change, I’m sure they won’t. Perhaps they believe that as long as they deny the use of Segways to everybody, they are not discriminating. I’ve read where they are being sued over this ban, but being the devices aren’t recognized by the FDA, Disney may be on sound legal footing. However, if the FDA should recognize them, then look out.

It is nonetheless still a sad footnote that the vets receiving these Segways won’t be able to go to the Disney parks with their families. At least not with their Segways.

Is the GOP ignoring people with disabilities?

Access Ability does not usually tend to wade into political waters, but sometimes the worlds of disability rights and politics must inevitably cross. Most recently, they have seemed to do so on the front of the ADA Restoration Act of 2007.

However, some politicians, namely Republicans, would do well to offer an explanation for the events highlighted in a recent article titled,
Why the GOP is ignoring the disabled.

The article, from the online political magazine
eTalkinghead,
spells out several recent occasions where the GOP is ceding the disability rights vote to the Democratic party.

Perhaps there is some greater agenda which the Republican party is pursuing. It does not make any sense for them to let this huge voting block of more than 50 million Americans with disabilities feel alienated.

The article highlights a shift to hardline fiscal conservatism as a possible reason for the GOP’s ignoring the disabled population. If this is because fiscal conservatism is a hallmark of being a Republican, then I would question the past seven years of heightened, Republican-led spending. To this argument, I say, “Damn your shifting definition of fundamentals and do the right thing.”

Then again, the fiscal conservatism argument might explain
Ted Poe’s sidestep
Reply when I asked him to support the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. (Ted Poe is my Republican U.S. Representative.) If this is what Congressman Poe believes, I wish he would have said so instead of dodging the question.

I identify myself as a Republican and have tended to vote conservative, but This may need to be adjusted. I’m but one voice in a sea of millions. More than just me, the Republican party may need to examine what Americans with disabilities are thinking as a whole. If they feel as I do, they are thinking, “If the party platform ignores my basic needs, why should I support the party or its candidates?”

If you haven’t read the article linked above, I encourage you to go back and do so. It presents some serious food for thought.

Texas Tech students seek accessibility

A group of Lubbock students is pursuing an interesting and worthwhile project at Texas Tech University.

The group of four students is proposing that the university make some specific building modifications to make the
Texas Tech campus more accessible
to students with disabilities. The students are emphasizing that one particular building, Holden Hall, be made more accessible. The well presented proposal cites the Americans with Disabilities Act as its support for the merit of such an undertaking.


Not being versed in the particular accessability concerns of the Texas Tech campus, I can not personally comment on the issues raised by the students. However, if the concerns are legitimate, which I will lean towards the students for being accurate, there are some definite needs on the Texas Tech campus.

The students have made a good faith effort to present their case. I wish them well in this pursuit and look forward to seeing the outcome of their work.

Updated: Latest news about the ADA Restoration Act of 2007

The most pressing news to share today is that there is a celebration of support planned tomorrow in Washington D.C. to show solidarity for the Restoration of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Those gathered will also welcome back the Road to Freedom bus.

Senator Tom Harkin will join other supporters from 11 am – 1 pm at the U.S. Capitol to mark the return of the year-long, 50-state bus tour and traveling exhibit. In that year, the bus has logged more than 25,000 miles and made more than 100 bus stop events.

Then, to ice the cake, there is a Senate hearing on the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 at 2 pm.

Below are details from the news release:

When:
November 15, 2007
11:00 AM - 1:00 PM:
Bus and Exhibit of Disability Rights History, welcome from Senator Tom Harkin and Yoshiko Dart, Speakers including NCIL's John Lancaster, AAPD's Cheryl Sensenbrenner, AARP's Brewster Thackeray, CCD's Day Al-Mohamed, NDRN's Curt Decker, NCDR's Youth Advisory Committee Member Ari Ne'eman, NSCIA's Marcie Roth, ADA Watch's Jim Ward, Tom Olin and more.

2:00 PM: Senate Hearing on the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 in Room 430, Dirksen Senate Office Building

Where:
U.S. Capitol and National Mall at 3rd Street, NW

The Road To Freedom is a project of ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR), an alliance of hundreds of national, state and local disability, civil rights, and social justice organizations united to defend and promote the civil rights of children and adults with physical, mental,
cognitive, sensory and developmental disabilities.

For more information go to:
www.roadtofreedom.org

and for tour photos, go to:
http://adawatch.smugmug.com/gallery/2925333

Major sponsors of Road To Freedom educational activities include Open Society Institute, IndependenceFirst, AARP, AOL, Bruce Hornsby, Ted Leonsis Foundation, Dircks & Associates, Browser Media, Arizona Bridge to Independent Living, Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Resource Center, Mitsubishi Electric America Foundation, Embassy of Austria, Embassy of Croatia, Democracy In Action, National Disability Rights Network, Sweet Honey In the Rock and more.

