ADA In Focus - Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 2000
Coalition
News
A Call to Action: Celebrating the ADA's 10th Anniversary
Momentum is now building to celebrate the ADA's 10th Anniversary on July 26, 2000. Mayors are proclaiming a special day to be observed by all citizens. Communities and disability organizations around the country are planning events to celebrate. We encourage you to expand your horizons and become involved in helping to educate others about the ADA.
Regardless of whether or not you have a disability, belong to an organization, community board, or if you are "just an individual," now is the time to take action. Whether you have fifteen minutes or fifteen days to spare as we enter the new century, each of us can make a difference in educating others about the equal opportunities and the equal access that are required by the ADA. The following are some suggestions for how you may contribute.- Contact one business that you patronize that could still become more accessible and provide them with information on the ADA and accessibility requirements.
- Send a letter complimenting a business, government program or an individual on the changes they have made to include people with disabilities.
- Provide information to one media outlet; write a letter to the editor, an article in a newsletter for a group in which you belong; or a local newspaper.
- Each one teach one. Reach out to younger individuals with disabilities. Contact local high schools and colleges to offer to share information about the ADA with young adults with disabilities, their parents, and teachers.
- Better educate a small business by forwarding our web page for small businesses.
- Provide your accountant or tax preparer with information on tax deductions and credits they can share with other clients.
- Work with your state ADA Coalition, local disability commission, center for independent living, or committee on employment of people with disabilities to plan an event.
Initiative 2000 is a variety of activities coordinated to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the ADA. If you are planning or are aware of any 10th anniversary activities, please contact the ADA & IT Information Center. This information will be posted to a national listing of events, which can be found at www.initiative2000.org. For copies of ADA publications, visit the website: adainfo.org, or contact the ADA & IT Information Center at 800-949-4232 (v/tty), or your state ADA Coalition listed below.
Definition of Disability: After the Supreme Court Decisions
Last June the Supreme Court handed down three decisions that significantly affect how disability is defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA defines a person with a disability as one who has, has a record of, or is regarded as having physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote in their interpretive guidance that the determination of whether somebody has a disability should be made without regard to "mitigating measures"(such as the use of medication or devices to offset the symptoms or effects of disability). In their decisions, the Supreme Court disagreed with the enforcement agencies and decided that mitigating measures should be considered when determining if a person falls under the ADA's definition of disability.
These decisions raise valid questions about ADA protection for people who use mitigating measures, including anyone who takes medication to alleviate limitations due to disability (people with epilepsy, psychiatric conditions, asthma, among others), and people who use hearing aids, prosthetic limbs, or other devices. When evaluating who is covered under the ADA, a different analysis must now be used. In order to understand this new analysis, one must first look at what the Supreme Court decided.
What the Supreme Court Said
The Supreme Court ruled in three cases that related to the definition of disability: Sutton v. United Airlines; Murphy v. United Parcel Service; and Albertson's v. Kirkinburg. The Sutton case involved twin airline pilots who had uncorrected vision of 20/200 but corrected vision of 20/20. The Murphy case involved an individual who took medication for high blood pressure, and the Albertson case involved a truck driver with monocular vision. All three cases were based on the issue of how mitigating measures are considered in determining if a person is substantially limited enough to be covered by the ADA.
The main case involved twin airline pilots with 20/200 uncorrected vision who wanted to work for United Airlines. United requires all pilots to have 20/100 uncorrected vision or better. The sisters claimed they were entitled to protections under the ADA because, without their glasses, they were substantially limited in their ability to see.
The Supreme Court considered whether the sisters qualified for protections under the ADA. This determination depended on whether the sisters were evaluated with or without their corrective lenses.
The Court ruled that mitigating measures are considered in the determination process. As a result, the sisters were not considered people with disabilities under the ADA and therefore not entitled to the law's protections.
The second decision, Murphy v. UPS, involved an individual who was dismissed from his job because of high blood pressure. The Court determined he was not a person with a disability because his medication controlled his hypertension. This decision reaffirmed that a person is to be evaluated without regard to mitigating measure.
The third decision, Albertson's Inc. v. Kirkinburg involved a truck driver who was fired for failing to meet Department of Transportation vision standards. This decision reiterated the previous two and expanded mitigating measures to include not only individuals who use external devices such as prosthetic limbs and medication, but also individuals who develop compensating behaviors to mitigate the effects of an impairment.
