Information and Guidance on the
Americans with Disabilities Act

Fall 2001
Volume 6, Number 1

This Issue Highlights Stories In The News

What's Inside?

Feature Stories

• New England ADA & Accessible IT Center Expands Scope Of Work
• New England ADA & Accessible IT Center Seeks Members For Regional Advisory Board
• Supreme Court Agrees to Hear ADA Cases

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

FEATURE STORIES

New England ADA & Accessible IT Center Expands Scope Of Work

Adaptive Environments has been awarded a new five-year grant from the National Institute of Rehabilitation Research at the U.S. Department of Education for the New England ADA & Accessible Information Technology (IT) Center, formerly the New England ADA Technical Assistance Center. The grant allows the Center to continue its work to support voluntary compliance with the ADA and introduces an additional scope of work to promote universally designed IT in educational settings. The Center will target public and private K-12 programs and higher education including colleges and universities and adult education programs. In addition to its network of state affiliates, new IT partners or consultants in each state will assist to provide coordination and expertise to meet this expanded agenda.

The NE ADA & Accessible IT Center welcomes three new staff members in the new grant cycle. Dr. Oce Harrison will become the Center's Project Director. Oce has twenty-five years of experience in disability rights and other social justice work. Her doctorate from Boston University is in Human Development and Education. She is a mediator and is a part-time professor at Lesley University and Bridgewater State College. David Clark, one of the nation's most skilled experts in accessible IT, serves as the Center's technical trainer and consultant. Candace Low, executive director of Independence Unlimited, a Hartford-based Independent Living Center, will provide training on telecommunications.

The IT initiative is urgently needed and timely for several reasons:

• The rapid proliferation of IT risks creating a new barrier-full world for people with disabilities.
  Recent reports indicate that there remains an alarming disparity between the prevalence of IT in all aspects of the society and the access to it by Americans with disabilities. Given the fact that technology opens new worlds of opportunity and that we have available now options for IT that works for a very wide spectrum of users, it is a situation that can and must be reversed.

• Technology and work become annually more entwined.
  Services, including 'business services' such as advertising, management consulting, software and insurance, and 'consumer services' such as entertainment, education and health care, account for 46% of all New England jobs. (New England On-Line, Business and Economy) If you cannot use IT, your chances of employment and advancement become bleaker each year.

• We have come far enough down the 'information superhighway' for everyone to have experienced the frustration of the poor user interface so common in our IT.
  Almost anyone who uses IT knows the frustration of pervasively poor product design (e.g., epidemic rates of repetitive stress injury), a level of complexity in instruction manuals that almost guarantees that only a fraction of the technology's capacity will be used, poor performance if the circumstances of use are not optimal - especially obvious in the increasing appetite for mobile computing. It is possible to choose information technology that is flexible enough to meet the needs of a very wide spectrum of users and to work easily for people with disabilities that will also need assistive technology.

The project intends to make the information about accessible IT Readily available to students, families, teachers, and the general public as well as to decision-makers and technology experts. A public awareness campaign, technical assistance, and diverse training opportunities are intended to heighten attention and build expertise in universally designed IT in education throughout New England.

Back to top

New England ADA & Accessible IT Center Seeks Members For Regional Advisory Board

The New England ADA & Accessible IT Center is forming a new Regional Advisory Board to help the Center reach its goals over the five-year grant cycle. The board will meet twice a year in Marlborough, MA. We welcome all letters of interest. The closing date for receiving these letters is December 1, 2001.