Special thanks to DC organizers Bobby Coward and Direct Action, DC Center for Independent Living, ENDependence Center of Northern Virginia, Freedom Center, Capitol Area ADAPT and more. Thanks also to ADAPT, National Council on Independent Living, Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, American Association of People with Disabilities, National Association of Rights Protection and Advocacy, Mind Freedom International and our state and local organizers throughout the USA.

ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20004

Update: 11/16/07

Day Al-Mohamed was present at the big day’s activities, and will be posting her comments about it on her
Day in Washington
web site,hopefully by this weekend.

Being these events were on Day’s home turf, and land squarely on her professional domain, I look forward to reading her impressions.

University of Rochester case seeking to redefine term "Service Animal"

I have previously written here about how important it is for colleges and universities to act proactively and have a service animal policy in place. This policy should note the characteristics that differentiate a service animal from a therapy animal. The reason for posting about this today are some recent news articles and internet postings I’ve come across. I’ll discuss one of these on this post and write more very shortly.

A University of Rochester student filed a lawsuit on Oct. 1 to
have her Labrador retriever live with her in her dorm
and also Accompany her on campus. She has supplied some medical documentation as well as also supporting documents from dog trainers, but the university has denied her request, stating that she is neither disabled nor her dog a service animal. The comment by the UR Dean implies that they feel her dog is a pet and not a service animal.

In the article linked above, you might note two of the very credible sources the reporter sought out for their perspectives on this matter. First, there is
Jane Jarrow,
a name widely recognized and respected in disability service circles. Secondly, the reporter also sought input from the president of
Guide Dog Users Inc.,
an affiliate organization of the
American Council of the Blind,
one of the two major national blind consumer organizations. Both Jane Jarrow and GDUI are established and credible resources about service dogs and where they fall in under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

One other source cited in the article raises an issue of its own. You will notice the Psychiatric Service Dog Society (PSD) is presented as a respected and established organization. I’ll hand it to the organization. I’ve not heard of them prior to this article, but when checking out
the PSD web site,
the organization certainly appears legit. Additionally, the PSD Board of Directors is impressive and well credentialed. While we may not have heard of this group previously, I’ve got a feeling that we’ll be seeing a lot more from them in the future as well as people fighting to have accessibility with their psychiatric service dog.

Getting back to the original case, because I have no knowledge of the student’s claims or the documentation presented, I will not take a stand on this matter. However, her case serves to illustrate the need once again to have these important policies in place before facing these kinds of situations.

Dancing around the issues: Ted Poe's reply about the ADA Restoration Act of 2007

The purpose of Access Ability is not to be a political blog, but is focused on pursuing interests relating to the world of Disability Support Services. However, there are times when the goals of Access Ability and politics collide. The following is the account of such an intersection.

What is one to make of his congressman when given lip service? Sure, it was politically correct, but it was still lip service.

Case in point is the reply I received from my Representative
Ted Poe, R-TX,
In response to my email asking him to sign on as a cosponsor of H.R. 3195, the
ADA Restoration Act of 2007.

In his response, Rep. Poe gave me a rundown of the bill’s assignment for review and he followed this up by thanking me for sharing my concerns with him.

However, at no time did he acknowledge my request for him to sign on as a cosponsor, nor did he ever state whether he would or wouldn’t sign on as a cosponsor of the legislation. However, by his omission, I’ll assume he’s declining my request.

Rep. Poe's reply and obvious omission harken back to Charles Durning playing the Texas Governor in the movie Best Little Whorehouse in Texas when he busts into a jig, singing “I Dance A Little Sidestep.”

Nice move, Mr. Poe. Was that a cha-cha or just a flat-out hustle?

I understand politics and try not to take them personally. However, I take the ADA personally. It is the backbone to so many aspects of things I enjoy and understand today. If it weren’t for the ADA, I shudder to think what my college experience might have been, much less what might have been in several other facets of my everyday life. So, I take it personally that Rep. Poe has slighted my request.

I now need to think through how to proceed from here.

Okay, I’ve shared my experience of contacting my congressman in support of this legislation. I have three questions for you.

1. Have you written your Representative and done the same?

2. If so, what was your Representative’s response?

3. Any suggestions on how to proceed with Rep.Poe?

Breastfeeding mom denied extra time

There is an interesting case being appealed before the National Board of Medical Examiners. This case is a gray area, blurred because it is framed by societal issues, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the health concerns of a nursing mother, playing out against the backdrop of the rigid enforcement structure of the Clinical Knowledge Exam.

Sophie Currier
Already has her Harvard doctorate and has followed that up with five years of medical training. The final barrier that is keeping her from having a hard-earned MD-Ph.D. is the aforementioned exam.
(Note: registration is required to read this Boston Globe article, but it is free and easy.)