In this case, the driver had monocular vision and could compensate so well with his good eye, that he was not considered substantially limited in his ability to see. The inclusion of compensating behaviors as mitigating measures could have a significant bearing over whether people with learning disabilities are covered by the law as well.
These decisions are a significant departure from EEOC and DOJ's positions that a person is evaluated without regard to mitigating measures when determining whether they have a disability. The Supreme Court did not give deference to these agencies' interpretive guidance because it determined that neither agency had been delegated the authority to interpret the term "disability."
Changing the Definition
It is clear from these decisions that the definition of disability has been narrowed considerably. It is important, however, not to assume that people who use mitigating measure are no longer covered by the ADA. In making this determination, some questions to ask include:
- When using their mitigating measure, is this person still substantially limited in one or more major life activities?
- Does use of the mitigating measure (i.e. medication, prosthetic limb) cause side effects that substantially limit a major life activity?
If the answer to both these questions is no, then the person may fall under the second prong of the definition of disability; having a record of a disability. At some point, the individual did not use their mitigating measure and therefore was considered a person with a disability. This may be the time between when the disability was diagnosed and when the mitigating measure was initiated.
There is a record of a disability from medical doctors, educators, or other appropriate professionals. As a result, even though the person may not currently be "substantially limited" in a major life activity (first prong of the definition), he may fall under the second prong because of the record of a disability.
A Look Into the Future
Are people with a record of a disability entitled to reasonable accommodation under Title I of the ADA? It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on this issue in the future.
Until now, there have been few cases addressing this particular issue because it was not relevant. The few circuit court cases that were decided were split, one court decided the person was entitled to reasonable accommodation and the other decided the person was not.
The consensus now is that the Supreme Court decisions should not alter any employment policies pertaining to people with disabilities. Employers should still provide reasonable accommodations for qualified employees with a disability in their workplace regardless of whether or not a mitigating measure is used.
Use caution when generalizing these decisions to other situations, particularly those involving the issue of determining if an individual who uses a mitigating measure is a person with a disability under the ADA.
Each situation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The ADA & IT Information Center provides technical assistance on these and all aspects of the law, at 800-949-4232 (toll free v/tty) and online at adainfo.org.
After the Supreme Court handed down their decisions, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) developed a document entitled Instructions for Field Officers: Analyzing ADA Charges After Supreme Court Decisions Addressing "Disability" and "Qualified."
This document provides a detailed analysis for field officers to use when determining if a person has a disability under the ADA. The focus is on evaluating the person's condition at the time of the alleged discrimination. EEOC specifically emphasizes that every situation should be evaluated individually and generalizations about specific disabilities should not be made.
The instructions are divided into three parts. First, the three prongs of the definition are addressed as they apply to an individual using mitigating measures.
The second part addresses federal safety standards and the determination of whether a person is "qualified" under the ADA. (In light of the Albertson decision concluding that an employer can require a person to meet an applicable federal safety standard).
Third, the relationship between disability benefits and qualification under the ADA is discussed in relation to another Supreme Court decision, Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems. The Court decision in that case concluded the application for or receipt of Social Security Disability Insurance benefits does not preclude an individual from meeting the ADA's definition of qualified.
EEOC Issues Instructions for Field Officers
These EEOC instructions include questions that field officers may ask the charging party in determining if the individual meets the ADA's definition of disability.
The questions focus on whether or not a person uses a mitigating measure, and the general effects of the mitigating measure on the individual. They also examine the individual's limitations prior to using the mitigating measure in order to establish record of disability.
A step-by-step analysis to determine if a person has been regarded as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity (the third prong of the definition of disability) is also included.
For a copy of Instructions for Field Officers: Analyzing ADA Charges After Supreme Court Decisions Addressing "Disability" and "Qualified," call the ADA Information Center at 800-949-4232 v/tty.
DECISIONS IN FOCUS: CURRENT ADA RULINGS
Days Inn Hotels to Become More Accessible
Days Inns of America, Inc. (DIA) and its parent company, Cendant Corporation, have entered into a settlement agreement with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that will establish a nationwide initiative to improve accessibility in its facilities.
This agreement resolves five lawsuits that were filed against Days Inn. Barriers that were found in newly constructed hotels included problems with parking, accessible routes, entrances, signage, and alarm systems.
DOJ has published three new documents designed to assist hotel owners, architects, and contractors: "Common ADA Problems at Newly Constructed Lodging Facilities," the "ADA Checklist for New Lodging Facilities," and "Five Steps to Make New Lodging Facilities Comply with the ADA." To obtain a copy, contact DOJ's ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (v) or 800-514-0383 (tty), or visit their ADA website at www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm.