For further inquiry or to send letters of interest contact:

Oce Harrison, Ed.D.
Project Director
New England ADA & Accessible IT Center
374 Congress Street, Suite 301
Boston, MA 02210
(617) 695-1225 X27 v/tty
(617) 482-8099 fax
oharrison@adaptiveenvironments.org

Back to top

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear ADA Cases

The Supreme Court agreed to hear several cases seeking to clarify workers' protection under the ADA. The court said that it will hear one case involving a worker at a Toyota plant in Kentucky who says she is partly disabled but still able to perform some duties. A second case involves a US Airways employee in San Francisco and whether a company's seniority system takes precedence over a reasonable accommodation need for reassignment. A third case concerns an employee at a Waffle House restaurant in South Carolina and whether he waived his EEOC rights by signing a binding arbitration agreement with his employer. The cases are Toyota v. Williams, 00-1089, US Airways v. Barnett, 00-1250, and EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 99-1823. (http://supct.law.cornell.edu:8080/supct/)

The Toyota worker, Ella Williams, says she suffers from repetitive strain injuries that prevent her from performing part of her assembly line job. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Williams is disabled, and Toyota appealed to the Supreme Court. The automaker asked the high court to resolve a division among federal appeals court over workers who can perform some but not all of their assigned duties.

Williams went to work at Toyota's Georgetown, KY, plant in 1990 and was assigned to an assembly line that produced engines. Within months, she developed repetitive stress injuries in her wrists, neck and arms. She sued under the ADA in 1993, and that case was settled. She returned to Toyota in December that year with a doctor's instructions to perform only light duty. Toyota said it tried to accommodate Williams. In 1996, Toyota told Williams that all quality inspectors must be able to do four different inspection jobs interchangeably. Williams said one of the new tasks caused pain and numbness in her arms, hands, shoulders and neck. She asked to return to her old duties, but the two sides disagree over whether Toyota refused. Williams was fired, and she sued again under the ADA, claiming Toyota did not make proper accommodation for her disability. A federal district court ruled for Toyota, but the 6th Circuit court reversed that decision, saying Williams is under permanent medical restrictions and is "substantially limited as to a major life activity."

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court arguing that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Toyota v. Williams mistakenly ruled that the plaintiff was substantially limited in the major life activity of performing manual tasks, and therefore was a person with a disability, because of her inability to perform the tasks involved in a narrow range of assembly line jobs. The brief argued that to consider the plaintiff to be disabled because of the inability to perform the manual tasks associated with only a narrow range of assembly line jobs undermines the ADA's test for substantial limitation in the major life activity of working which requires the inability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. It also argued that the Sixth Circuit distorted the test for substantial limitation in performing manual tasks by limiting it only to tasks performed in connection with work. DOJ asked that the case be sent back to the Sixth Circuit for reconsideration under the correct legal standards.

In the case involving US Airways, customer service representative Robert Barnett sought a transfer after hurting his back loading baggage at San Francisco International Airport in 1990. Barnett asked to be assigned to a mailroom job, but employees with more seniority wanted the same job. Under the usual seniority rules they would have bumped Barnett to a less desirable job. Barnett was given the mailroom job temporarily, but in 1993 he was told that job would end. The airline suggested Barnett look for another assignment in the company. Declining, Barnett alleged the airline violated the ADA by failing to make reasonable accommodation for his disability. US Airways claimed that it was not obligated to set aside its seniority system for Barnett, and a federal court agreed. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court, but the full Ninth Circuit Court ruled that Barnett's case could go to trial. The appeals court said a seniority system alone does not absolve employers from seeking solutions under the ADA.

In EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., DOJ has filed a brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. DOJ's brief argues that the EEOC can seek back pay, damages, and reinstatement for an individual who was allegedly subjected to employment discrimination under title I of the ADA at a Waffle House restaurant in West Columbia, SC, even though the individual signed an arbitration agreement. The agreement required the charging party, who was fired allegedly because of his seizure disorder, to submit any employment-related disputes to binding arbitration. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that despite the arbitration agreement the EEOC could bring a lawsuit for general relief, such as an order requiring the defendant not to engage in discriminatory practices, but that it could not obtain victim-specific relief, such as damages, back pay, and reinstatement. The brief further argues that EEOC's authority to sue to enforce title I in the public interest is independent of any authority the individual has, and that the EEOC may seek all remedies authorized by the statute including victim-specific relief.

