The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services allocated $31 million in grants to 31 states to help people with disabilities or long-term illnesses live in their homes and participate fully in community life. The grants promote the goal of community living for individuals with disabilities and long-term illnesses. Under this initiative, which began in 2001, 10 federal agencies work with states and community organizations to remove barriers to community living. The grants were awarded to help states and other eligible entities improve their home and community-based services programs.

The U.S. Department of Labor awarded a $1.5 million technical assistance grant to the Corporation for Supportive Housing to address chronic homelessness among persons with disabilities. The grant, known as the Chronic Homelessness Employment Technical Assistance (CHETA) Initiative, is a cooperative effort between the department's Office of Disability Employment Policy, the Employment and Training Administration, and the Veterans Employment and Training Service. The Corporation for Supportive Housing, with offices in ten states, is a national non-profit organization dedicated to helping local communities develop services that support the homeless.

A jury in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has awarded a former employee of E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. (DuPont) $1.29 million in an employment discrimination case filed by the EEOC under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). DuPont, based in Wilmington, Delware, is an international science and chemical company operating in 70 countries with 55,000 employees worldwide and annual revenue of more than $20 billion. The jury awarded plaintiff Laura Barrios $1 million in punitive damages, $200,000 in front pay and $91,000 in back pay. EEOC's lawsuit, filed in June 2003, asserted that DuPont violated the ADA when it illegally required Ms. Barrios, who has severe physical impairments, to take a functional capacity exam (FCE) which was neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity. The FCE tested her performance of rigorous physical tasks such as climbing, standing for hours on end, lifting more than 20 pounds, straight leg lifts, and overhead work. Although Ms. Barrios passed the test, DuPont used the test results as a pretext to declare her as a direct threat to herself and others because DuPont believed Ms. Barrios could not safely evacuate the plant in case of an emergency. DuPont then forced Ms. Barrios onto short term disability leave and then total permanent disability retirement which terminated her employment.

The Great Lakes ADA Center 2004-2005 Audio Conference Series is now underway. A total of 12 monthly sessions will be offered on a variety of topics of interest to people with disabilities, businesses and government entities. This season will also feature a special three part series on reasonable accommodations plus three sessions that have become mainstays of the series: Ask The EEOC, Ask The DOJ, and The ADA Update. Please join us for these and other exciting sessions that will enhance and broaden your awareness and knowledge of the ADA and disability related issues. The Audio Conference Series registration information can be found on the Great Lakes ADA Center web site. The Center is currently seeking entities that are interested in promoting and hosting the entire 12 session series for members of their community. Incentives are available! Please contact us at 800-949-4232 (V/TTY) or via our on-line contact form.

Sharon Rennert, Senior Attorney, ADA Division, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Back by popular demand! Join us for an open discussion with a representative from the EEOC. We invite you to bring your tough questions regarding a specific aspect of the Employment Provisions of the ADA or any of the enforcement activities they have undertaken over the past year. Prior to the Q & A portion of the session, Sharon will provide a brief update on the EEOC's ADA related activities.

The Great Lakes staff provides customized training on all Titles of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Accessible Information Technology. The Center provides training to non-profit organizations, businesses, architects, design professionals, educators, employers, state and local governments, and Federal agencies. In addition The Center participates in existing conferences and meetings. The Center staff collectively represents over 30 years of experience providing training on the ADA and other Federal disability laws. All programs are designed to meet the specific needs of the entity requesting the information. Materials relevant to the topics presented in the training are provided to participants. Individuals and/or entities interested in more information can contact the Center at (800) 949-4232 (V/TTY) or via our online contact form.

The National Council on Disability (NCD) has issued a report calling on the designers and manufacturers of electronic and information technology (E&IT) to incorporate universal design processes when developing their E&IT products. The report demonstrates how designing with access in mind can significantly increase the size of targeted markets for E&IT. NCD's report, Design for Inclusion: Creating a New Marketplace, analyzes six product lines from the telecommunications, software, consumer electronics, and digital services industries for accessibility and usability. NCD's research addresses issues such as, the market for universally designed mainstream consumer products and services, consumer needs, and identify and address current issues in universal design.