Judge to Macy's: Clear the Way
In a lawsuit that focused attention on access to merchandise in retail stores, a federal district judge has ordered a Macy's department store in San Francisco, CA to make several significant changes. This class action suit claimed that the store, a huge facility which includes approximately 450,000 square feet of merchandise display space, violated the ADA by failing to provide accessible fitting rooms, restrooms, and an accessible route within the store.
Although a Macy's planning official testified that 36 inches was a standard aisle clearance, other employees said that 24 to 30 inches was usually provided. The court determined that 36 inches of clearance should have been provided in the recently altered areas, and in other areas where it is readily achievable.
The court also stated that Macy's violated the ADA by failing to even consider alternatives. The court order is requiring Macy's to improve access to fitting rooms, restrooms, and entrances, and to provide written materials and training to sales staff on the placement of merchandise.
Greyhound to Improve Bus Service to Passengers with Disabilities
Greyhound Lines, Inc. will improve the availability and quality of accessible bus service for people with disabilities, under an agreement reached with the US Department of Justice (DOJ). The agreement will resolve a number of complaints filed with DOJ alleging a range of discriminatory actions, including denial of boarding assistance, injuries sustained while being carried, and other mistreatment.
Current regulations permit physically carrying passengers when no other means of access is available. Recently adopted regulations will require bus companies to provide lift-equipped bus service. Under the new agreement, Greyhound will minimize the need for carrying by phasing in accessible bus service in three stages.
Greyhound will begin by making efforts to provide lift-equipped buses or assistive devices when requested with 48 hours notice, providing training to employees, establishing an internal dispute resolution procedure for addressing complaints, and continuing to remove barriers in their facilities.
DOJ has developed a plain language document that will explain the settlement agreement and let people know what to expect during the various phase-in periods. The "Guide for Passengers: Greyhound Accessible Bus Service before October 1, 2001" can be obtained from DOJ's ADA Information Line by calling 800-514-0301 (v) or 800-514-0383 (tty), or on their website (www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/greyfact.htm).
For information on services available on particular Greyhound routes, call the Greyhound ADA Hotline at 800-752-4841 (v) or 800-345-3109 (tty).
Student Wins Injunction in Test "Flagging" Case
A fourth year medical student (pseudonym plaintiff John Doe) challenged the National Board of Medical Examiners' (NBME) policy of "flagging" test scores of those who utilize disability-related accommodations during examinations.
The scores are reported as having been achieved under "non-standard" conditions. Doe alleged that this notation would indicate the presence of a disability and subject him to possible discrimination by the medical residency programs to which he applies.
In her ruling, the judge stated the following: (1) there was a link between a place of public accommodation and the alleged discrimination; (2) Doe had a good chance of success on the merits of his claim; (3) being identified against his wishes as a person with a disability was in fact harmful; and (4) public policy concerns favored granting the injunction.
The plaintiff's attorneys hope that a favorable decision will be granted in time to be meaningful to Doe.
Constitutionality of ADA Challenged
Recently, there have been several instances of states attempting to defend themselves from ADA lawsuits by claiming that Congress did not have the authority to subject states to the provisions of the ADA. So far, Court decisions have been split on this issue.
Seven of the eight circuits that had ruled on this issue as of this writing upheld the constitutionality of the ADA, including the Second and Tenth Circuits, which recently ruled that individuals should be permitted to directly sue states for alleged violations of Title I.
The Eighth Circuit, however, ruled that two separate suits (one under Title I and another under Title II) were unconstitutional, stating that the ADA's protections exceed the equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This will be an interesting issue to watch for further developments.
Two New DOE Publications Available
The US Department of Education (DOE) has developed two useful publications for students with disabilities and postsecondary schools. The first, a two-page publication, "Auxiliary Aids and Services for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities: Higher Education's Obligations Under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, " provides an overview of the school's responsibility to provide auxiliary aids and services. It includes a brief section on common questions of postsecondary schools and their students.
The second publication, "How to File a Discrimination Complaint with the Office of Civil Rights," is a resource for individuals who wish to file a discrimination complaint under any of the five laws that are enforced by DOE. For more information, visit their website www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/auxaid.html, or contact DOE's Office for Civil Rights at: 202-205-5413, 800-421-3481, 202-205-9862 (fax), or 202-260-0471 (tty).