One other case with Supreme Court implications is Jones v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The case involves Michael Jones, who is blind, who claimed he was mistreated by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare and its Bureau of Blindness and Visual Services after he enrolled in job training classes. Jones said he was repeatedly expelled from the classes and was forced to appeal several times to win re-enrollment. As a result, he complained that his 16-week training course took nearly three years to complete.

Federal Judge Harvey Bartle III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that states and their agencies are immune from suits under title II of the ADA, the section that covers discrimination by any "public entity" in its provision of "services, programs or activities." Bartle said he considered the ruling the Supreme Court handed down in its decision regarding Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett in which the justices held that states are immune from suit under title I of the ADA, the section that covers employment discrimination.

Bartle said he recognized that Garrett dealt only with title I and that the justices "expressly declined" to decide whether states are also immune under title II. Bartle concluded that title II goes too far because it "does not merely proscribe irrational or intentional discrimination against individuals with a disability. Rather, the statute and its regulations address a much broader scope of otherwise constitutional activity by requiring public entities, including states, to provide affirmative action for the disabled." The fatal flaw in title II, Bartle found, is that Congress never identified a "history and pattern" of discrimination by the states against people with disabilities.

Most of the evidence in the Congressional Record involved local officials, Bartle noted, and while there was some evidence of states refusing accommodations, there was no proof of a pattern of irrational, unconstitutional conduct.

(Sources: "High Court To Hear Disability Cases," Anne Gearan, The Associated Press, April 16, 2001; Enforcing the ADA: A Status Report from the Department of Justice, April-June 2001, Issue 2; and "Judge Affirms States' Rights in ADA Suit," Shannon P. Duffy, Law.com, August 31, 2001.)

Back to top

DOJ UPDATE

Norwegian Cruise Line Agrees To Keep Ships Open To People Who Are Blind

Norwegian Cruise Line Limited, one of the largest cruise line companies operating in the United States, will allow people with visual impairments to travel on its ships under the same terms and conditions as other passengers. The agreement is contained in a consent decree reached with the Justice Department and signed by federal judge James Lawrence King in Miami, FL.

"People who are blind are competent to live and travel independently. Thanks to Norwegian Cruise Line, they will now be able to enjoy cruises on the same terms as everyone else," said Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Ralph F. Boyd, Jr.

The consent decree resolves a suit filed by the Justice Department under the ADA against the cruise line in January 2001 after the Department received complaints from three blind individuals. The individuals alleged that when they booked cruises on Norwegian ships, Norwegian imposed requirements on them because of their visual impairments that it did not impose on others. The complainants alleged that they were told that they had to have a sighted companion in their cabin, obtain a doctor's note stating that they were "fit for travel," and sign forms assuming financial liability for shipboard injuries.

One complainant, Stephen Gomes, claimed that he flew from Denver to Houston for a cruise he had booked but was left waiting on the pier while Norwegian considered whether to allow him on the ship. He alleged that he then was denied boarding because he was blind and traveling alone. Robert and Joy Stigile, a blind couple who had planned to honeymoon on the "Norwegian Wind," alleged that they were asked to sign a form requesting that they travel with a sighted companion in the same cabin. Norwegian denied these allegations, claiming that Mr. Gomes was denied boarding because of expected heavy weather, and that it ultimately withdrew the restrictions upon the Stigiles' travel.

After the lawsuit was filed, Norwegian changed its policies to allow persons with visual impairments to travel with no special terms and conditions. Under the consent decree, Norwegian Cruise Line will continue its new policies. Specifically, Norwegian Cruise Line will:

• not request or require any person with a visual impairment to travel with, or share a cabin with, a sighted companion;
• not request or require any person with a visual impairment to obtain a medical note prior to traveling;
• not request or require any person with a visual impairment to assume liability for risks associated with traveling on a cruise ship, unless such request or requirement is made to all persons;
• designate an employee to deal with and address all matters related to the ADA;
• implement ADA training for Norwegian employees;
• pay Mr. Gomes and the Stigiles a total of $42,500.