To understand this case fully, you need to know that Currier is the mother of a still nursing, 7-week old daughter. According to the article linked above, “If she does not pump milk from her breasts every two or three hours, she could suffer blocked ducts, the discomfort of hard breasts, or an infection called mastitis.”

Currier is receiving accommodations for dyslexia and attention problems. This includes giving her double time for the nine-hour exam, letting her take the test over a two-day period. On the surface, this may appear to help ameliorate her problems, but it only doubled them, allowing her only the normally allowed break times each day.

She asked the board last week for extra break time to allow her to pump her breasts, but was denied. The board cited the Americans with Disabilities Act as their guide and told her that breastfeeding was not among the covered disabilities.

Yes, it is true that, under the ADA, pregnancy, lactation and related actions such as breast feeding and breast pumping are not covered by the law. However, what they are dealing with in this case are health concerns of the mother. Granted, the short time that she will be subjected to testing is not guaranteed to incur the possible adverse physical results that are possible. Still, there are health concerns that are not necessarily disabilities, no matter how temporary the condition is.

According to the article, “Forty-seven states have passed laws that protect nursing mothers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Many protect the right of mothers to breast-feed in public, and some exempt them from jury duty, where breaks can be few and unpredictable.” Unfortunately for Currier, Massachusetts, where her case is playing out, has no such laws at this time.

It is interesting that one of Currier’s advocates, Dr. Ruth Lawrence, is a chairwoman on the American Academy of Pediatrics. Here, a medical professional is speaking on Currier’s behalf against the medical testing establishment. Ironic, isn’t it?

“Lawrence said the nursing mother of an infant that age should pump at a minimum of every three hours, for about one half-hour each time. The academy recommends that babies be exclusively breast-fed for the first six months .”

It is understandable that the exam board is trying to avoid setting a precedent, but they need to use the ADA as a guide, not a rigid rule that does not allow for gray areas such as this. A warden once had a sign hanging in his office that read, “When the rules and common sense collide, common sense shall prevail.” Currier’s case is one where common sense should be victorious.


Additional Reading:
Here is a 2006 Boston Globe article about Currier, illustrating how she manages her busy and demanding
life while dealing with dyslexia and ADHD.

Service dogs perform variety of roles

I recently came across a very thorough and comprhehensive discussion about
Balance Dogs and MS
On a blog named Sophie’s Thoughts.

I must admit that, while I have been familiar with the general term of Service dogs and the more specialized guide dogs, I have never heard the equally specialized term “balance dog.” It makes sense, though. A few years back, I met a professor at the University of Mary Hardin Baylor who used a wheelchair and had an assistance dog. She didn’t call her dog a balance dog, but after reading Sophie’s blog, I would think that was a pretty good description of what he did. Sure, the dog did other tasks for the woman, but I’ll never forget one role the canine performed that sticks out in my mind still today. During a presentation, I heard the professor discuss how her dog assisted in transfers from her chair. To perform this task, when commanded, the dog would lock his leg joints to allow her to support herself on his back and execute the transfer. I’m still fascinated today with this specialized role that a dog can provide.

Sophie’s blog post linked above has some general information about service dogs, including legal issues. She also provides a list of other muscular disabilities, aside from MS, where an assistance dog may be able to benefit somebody with one of these disabilities.

ADA Restoration Act of 2007 reference sites

To help interested parties stay abreast on what is going on with the ADA Restoration Act of 2007, I offer the following two links.

First, there is a blog specifically dedicated to
The ADA Restoration Act of 2007.
In addition to the latest updates and co-sponsors of the legislation, this informative blog has links to press releases tracking the progress of the bills in both houses of Congress.

Secondly, there is the ReunifyGally blog that is gathering
links to all blogs that write about the ADA Restoration Act of 2007.

FYI, ReunifyGally is referring to reunifying
Gallaudet University.
From the “About” page on the ReunifyGally web site:
“I established this blog in the hope of helping to support the healing and reunification of the Gallaudet community by enabling dialogue on sensitive topics raised by the protests. By “Gallaudet community,” I mean both people on campus and also those of us across the country and around the world who feel some link to Gallaudet, whether or not we have ever been there. “

ADA Restoration Act of 2007 is introduced

In case you missed it, this past Thursday was July 26, the 17th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Since that act was signed into law, there have been a litany of court cases where people have claimed they had been discriminated against, most often by employers. Too often, though, the claimants have been struck down in the judicial process, basically stating that they weren’t disabled enough to qualify for protection under the ADA. These were usually cases where people had a disability, but were either taking medication or using a prosthetic device or hearing aid to help manage the disability’s impact on their lives. Basically, the employers said the person was too disabled to have the job and this was compounded by the court saying they were not disabled enough to qualify as a covered party under the ADA.