JAN Offers New Publications on Accommodation Ideas
The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) has added three new publications on accommodation ideas for individuals with disabilities in postsecondary training and college. These are: "Ideas for Accommodating Persons with Learning Disabilities in Postsecondary Training and College," "Ideas for Accommodating Individuals with ADD/ADHD in Postsecondary Training and College, and "Ideas for Accommodating Teachers and other Educational Personnel who have Disabilities."
Two of these publications address students with ADD/ADHD and learning disabilities, whereas the third publication provides ideas for accommodating teachers and other educational personnel who have disabilities. Visit JAN's website at: janweb.icdi.wvu.edu/english/pubs/AccommodationIdeaList.html, or contact the Job Accommodation Network at: 800-526-7234 (toll-free v/tty) to request copies.
www.bu.edu/sarpsych: The Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Boston University has enhanced the information available on their website to include a plethora of resources ranging from the opportunity to join a listserv addressing psychiatric disabilities, to registering for their online professional development courses, to reviewing the national survey results of professionals and managers with psychiatric disabilities.
www.janejarrow.com: Disability Access Information and Support (DAIS) is a good resource on issues surrounding access for students with disabilities in higher education. Although the information targets higher education administrators, students with disabilities may benefit from reviewing some of the publications on this site's section titled "public library."
www.ahead.org: The Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) is an international organization of professionals who work to provide full participation in higher education for persons with disabilities. The Association's website includes some updates on court decisions and Office of Civil Rights findings, in addition to some guidelines for documenting learning disabilities in postsecondary education institutions.
ADA In Focus is intended for use by individuals, state and local governments, businesses, legal entities, and others interested in developments in the Americans with Disabilities Act. This publication is intended solely as an informal guidance and should not be construed as legally binding. ADA In Focus does not serve as determination of the legal rights or responsibilities under the ADA for any individual, business or entity.
OVERVIEW: ACCESS BOARD PROPOSED ADA & ABA ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES
The key goal of this rulemaking is to substantively update the requirements to reflect technological developments so that they continue to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. Also, this update is designed to make the guidelines more consistent with model building codes and industry standards in order to facilitate compliance. The proposed guidelines feature: (1) a new numbering system consistent with model codes, (2) a more streamlined structure and organization of chapters, (3) updated scoping and technical provisions, with a greater structural delineation between them, (4) new figures and commentary, (advisory information) and (5) provision of all figure-based information in written text.
The Board has coordinated its update of the ADA and ABA guidelines into a single rule. The proposed rule contains updated scoping provisions, which specify what must be accessible, and technical requirements on how access is achieved. An accompanying discussion explains the changes from the current guidelines and poses questions to the public on a variety of issues. For a copy of the guidelines, please visit the Access Board's website at www.access-board.gov, or call 800-usa-able (v), or 800-993-2822 (tty).
PART I: ADA Application and Scoping
Part 1 provides scoping provisions for those facilities covered by the ADA: places of public accommodation, commercial facilities, and state and local government facilities, including public transportation facilities.
Chapter 1: Application and Administration
Provides general principles that recognize the purpose of the guidelines (101), provisions for adults and children (102), equivalent facilitation (103), conventions (104), referenced standards (105), and definitions (106). Chapter 1 simplifies and reorganizes similar provisions contained in ADAAG sections 1-3.
Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements
Provides scoping requirements for spaces and elements required to be accessible in new construction and alterations. Chapter 2 replaces the minimum requirements sections of ADAAG 4.1. As revised, this section differs from ADAAG in that it integrates the scoping for exterior sites and interior facilities. The new structure reinforces the principle that under the general scoping, all portions of sites and facilities are subject to the guidelines unless otherwise noted. More substantive changes concern scoping for elevators, including new provisions for destination-oriented and limited-use/ limited-application elevators (206.6), means of egress (207), passenger loading zones (208), stairways (210), emergency alarm systems (215), TTYs (217), assistive listening systems (219), and assembly seating (221).
New scoping provisions cover sinks (212), laundry equipment (214), beds in transient lodging (224), self-service storage facilities (225), windows (230), and accessible residential facilities (234). Questions seek information on access to employee work areas and stations (1 - 5), limited-use/ limited-application elevators (6), emergency alarm systems (7), companion seating and aisle seating in assembly areas (8 and 9), dispersion of accessible rooms in medical care facilities (10), visual alarms in transient lodging (11), and windows (12).