Back to top

ACCESS BOARD NEWS

Board Research Projects

The Board funds a number of research projects each year to study various aspects of accessibility in relation to architecture, communications, and transportation. These projects gather information that is useful to the Board in developing guidelines and providing technical assistance to the public. The Board recently completed projects on traffic roundabouts and bathroom design. Reports from these projects are, or soon will be, available on the Board's website at www.access-board.gov or by calling (800) 872-2253 (v) or (800) 993-2822 (TTY). A project currently underway on accessible play surfaces is due to be completed later this year.

Research Completed on Traffic Roundabouts and Pedestrians with Visual Impairments

A growing trend in roadway design favors continuous-flow roundabouts over traditional signalized intersections. While their design varies widely, roundabouts typically feature a circulatory roadway around a central island. Entering traffic yields to vehicles already in the circle. Increasingly popular in the US because they add vehicle capacity and reduce delay, roundabouts are a common feature in Europe and Australia. Studies suggest a lower incidence of serious vehicle crashes, but researchers have not considered the safety of pedestrians--in particular those who have vision impairments--in their investigations. Because crossing at a roundabout requires a pedestrian to visually select a safe gap between cars that may not stop, accessibility has been problematic.

A research project sponsored by the Board at the Department of Blind Rehabilitation at Western Michigan University assessed these issues in depth and provides recommendations for design improvements that benefit people with vision impairments. Recommendations contained in the project report, Modern Roundabouts: Access by Blind Pedestrians, address the location of cross walks, roadway design, use of traffic signals, provision of tactile warnings, and other topics. The Board will use this information in developing guidance material and proposed guidelines for public rights-of-way.

Report Issued on Toilets and Bathrooms Designed for Assisted Use

The Board has completed research through the Atlanta Research and Education Foundation on accessibility for people who need assistance in transferring to toilet and bathing fixtures. While the Board's guidelines for buildings and facilities, including those issued under the ADA, are based on independent use of such fixtures, there are certain environments, such as health care and long term care facilities, where assisted use may be common. This project identified and evaluated design solutions for accommodating persons who transfer with assistance. Information was collected from interviews with designers and operators of healthcare and senior living facilities.

The resulting report, Best Practices in the Design of Toileting and Bathing Facilities for Assisted Transfers, compiles innovative designs for toilets, showers, and tubs that are intended to accommodate both independent and assisted transfers. Specifications address room layout and configuration; the design and placement of grab bars, including fold-down and swing-away models; the height and location of toilets; and alternate criteria for tubs and showers. Included in the report are designs used at various healthcare and residential care facilities. The report calls for further research in this area to standardize best practices and innovative solutions for access that serves both independent and assisted transfers.

Accessible Play Surfaces

Last year, the Board issued new guidelines for play areas that include criteria for playground surfacing. Surfaces are specified to be soft enough to limit injury from falls but also firm and stable enough for wheelchair maneuvering. The guidelines reference standards from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for fall attenuation (F-1292) and accessibility (F-1951). In a project with the Forest Products Laboratory, the Board is furthering research on fibrous playground surfacing. This project will test coatings identified in previous research findings for use on fibrous playground surfacing materials to improve maintainability and usability. The focus will be on developing methods to improve the usability of engineered wood fiber surfaces that meet ASTM standards.

Board to Undertake Research on Indoor Air Quality

In developing and updating its accessibility guidelines, the Board has received numerous comments from individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities. They reported that chemicals released from products and materials used in the construction, renovation, and maintenance of buildings; electromagnetic fields; and inadequate ventilation are barriers that deny them access to buildings. Many of these comments identify indoor air quality as a primary concern. The Board has decided to undertake research on methods of improving indoor air quality that will build upon its history of working with model code and standards setting organizations to address the access needs of people with disabilities. The aim of this project is to bring together various stakeholders in a collaborative process to examine possible actions that can be taken during the next five years to improve the accessibility of indoor environments.

