Trainings & Events
News from the Federal Agencies
U.S. Access Board
Board to Lead Effort to Develop Guidance on Accessible Drug Labels
The Access Board will lead an effort to develop guidance on making prescription drug labels accessible to people with vision impairments under the Safety and Innovation Act . A provision of the act (§904) authorizes the Board to convene a stakeholder working group to develop best practices for making information on prescription drug container labels accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
RCC Consultants Will Pay $45,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
RCC Consultants, Inc. has agreed to pay $45,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),. According to the EEOC lawsuit, RCC Consultants failed to hire an applicant for a managing consultant position because of the applicant's disability, ocular albinism. The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that the applicant interviewed for a managing consultant position at RCC Consultant's facility and was offered the position. However, later in that month, when RCC Consultants learned that the applicant did not drive because of his disability, the company rescinded the job offer.
Jackson Sun to Pay $150,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
The Jackson Sun will pay $150,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),. The EEOC lawsuit alleged that The Jackson Sun fired a commercial print manager exactly one week after his return from a medical leave of absence. He had sustained permanent spinal cord damage after back surgery. The EEOC said that The Jackson Sun could have accommodated the employee with minimal effort and that his termination was discriminatory.
United Road Towing to Pay $380,000 to Resolve EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
United Road Towing, Inc., a Mokena, Ill.-based towing company, will pay $380,000 to 13 claimants and provide other relief in order to resolve a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). A federal district court judge in Chicago entered a consent decree ending the litigation on June 20, 2012. The EEOC lawsuit charged that United Road Towing had failed to provide reasonable accommodations to a class of employees with disabilities. The complaint highlighted United Road Towing's inflexible medical leave policy and practice of terminating employees with disabilities at the end of medical leaves rather than bringing them back to work with reasonable accommodation.
Albuquerque Bakery & Café Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
Jaazrubin, LLC, doing business as Savory Fare Bakery and Café has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for $20,000 and other relief. The EEOC lawsuit charged that Savory Fare subjected an employee to discrimination because of her disability, or because it regarded her as disabled, due to her hearing impairment and minor speech impediment.
Johns Hopkins Home Health Care to Pay $160,000 to Settle Discrimination Lawsuit
Johns Hopkins Home Care Group, Inc. (JHHCG) will pay $160,000 to settle an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In this lawsuit, JHHCG violated the ADA when it discriminated against an employee because of her disability, and failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation for her disability the EEOC had charged ints lawsuit.
Stevens Transport to Pay $50,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
Stevens Transport will end up paying $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). An applicant, who became paraplegic in 2003 as a result of a car accident, was denied hire for two management positions at Stevens because of his disability the EEOC charged. The EEOC as a result filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.
EEOC and Vitas Health Care Resolve Disability Discrimination Lawsuit for $65,000
Vitas Health Care Corporation will pay $65,000 and amend its reasonable accommodation policy to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC charged that Vitas violated the ADA by failing to reassign a Registered Nurse applicant to a vacant position for which she was qualified because of her inability to perform her duties due to her disability, high blood pressure. Instead, Vitas required her to compete for the position with other applicants.
Homestead Gardens Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
Homestead Gardens will pay $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit for firing a worker because he has hemophilia. Considered as the largest enclosed garden center in the Baltimore and Washington, D.C, metropolitan areas, it was engaged in disability discrimination when it fired an applicant the EEOC charged. The applicant had been employed as a stocker when his mother disclosed through a casual conversation with Homestead Gardens that her son had hemophilia. He was told not to return to work because of Homestead's perception of his disability.
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
Justice Department Releases Technical Assistance Document on the ADA and Persons with HIV/AIDS
The U.S. Department of Justice is leading the Federal government's efforts to strengthen enforcement of civil rights laws as they pertain to individuals with HIV/AIDS. As part of the Strategy, the Department has committed to increasing outreach to affected communities to educate them about their rights and to uncover discrimination. An updated technical assitance document has been added to the Department's website. The document explains the rights of persons with HIV/AIDS and the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for employers, businesses and non-profit agencies that serve the public, and State and local governments to avoid discrimination against persons with HIV/AIDS.
Great Lakes In Focus
The Great Lakes ADA Center Celebrates 22 years of promoting voluntary compliance of the Americans with Disabilities Act
July 26, 2012 marks the 22nd anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion. It guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities to access businesses, employment, transportation, telecommunications, as well as State and local government programs and services.