PART II: ABA Application and Scoping
This part provides application and scoping requirements under the ABA for facilities designed, built, altered, or leased with federal funds. It is modeled after the ADA scoping document (Part I), with some departures due to statutory differences. Differences are found in the sections covering modifications and waivers (F103), definitions (F106), existing buildings and facilities (F202), additions (F202.2), leases (202.6), and housing (F234), specifically an exception for military housing. A question is asked about this housing exception (13). Certain provisions or exceptions in the ADA scoping section recognized only by the ADA are not included in the ABA scoping section.
PART III: Technical Requirements
Part III provides technical requirements (Chapters 3 - 11) that are referenced by the ADA and ABA scoping documents.
Chapter 3: Building Blocks
Contains basic technical requirements, the "building blocks" for accessibility, established by the guidelines, including ground/floor surfaces, clear floor space, knee/toe clearances, reach ranges, and operable parts. Questions seek information on operable parts (14 - 15).
Chapter 4: Accessible Routes/Accessible Means of Egress
Covers walking surfaces (403), doors (404), ramps (405), curb ramps (406), elevators (407), wheelchair lifts (408), means of egress (409) and areas of refuge (410). Changes are reflected in each section. Extensive revisions are proposed for elevators, including new requirements for destination-oriented and limited-use/ limited-application elevators, altered elevators, means of egress, and areas of refuge. Questions concern handrails (16), elevator hall signals (17), and emergency communication systems in elevators and areas of refuge (18 - 19).
Chapter 5: General Site and Building Elements
Contains requirements for accessible parking (502) and passenger loading zones (503), stairways (504), and handrails (505). Changes include revised requirements for parking designations, stairways (including a specified riser height), and handrails.
Chapter 6: Plumbing Elements and Facilities
Technical requirements for plumbed fixtures and toilet and bathing rooms replace those in ADAAG 4.15 through 4.24. Previously adopted amendments to ADAAG that provide alternate specifications for building elements designed for children's use are included. Covers drinking fountains and water coolers (602), toilet and bathrooms (603), water closets and stalls (604), urinals (605), lavatories and sinks (606), bathtubs (607), showers (608), grab bars (609), seats (610), and laundry equipment (611). Some of the more substantive changes of this chapter pertain to water closets (location and clear floor space), specifications for shower compartments (water temperature, spray units and curbs), and new provisions covering washing machines and clothes dryers (equipment not addressed in the current ADAAG). Questions request comment on drinking fountains (20) and shower seats (21).
Chapter 7: Communication Elements & Features
Provides technical criteria for communication elements: fire alarms (702), signs (703), phones (704), detectable warnings (705), assistive listening systems (706), ATMs and fare machines (707), and two-way communication systems (708). Extensive revision is proposed for these elements, particularly fire alarm systems, signs, and ATMs and fare machines. Information is requested through questions on audible fire alarms (22), pay telephones (23 and 24), TTYs (25), criteria for assistive listening systems (26), interactive transaction machines (27 - 30), captioning in the built environment (31), and accessible communication at drive-through facilities (32).
Chapter 8: Special Rooms, Spaces, and Elements
Covers specific rooms and elements, including assembly areas (802), dressing, fitting, and locker rooms (803), kitchens and kitchenettes (804), medical care facilities (805), transient lodging (806), and detention and correctional facilities (807). Most of the provisions in the special occupancy sections of the current ADAAG are in this chapter. The most substantive changes and issues raised in this chapter pertain to wheelchair seating in assembly areas. Questions seek information on wheelchair seating, including dispersion, sight lines, and stadium-style theaters (33 - 39).
Chapter 9: Built-In Furnishings and Equipment
Covers built-in furnishings and equipment and provides specifications for dining and work surfaces (902), benches (903), sales and service counters, and check-out aisles (904), and storage (905). These requirements apply to a variety of facilities and effectively replace those in ADAAG 7 and 8 for business and mercantile facilities and libraries. Substantive changes are proposed for benches and sales and service counters.
Chapter 10: Transportation Facilities
Transportation facilities are the only occupancy type covered in a separate chapter. Like section 10 of the current ADAAG, this chapter covers bus stops and terminals (1002), rail facilities and stations (1003), and airports (1004). Changes are proposed for rail facilities and stations. Comment is sought through questions on public address systems (40 and 41), and rail station platforms (42).