(Sources: Access Currents, Volume 7, No. 4 July/August 2001.)

Back to top

EMPLOYMENT UPDATE

EEOC Says Employer's Leave Policies Ran Afoul Of ADA

Federal District Judge John W. Darrah entered a $650,000 Consent Decree ending an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) disability discrimination lawsuit against Blood Systems, Inc. and its subsidiary United Blood Services (together United Blood), national firms in the business of collecting blood from donors and providing it to hospitals. EEOC's suit, filed under title I of the ADA, contended that United Blood's medical leave policies illegally required termination of a class of employees with disabilities after 120 days without consideration of whether an extension would be a reasonable accommodation.

The Consent Decree, entered with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (case number 99 C 26D), directs United Blood to pay an aggregate of $650,000 to 23 employees with disabilities who were terminated under its medical leave policies. The Decree also includes an injunction against future violations of the ADA; requires managers to undergo training; enjoins United Blood from refusing to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities and from terminating qualified persons on account of their disabilities; requires United Blood to amend its leave policies to conform to the terms of the Consent Decree; and requires the company to keep records and report to EEOC on requests for extended medical leaves.

John Hendrickson, regional attorney in EEOC's Chicago District Office, said, "No doubt, employers are entitled to enforce medical leave policies. They are not required to continue the employment of workers on medical leave forever. The ADA does not say that, and EEOC does not say that. What the law does require is that an employer not enforce an ironclad limit against an employee with a disability without looking at the employee individually and without considering whether some flexibility would get the employee back to work performing the essential functions of his or her job."

Prior to EEOC's filing of the suit, United Blood, without any flexibility, fired employees upon the expiration of the 120-day medical leave of absence. The terminations occurred without regard to whether an extension - even a short one - would serve as a reasonable accommodation, which would have permitted employees with disabilities to return to work and perform their essential job functions in accordance with the ADA.

John P. Rowe, EEOC district director in Chicago, said, "What the ADA teaches is that employers cannot view employees with disabilities as an undifferentiated mass without regard for their individual abilities to do the job, to remain on the job, and to return to the job. Rules such as the leave policy in this case which do not permit reasonable individual assessments and sensible accommodations do not support the interests of either employers or employees - worse, they may result in damaging violations of federal law."

Back to top
 

REGIONAL NEWS

Racquetball Player Loses Superior Court Ruling

Applying the standard that led the US Supreme Court to allow golfer Casey Martin to use a motorized cart on the professional golf circuit, a Massachusetts Superior Court judge has ruled that a racquetball player who uses a wheelchair cannot sue a Brockton athletic club for not allowing him to play in tournaments. The ruling is believed to be the first in Massachusetts to apply the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the Martin case, although Judge Ralph Gants reached a different conclusion.

Gants found that the accommodations requested by Stephen Kuketz would "fundamentally alter" the racquetball competition. In the Martin case, the Supreme Court ruled that allowing Martin to use a cart to travel between holes would not fundamentally change the game of golf. Golfers on the professional tour are required to walk during a competitive round.

Kuketz, a world-class wheelchair racquetball player, had asked the Brockton Athletic Club to allow him to participate in tournaments against competitors without disabilities. He would still play from his wheelchair, and he requested that the rules be changed to allow him two bounces, rather than one, before he hit the ball. When the club refused, Kuketz sued under the ADA. Gants ruled that Kuketz could not proceed with his lawsuit because the accommodations he requested were not reasonable.

"It may be terrific for leagues and clubs to provide these opportunities so that wheelchair players can compete meaningfully against footed players," Gants wrote, "but the ADA does not require them to depart from the official rules whenever a wheelchair player or team wants to play a footed player or team. The law permits leagues and clubs to organize baseball, golf, and basketball leagues that play their respective games in accordance with the game's official rules without running afoul of the ADA."

(Source: "Disabled Racquetballer Loses Ruling," Kathleen Burge, Boston Globe, page B1, August 30, 2001.)