The Great Lakes ADA Center is part of the National ADA network which provides information on the ADA that facilitates voluntary compliance via a broad and diverse network of partners across the Midwest. The states served by the Center are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
The Great Lakes Center funds State Affiliates to help foster voluntary compliance of the ADA within the six states. The Center works with the State Affiliates and other organizations in order to provide technical assistance, trainings, and materials on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and on accessible information technology. The mission of the Affiliates is to enhance and utilize local resources, trainings, technical assistance, and conferences, in order to get voluntary compliance with the ADA. The Affiliates serve as a centralized and statewide vehicle that educates and promotes full implementation of the ADA throughout the state.
Each Affiliate provides the following services:
- Education, training, and topic specific presentations
- Connection to a network of local and national agencies
- Publications with information on employment, accessibility, reasonable accommodations, etc.
More information regarding our Affiliates can be found at:
- Illinois ADA Project For more information visit http://www.ada-il.org
- ADA Indiana For more information visit http://www.adaindiana.org
- Michigan ADA Steering Committee For more information visit http://www.adamich.org
- ADA Minnesota For more information visit ://www.adaminnesota.org
- ADA Ohio For more information visit http://www.ada-ohio.org
- Wisconsin ADA Partnership For more information visit http://www.adawipartnership.org
In addition, the Great Lakes Center has partnered with a variety of entities to conduct outreach, awareness, training and consultation in the area of accessible technology. Activities include a web based collection of resources (http://www.accessibletech.org) and a webinar series covering a variety of topics. The Center strives to work with a variety of entities to insure that their technology is accessible to customers, employees, students, staff and the public with disabilities.
The Great Lakes ADA Center is proud of our involvement promoting voluntary compliance with the ADA. However, the center recognizes the importance of continued efforts and looks forward to positive changes in the future. For more information about the Great Lakes ADA Center please call 1-800-949-4232 (V/TTY), 312-413-1856 (Fax) or visit our website at http://www.adagreatlakes.org.
NIXON-TINKELMAN v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE For more information visit http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020110810065.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals revived a claim by a municipal employee who alleged that her employer had failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. The employee alleged that her employer had not assisted her with getting to work as a reasonable accommodation. The lower court had dismissed the claim ruling that commuting fell outside the scope of the plaintiff's job. The Court ruled that such an accommodation is outside an employer's obligations under the ADA.
The Second Circuit disagreed with the lower Court, ruling that "there is nothing inherently unreasonable in requiring an employer to furnish an otherwise qualified disabled employee with assistance related to her ability to get to work." The Court ruled that depending on the circumstances, "an employer may have an obligation to assist in an employee's commute."
The case was remanded back to the lower court for a determination as to whether it would have been reasonable for the employer to provide assistance. The Second Circuit provided the district court with additional guidance suggesting that it consider whether defendants could have reasonably accommodated the employee's needs "simply by transferring her back to Queens or another closer location, allowing her to work from home, or providing a car or parking permit." In addition, the lower court was asked to consider factors such as the number of employees employed by the employer, the number and location of its offices, whether other available positions existed for which the plaintiff was qualified, whether she could have been transferred to another office without unduly burdening the employer's operations, and the reasonableness of allowing her to work without on-site supervision.
From the ADA Expert
Question: I am the ADA Coordinator for a local community college and the college allows local organizations to hold events in the college's facilities. Some groups use classrooms and others use larger spaces such as the theater. The college only provides the rooms and does not have anything to do with putting on the event. Recently I was contacted by an individual needing an interpreter for an upcoming event and wanted to know if the college was going to provide the interpreter because the organization putting on the event said they will not provide one. Does the college have any responsibility to provide the interpreter for this event?Answer:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that state and local governments and places of public accommodation provide individuals with disabilities the same level of access to information that is provided to individuals without disabilities. In some instances that may require the provision of auxiliary aids and services. An example of such an auxiliary aid or service used to communicate with someone that is deaf is a qualified interpreter. Every time a covered entity communicates with some one that is deaf an interpreter may not be necessary. Consideration of the complexity of the information being communicated and the length of the communication taking place, along with consultation with the deaf individual should help determine what auxiliary aid or service is needed.
Addressing your specific question, if as you state the college is only providing the space for the event then the college has no responsibility to insure that the individual that is deaf has access to information being presented. The group putting on the event would have the responsibility for providing access to the information if the group is covered by the ADA or receives federal funds requiring compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.