Chapter 11: Residential Facilities
The proposal includes requirements for accessible dwelling units. The technical criteria of this chapter derive from updated requirements for residential facilities contained in the ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998 standard. These requirements represent an addition to ADAAG, which does not address such facilities. This chapter also serves to update requirements for dwelling units in the minimum guidelines for federally funded facilities upon which UFAS is based.
Section 1102 covers accessible dwelling units and provides requirements for entrances, elements of accessible routes, private residence elevators, laundry equipment, toilet and bathing facilities, kitchens, windows, and storage facilities. Section 1103 provides requirements for dwelling units with accessible communication features. Specifications cover smoke detectors, fire alarm systems and visual appliances, doorbells, and entry communication systems.
Many adults with disabilities are unfamiliar with their state vocational rehabilitation programs that oftentimes help provide financial assistance to students enrolled in post secondary education programs.
ADA in Focus is published three times yearly by the ADA & IT Information Center for the Mid-Atlantic Region.
The staff of the ADA Information Center is available to provide information on all aspects of the ADA to individuals, businesses, government entities and organizations in the Mid-Atlantic Region.
ADA In Focus is intended for use by individuals, state and local governments, businesses, legal entities, and others interested in developments in the Americans with Disabilities Act. This publication is intended solely as an informal guidance and should not be construed as legally binding. ADA In Focus does not serve as determination of the legal rights or responsibilities under the ADA for any individual, business or entity.
Richard G. Luecking, President
Marian Vessels, Project Director
Ann Deschamps, Ed.D., Director of Training and Evaluation
Mark Derry, Technical Assistance Specialist
Alison S. Levy, Technical Assistance Specialist
Kimberly Antonelli, Editor
Donna Stewart, Administrative Assistant
TransCen, Inc. is a Rockville, MD-based firm specializing in human resources issues that impact workplace diversity. TransCen administers the ADA & IT Information Center, providing business and technical assistance to DE, DC, MD, PA, VA and WV.
This is a publication of the ADA & IT Information Center for the Mid-Atlantic Region, which is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the U.S. Department of Education under Grant No. H133D60006. The opinions contained in this publication are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Education.
ADA & IT Information Center for the
Mid-Atlantic Region
451 Hungerford Dr., Suite 607
Rockville, MD 20850-4151, tel: 301-217-0124 v/tty
fax: 301-217-0754,
tollfree: 800-949-4232 v/tty
url: www.adainfo.org
© 1999 by TransCen, Inc.
ADA In Focus is available in large print, Braille, audio cassette, and computer disk.
Affiliates of the ADA Information Center
The ADA & IT Information Center works with state affiliates throughout the region to provide information, materials, presentations and resources to the local community so businesses, government entities, and individuals are aware of their rights and responsibilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The various state affiliates, working as ADA Coalitions, represent the local resource by which the ADA Information Center can network to ensure the needed information is made available to anyone working to provide equal opportunity to people with disabilities.
By working together to eliminate misinformation and provide resources that are accurate, we are helping to provide positive solutions to questions being faced by employers, governments, businesses, and people with disabilities.
Listed here you'll find the Coalition that is closest to you, with information on how to reach them:
Delaware
Statewide Coalition for the ADA (SCADA)
100 West 10th Street, Suite 409
Wilmington, DE 19801
tel/fax 302-427-7499
emailscada2@juno.com
Contact: Bob Cichocki, Coordinator
Washington, D.C.
Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington
1300 19th Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20036
tel 202-822-9189 tty 202-822-9199 fax 202-835-0291
email rights@erols.com
Contact: Julia Bell
Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania ADA Coalition
For more information,
contact the ADA & IT Information Center at:
1-800-949-4232 v/tty.
Virginia
The Virginia ADA Education Coalition
c/o The Arc of Virginia
6 North 6th Street, Suite 403-A
Richmond, Virginia 23219
tel 804-649-8481 fax 804-649-3585
email arcva@richmond.infi.net
Contact: Linda Moore
West Virginia
Northern West Virginia Center for Independent Living
110 Greenbag Road
Morgantown, WV 26505
tel/tty 304-296-6091 fax 304-291-9071
email nwvcil@cyberplanet.net
Contact: Tony Miralles
Maryland
The ARC of Maryland
49 Old Solomons Island Road, Suite 205
Annapolis, MD 21401
tel/tty 410-974-6139 fax 410-974-6021
email adamd@erols.com
Contact: Pam Wilson
Training | Publications | Links | Accessible IT | Youth with Disabilities | Join Our Mailing List
©2008 DBTAC: Mid-Atlantic ADA Center