Maine Voting Law Ruled Unconstitutional

A federal judge struck down a section of the Maine Constitution that bars people who are mentally ill under guardianship from voting. US District Judge George Singal concluded that the restriction adopted by the state in 1965 violated the US Constitution and federal law. Singal ruled on a lawsuit filed in October 2000 by the Maine Disability Rights Center on behalf of three women with psychiatric disabilities. They claimed that the state unfairly singled out mentally ill people regardless of whether they were able to understand the voting process. Singal concluded that disenfranchisement deprived mentally ill people of due process and violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. He also ruled that the state's restrictions ran afoul of the ADA.

Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe said his office had fulfilled its duty to defend the Maine Constitution, but he was not personally disappointed with the outcome of the case. "We are not presently inclined to appeal. However, we will review the opinion further before making a final decision,'' Rowe said. The state had argued that probate judges should have the power to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a person has the mental capacity to vote.

"We're absolutely thrilled by the decision,'' said Kristin Aiello, who argued the case on behalf of the Disability Rights Center in Augusta. "It's a great victory for my clients, as well as all people who have ever been discriminated against because of mental illness.'' Aiello said Singal's ruling could set a precedent for 40 other states with similar provisions that limit people with disabilities from voting.

(Source: "Maine Voting Victory: Judge Rules on Mentally Ill Voting," Laura Van Tosh, Justice For All, www.jfanow.org, August 11, 2001.)

Massachusetts High Court Rules On Correctable Disabilities

Parting ways with the US Supreme Court, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled that even people whose disabilities can be mitigated by such measures as a hearing aid, glasses or medicine are protected by state disability law. The decision, by the first state supreme court to rule on the issue, gives more employees protection under state law than under the ADA.

Massachusetts disability employment laws are nearly identical to the ADA. However, the justices of the SJC were not persuaded by a 1999 US Supreme Court decision, Sutton v. United Airlines, in which the nation's highest court ruled that people with correctable disabilities were not protected by the ADA. In that case, two sisters who were not hired as pilots because they wore glasses had sued the airline.

The SJC considered a case filed by Richard Dahill, a South Boston man born with a significant hearing loss that is mitigated with hearing aids. Just as Dahill was about to graduate from the police academy and begin working at the Boston Police Department, he was fired, told by supervisors that his "auditory deficiencies" kept him from doing the job of a police officer. Dahill sued the department in federal court under both the ADA and state law, and a federal judge asked the SJC for its interpretation of state law. The decision means that Dahill's case will now proceed in federal court under state law and focus on one issue: Can he perform the duties of a police officer?

Some observers who disagreed with the decision said it allows employees to more easily sue employers, making Massachusetts less inviting to business. Others criticized the decision for diluting the definition of disabled. Lawyers for the Police Department had also argued that a ruling in Dahill's favor would bring a rush of lawsuits, but Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who wrote the unanimous decision, disagreed.

"We are not persuaded that our decision today will open the floodgates of litigation, as the department fears. Since 1983...judges and litigants in Massachusetts have assumed that a person with a significant physical or mental impairment met the threshold definition of 'handicap,' whether the person used corrective devices or took other mitigating measures," she wrote.

If the SJC had agreed with the Sutton decision, Marshall wrote, the court would have denied protection to people whose disabilities are at least partially corrected but may still need "reasonable accommodations" to perform their jobs. For instance, she added, employees with diabetes, epilepsy, or heart disease may be able to control their diseases, but may need a flexible schedule to make doctors' appointments, take medicine, get tests, and receive therapy.

(Source: "SJC Rules That Correctable Disabilities Are Protected By Law," Kathleen Burge, Boston Globe, page 4, May 26, 2001.)

Back to top

PUBLICATIONS

DOJ ADA CD-ROM
All of DOJ's ADA regulations, architectural design standards, and technical assistance publications in HTML, WordPerfect, and text (ASCII). Many also in Acrobat PDF. Order at www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/cdrequestform.htm or by calling 800-514-0301 voice, 800-514-0383 tty.