AccessIT promotes the use of electronic and information technology (E&IT) for students and employees with disabilities in educational institutions at all academic levels. The AccessIT web site features the AccessIT Knowledge Base, a searchable database of questions and answers regarding accessible E&IT. These FAQ's address various issues related to accessible information technology and provide additional information on resources related to the topic of the FAQ. The following are the most recent additions to the AccessIT Knowledge Base:

• TechEd: A Promising Practice in Including Disability Topics in a Mainstream IT Conference
• University of Washington: A Promising Practice in Using Existing Policies to Support Web Accessibility Practices
• University of Minnesota: A Promising Practice on Developing an Accessible Information Technology Policy
• BizTech Accessibility Award: A Promising Practice on Promoting Information Technology Accessibility
• How can I select a web accessibility software tool?

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a former employee at a Sam's Club warehouse store in Pittsburgh developed a disability covered by the law when she lost most kidney function as a result of end-stage renal disease. As a result of her illness the worker needed to undergo frequent dialysis treatments to clean waste from her bloodstream. The woman filed suit after the company refused to allow her to self-administer part of her dialysis treatment on store property, a step she said was necessary if she was to continue working. The company fired the woman when she was unable to return from a yearlong medical leave. In her suit, the worker claimed Wal-Mart, the parent company of Sam's Club, had failed to abide by the Americans With Disabilities Act requiring companies to reasonably accommodate workers with disabilities. A U.S. District Court judge ruled in favor of the company, agreeing with Wal-Mart's lawyers that the woman's disease had not left her "significantly limited in a major life activity." The 3rd Circuit overturned that ruling. The case will now return to a lower court for further action before a final ruling is entered.

In the case of Edward Williams v Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a person "regarded as" being disabled is entitled to consideration for reasonable accommodation(s) through the informal interactive process. Edward Williams worked as a police officer for PHA who was relieved of duty after making threats to a superior officer in response to a reprimand for a work related violation. Mr. Williams also stated to a counselor he understood why a person would go "postal". In response to these comments, the counselor recommended that Mr. Williams be reassigned to another position that would not require him to carry a weapon for a minimum of 3 months. PHA failed to reassign Mr. Williams to a position that would not require him to carry a weapon or enter into the "informal interactive" process to determine if he could be reasonably accommodated. PHA recommended he take a medical leave of absence. When Mr. Williams did not respond to this offer, PHA fired him. Mr. Williams sued PHA claiming his termination was retaliation for requesting reassignment as an accommodation under the ADA. The District Court ruled in favor of PHA stating that Mr. Williams did not meet the definition of disability as defined by the ADA. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that in cases of retaliation a person did not in fact have to be disabled to be covered by the ADA.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's January 2003 decision in favor of plaintiffs who sued Sandusky and the city manager for violations of the ADA. The plaintiffs' 1999 lawsuit said the city should have made curb cuts when it replaced or repaired sidewalks and curbs. A three-judge appeals panel upheld U.S. District Judge James Carr's ruling that the city violated the ADA when it failed to incorporate accessible features into new sidewalk construction.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employee who failed to mention a previous injury on a medical questionnaire was terminated not for filing a workers' compensation claim but because he lied during the hiring process. In applying for employment with Tennant Company, Kevin Carter completed a health history questionnaire that inquired about his prior work-related injuries and medical care. Carter failed to list a previous work-related back injury. Tennant did not discover that omission until Carter filed for workers' compensation benefits after "re-aggravating" the injury while working for Tennant. Carter was fired shortly thereafter. Carter filed suit against his employer, claiming he was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim and that the questionnaire violated the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act. The district court granted summary judgment for Tennant, and the 7th Circuit affirmed. The court held Carter's dishonest answers to the health questionnaire provided a valid reason for Tennant's decision to discharge him. As to the privacy claim, the court held that the questionnaire did not violate the Privacy Act because it did not ask if claims had been filed or if benefits had been received, but rather if Carter had ever had any work-related injuries and if he had ever lost time or seen a physician for any work-related injuries.

The US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Assistive Technology Act of 2004 on October 8. The AT Act of 2004 supports the continuance of State Assistive Technology Act Programs and eliminates the sunset provision for state programs. The Act also supports state grants for protection and advocacy programs related to assistive technology and national activities such as a national public awareness tool kit, research & development, technical assistance & training, data collection, and a national public Internet site. Continue to check the ATAP web site for more information as it becomes available.