For some time now, people have been pushing for a redefining of the ADA and it is finally happening. On Thursday, not coincidentally, U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced the
ADA Restoration Act of 2007
In the House of Representatives, while a similar measure was also introduced in the Senate.

This update will tweak the original wording of the ADA to hopefully correct the overly narrow interpretation that the Supreme Court has wrought in many cases. In Rep. Sensenbrenner’s own words, “The ADA Restoration Act will force courts to focus on whether a person has experienced discrimination “on the basis of disability,” rather than require individuals to demonstrate that they fall within the scope of the law’s protection at all… The legislation will finally enable Americans with disabilities to shine a light on the discrimination they have experienced.”

In a promising demonstration of bipartisanship, Rep. Sensenbrenner Introduced the legislation at a press conference with the
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer and Sen. Tom Harkin.

I believe Rep. Hoyer’s words rang true for many when he said, “"Let me be clear: This is not what Congress intended when it passed the ADA. We intended a broad application of this law. Simply put, the point of the ADA is not disability, it is the prevention of wrongful and unlawful discrimination.”

You might want to check out the latest edition of
Government Technology,
An on-line magazine for Information Technology professionals, for an article about the ADA Restoration Act. It is interesting to note the ironic twists of interaction that Tony Coelho has had with the original ADA and its interpretation by the judicial system.

Web Accessibility: Its two, two, two posts in one

As promised, I’m back with more on web accessibility. However, I’m combining the two posts I mentioned into this one today, as the common theme is web accessibility.

Let me begin by saying up front that I readily admit that I am not a geek. While I believe I am somewhat computer savvy, I cannot wear the badge of geek. I know the difference between accessible and inaccessible web sites and software, very often, only by personal experience. I know the particular mechanics of what makes the web page accessible no better than I know what makes the mechanics of a garbage disposal operate. However, I do not have to know what makes them work to understand when they are not working for me.

However, Jeremy Keith is a web developer in Brighton, England, and I think he would fit whatever the criteria is to be a geek. (Mr. Keith, I use the term “geek” with all due reverence. Web developers know and do things I cannot even dream of.)
On his,
Adactio Journal,
Mr. Keith recently penned a very good post about
The Language of Accessibility,
Where he reflects upon a recent conference he attended in Germany.


His discussion takes us down the path of what accessibility means. In some pretty good layman’s language, he talks about things like markup language, which non-techies like myself may not know much about, but the results of which we know very well. His words in the two paragraphs below say a lot.

“Far from being something that is added to a site, accessibility is something we need to ensure isn’t removed. From that perspective, the phrase “making a site accessible” isn’t accurate.”

“Just as “progressive enhancement” sounds better than “graceful degradation”, talking about accessibility as something that needs to be added onto a website isn’t doing us any favours. Accessibility is not a plug-in. It’s not something that can be bolted onto a site after the fact.”

Mr. Keith goes on to suggest that web designers follow his new understanding: he will talk about keeping a site accessible rather than talking about making a site accessible”

That truly does sound like the language of accessibility. Thanks for sharing it with us, Mr. Keith.

I have only offered a bit of Mr. Keith's words and insight here. Do check out his post and also check out the speech made by the speaker at the conference he attended. Those words are the foundation for the piece and will ring just as true with you.

And, for today’s second feature presentation, I offer this posting from the
FinaBlog,
Titled The State of the Art of Interactive Design.

The piece starts with a simple, but fairly accurate assessment of the progression of the internet, finishing up with a projection with where it may lead. It then weaves in the need for accessibility as an essential element, stating, “Accessibility has become one of the driving forces in web design.”

Hmmm. I’m not sure that I totally agree with that statement, but it is a nice thought.

And, maybe the writer of that piece doesn’t totally agree with that thought either, because he soon follows it by saying, “Unfortunately, most websites have accessibility barriers that make it difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to use the Web.”

Then, when he begins to speak to web developers and what they can do to make web content accessible, he also begins to use the techie lingo I’m not fully fluent in, but understand what they mean to accessibility. These include the need for developers to use XHTML and CSS. He further adds further incentive for developers to use these techniques as they aid in optimizing the site for search engines. If somebody is going to create web content, it makes sense that they would want the search engines to be able to find it.

As with Mr. Keith’s post, I have only presented a small portion of what the writer presents. This one is truly worth investing the time to read the full post. And, also like Mr. Keith’s post, worth sharing with your colleagues in web development.

Like I said earlier, I don’t have to understand what these web development techniques are to understand their impact. Describing inaccessible web content for me is much like that one judge said about pornography, I may not be able to tell you exactly what it is, but I know it when I see it. Being I’m totally blind, maybe the more accurate way of wording that phrase would be to say, “I know it when I don’t see it.”