New Publications Available from our Center

• A Guide to Disability Rights Laws
• Title I Technical Assistance Manual
• The ADA and City Governments: Common Problems
• Section 508 Guidelines
• FCC Section 255 Fact Sheet
• Section 255 Statute & Regulations -- $2
• Section 255 Guidelines -- $4
• Software Accessibility Checklist
• Web Page Accessibility Checklist
• Information Technology Machines (ITMs) Accessibility Checklist
• Information Technology (IT) Equipment Accessibility Checklist
• Bulletin # 7: Access to IT

Back to top

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Employer Planning For Worker Safety

In the wake of the September 11th attacks, many employers are now re-evaluating their disaster and evacuation plans. If your building or business doesn't have an evacuation plan, here are suggestions from the publication Emergency Procedures for Employees with Disabilities in Office Occupancies:

1. Include people with disabilities in your planning committees. They know what their needs are and can tell you what will or won't work.

2. Practice. Don't just come up with a plan and stick it in a drawer. Make sure employees know what to do, and periodically schedule fire or evacuation drills to test them. Create realistic obstacles during drills, such as blocking one exit.

3. Purchase more evacuation chairs than you have employees with disabilities. Assigning one chair to each person does not protect visitors or people who have temporary disabilities, such as a broken leg.

4. Install alarms that give off an audible and a visible signal when activated. This ensures people who are deaf are alerted. If you make emergency announcements over a PA system, also provide TV monitors or text pagers.

5. Encourage employees to identify themselves as having a disability or needing assistance during an emergency. Begin stressing this during the orientation process.

6. Think about disability broadly. Someone in a wheelchair obviously will need assistance getting downstairs but, so will someone with a respiratory condition or heart disease.

7. Don't treat all disabilities the same. If someone is blind or deaf, for example, he or she does not need to wait for help and can descend the stairs independently.

8. Include shift workers and people who work outside normal office hours, such as cleaning staff, in your emergency plan. Let employees know what to do if they work late occasionally.

9. Provide information in alternative formats. If you set up an emergency hotline, also provide a TDD or TTY line for people who are deaf. If you report information to the radio or TV news stations, ask them to speak slowly and repeat phone numbers frequently for people who are unable to write them down.

(Source: "Employers Should Plan For Workers' Safety," iCan News Service, October 3, 2001, http://www.icanonline.net/index.cfm.)

Back to top

GREAT WEB SITES

Mass Access Housing Registry
http://www.massaccesshousingregistry.org

Launched on August 1, 2001, the Mass Access Housing Registry has a new website that allows people with disabilities looking for housing, housing advocates and managers of accessible housing to use Mass Access twenty-four hours a day. Based at Citizens' Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA) and funded by the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, Mass Access is a free program that links people with disabilities with owners and managers of accessible housing. With this website, consumers can do their own housing searches and property managers can post vacancies, update their development information, and add developments to the database on-line. Other features include the "What's New" page that tracks important housing information, such as Section 8 waiting lists openings, and the "Fact Sheets and Help Docs" page, which is being expanded to provide additional information to both consumers and managers on housing. For additional information, call CHAPA at (617) 742-0820 v/tty and ask for Janna Peckham or email to massaccess@chapa.org.

Launched on August 1, 2001, the Mass Access Housing Registry has a new website that allows people with disabilities looking for housing, housing advocates and managers of accessible housing to use Mass Access twenty-four hours a day. Based at Citizens' Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA) and funded by the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, Mass Access is a free program that links people with disabilities with owners and managers of accessible housing. With this website, consumers can do their own housing searches and property managers can post vacancies, update their development information, and add developments to the database on-line. Other features include the "What's New" page that tracks important housing information, such as Section 8 waiting lists openings, and the "Fact Sheets and Help Docs" page, which is being expanded to provide additional information to both consumers and managers on housing. For additional information, call CHAPA at (617) 742-0820 v/tty and ask for Janna Peckham or email to massaccess@chapa.org.