This year, ADA-Indiana introduced a new business resource, a postcard titled "Good Access is Good Business". The postcard is modeled after a similar resource developed by Patrick Going of Rocky Mountain Disability & Business Technical Assistance Center. The ADA-Indiana postcard lists five ways that businesses can make money using the ADA, and five reasons businesses should learn about the ADA. Some of the benefits cited include: staff trained in disability etiquette gives all customers better service, and tax credits for building improvements and accommodations. ADA-Indiana plans to disseminate the postcard to businesses through local Chambers of Commerce in Indiana. Another resource for businesses from ADA-Indiana is a booklet titled, "Making Places of Public Accommodations Accessible to All". This booklet was developed by the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce Diversity Team, and printed under the auspices of ADA-Indiana's Collaborative Community ADA Implementation Grants program. The intent of the booklet is to inform local businesses about the requirements of Title III of the ADA, pointing out the economic benefits of compliance with the ADA and connecting businesses with local, regional, and national resources. The introduction was written by the President of the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce who encourages businesses to think about the incentives to comply with the ADA such as business investment and customer service. For more information about the Collaborative Community ADA Implementation Grants contact ADA-Indiana or call (812) 855-6508.

ADA-OHIO is planning a seminar titled, "Demystifying the Interplay of the ADA with FMLA and Workers' Comp." The Seminar will be held on April 11, 2005, from 1:30 P.M. - 4:30 P.M. at The Blackwell on the campus of The Ohio State University in Columbus, OH. The presenters include Kim Shumate, an attorney and President of the Columbus Bar Association; Mike Travis, an attorney from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation; and Larry Watkins, regional attorney for the Cleveland office of EEOC. The moderator for this event will be David Kessler, an attorney and Chair of the ADA-OHIO Board of Trustees. A reception will follow the seminar and will be hosted by noted Restaurant Critic, John Marshall. The seminar is a pre-conference option in association with the Multiple-Perspectives Conference hosted annually by the ADA Coordinator's office at The Ohio State University. The Conference will be April 12 and 13, 2005. For more information contact ADA-OHIO at (800)-232-6446 or at adaohio@aol.com.

As a business owner I know that the ADA may require me to provide a sign language interpreter when requested by one of my customers. I recently had a customer with a disability request an interpreter who spoke their native language because they could not speak English. Does the ADA require that I provide this type of interpreter as well?

Before addressing your question there is an important issue that has to be clarified. The ADA does require a business to provide a sign language interpreter upon request if necessary to ensure effective communication. Title III of the ADA addresses the responsibility of a business to provide "auxiliary aids and services" to ensure that communication with their customers with disabilities is as effective as the communication that they have with their customers without disabilities. A sign language interpreter is a form of an auxiliary aid or service. The sign language interpreter must be a "qualified" interpreter that means that they must be able to effectively communicate with the individual who needs this service. The determination of the appropriate auxiliary aid or service is made by the business but they should give primary consideration to the accommodation requested by the individual unless they can demonstrate that an equally effective accommodation can be provided or if providing the accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of their service or pose an undue hardship. When determining what an appropriate auxiliary aid is the complexity of the information that will be exchanged and the duration of the exchange should be taken in to account. In some instances a sign language interpreter may not be necessary to convey basic information about a product or service. But a sign language interpreter may be necessary when conveying technical and/or legal information, negotiating contracts, determining scheduling of services or medical procedures, or filing complaints, etc.

The ADA does not require foreign language interpreters be provided to non-English speaking customers/clients who have disabilities. There are other laws and regulations that address the obligation of entities to provide effective communication to non-English speaking individuals. For example, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that any doctor, hospital or clinic seeing non-English-speaking patients, through federal programs like Medicare, must provide interpreters. Many States have laws governing provision of interpreters to non-English individuals in the schools, courts, etc.

For more information regarding your obligation to provide auxiliary aids and services to person with disabilities contact the Great Lakes ADA Center at (800) 949-4232 (V/TTY) or request a copy through our web site on-line form. In addition, there are tax incentives available to small businesses that can be utilized to offset the cost of providing auxiliary aids and services as well as for removal of architectural barriers.