ADA WATCH Coalition
http://www.adawatch.org

ADA Watch is a coalition of national, state, and local disability organizations, as well as individuals united to protect the civil rights of people with physical and mental disabilities. The ADA WATCH campaign is a nonprofit informational online network designed to activate the disability community's grassroots in response to threats to civil rights protections for people with disabilities. The campaign educates and informs people with disabilities, disability advocates, members of the general public, the business community, policy makers, and the media regarding threats to civil rights protections for people with disabilities.

Contact ADA WATCH:
Jim Ward
3525 Davenport Street, NW
Suite 502
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-329-5877 Phone
jim@adawatch.org

The White House Online
http://www.whitehouse.gov

The White House has a revamped website. The Bush Administration has worked to make the site accessible to people with disabilities, and the site has been user-tested by web experts with disabilities to improve accessible features. Whitehouse.gov provides a skip to content link that allows users to bypass repetitive header information. The text only section is kept up-to-date in real time with the graphics version. Use the search engine in the upper right hand corner of the webpage to access the President's New Freedom Initiative for people with disabilities.

National Organization on Disability
http://www.nod.org/

National Organization on Disability (NOD), in response to the September 11th attacks, has established a new section on their website entitled Disaster Preparedness for People With Disabilities - Resources. This section provides information regarding emergency management and disaster resources that address the needs of people with disabilities.

Back to top

BUILDING YOUR ROLODEX

New England ADA & Accessible IT Center
State Affiliates

Connecticut

ADA Coalition of Connecticut (ADACC)
c/o Protection and Advocacy
60 B Weston Street
Hartford, CT 06120-1551
860-297-4383 v/tty
860-566-8714 fax
e-mail: adacc@earthlink.net

Maine

Alpha One
127 Main Street
South Portland, ME 04106
800-640-7200 v/tty
207-767-2189 v/tty
207-799-8346 fax
e-mail: info@alpha-one.org
website: www.alpha-one.org

Maine Consumer Information and Technology Training Exchange (Maine CITE)
46 University Drive
Augusta, ME 04330
207-621-3195 v
207-621-3482 tty
e-mail: iweb@doe.k12.me.us
website: www.maineCITE.org

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Office on Disability
One Ashburton Place, Room 1305
Boston, MA 02103
800-322-2020 v/tty (in state only)
617-727-7440 v/tty
617-482-8099 fax
e-mail: lorraine.greiff@modi.state.ma.us
website: www.state.ma.us/mod

CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology)
39 Cross Street
Peabody, MA 01960
978-531-8555 v
978-538-3110 tty
978-531-0192 fax
e-mail: cast@cast.org
website: http://www.cast.org

New Hampshire

Governor's Commission on Disability
57 Regional Drive
Concord, NH 03301
800-852-3405 v/tty (in state only)
603-271-2773 v/tty
603-271-2837 fax
e-mail: mjenkins@gov.state.nh.us
website: http://webster.state.nh.us/disability

ATECH (An Alliance for Assistive Technology, Education, and Community Health) Services
5 Right Way Path
Laconia, NH 03246
800-932-5837 v/tty
603-528-3060 v/tty
603-524-0702 fax
website: http://www.nhassistivetechnology.org

Rhode Island

Governor's Commission on Disability
Providence Plantation
Executive Department
Howard Complex
41 Cherrydale Court
Cranston, RI 02920-3049
401-462-0100 v
401-462-0101 tty
401-222-2833 fax
e-mail: disabilities@gcd.state.ri.us
website: www.gcd.state.ri.us

Vermont

Vermont Center for Independent Living (VCIL)
11 East State Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
800-639-1522 v/tty
802-229-0501 v/tty
802-229-0503 fax
e-mail: vcil@vcil.org
website: www.vcil.org

Back to top

Look for the WINTER issue of Access New England.

Attention Subscribers!

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

Back to Top

Back to Previous Page