News

From Diversity to Inclusion: Considering the Universally Designed Workplace

Last Updated on Saturday, 15 August 2009 09:57 Written by Jaimie Timmons, Sheila Fesko and Allison Hall Monday, 10 August 2009 17:03

Originally posted at Diversity Inc.

Background

The authors of this piece are from the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) at the University of Massachusetts Boston (http://communityinclusion.org/). For over 40 years ICI has offered training, clinical, and employment services, conducted research, and provided assistance to organizations to promote inclusion of people with disabilities in school, work, and community activities. This product was developed through our extensive experience in workplace support strategies for individuals with disabilities, as well as several research opportunities exploring the application of these strategies to other diverse populations.

Introduction

Employers undeniably face a more diverse workforce than ever before, both among those that they currently employ and those that they will look to employ in the future. Between age, ethnicity, language, and disability, employers must consider how the face of the American worker is changing:

• It is graying. While many Baby Boomers are approaching retirement-age, not all can or will consider retirement, especially in light of today's economy. Sixty-nine percent of workers over 45 plan to continue working past age 65 . Even those who anticipate retirement may change their plans as the recession marches on and retirement savings dwindle.
• It is becoming more culturally and linguistically diverse. By the middle of this century, over half of the working population will be minorities.
• It is becoming more diverse in terms of disability. Estimates suggest that up to 20% of working age Americans have a disability. And this figure will increase as the working-age population extends beyond age 65 and workers develop age-related health conditions.

Deaf man's ordeal a 'teachable moment'

Last Updated on Sunday, 13 December 2009 16:49 Written by The Press Register Sunday, 02 August 2009 00:00

Originally Posted Here

A disturbing incident involving a deaf and mentally disabled man should prompt Mobile police officials to re-evaluate the department's policies and training on dealing with people with disabilities.

On July 24, police officers forcibly removed Antonio Love from the bathroom of a Dollar General store on Azalea Road. The police responded to a report that a man had been locked in the bathroom for more than an hour. Officers used pepper spray in an effort to force the 37-year-old deaf man, who family members say has the mental capacity of a 10-year-old, out of the bathroom. When that failed, the officers broke into the bathroom and used a Taser on Mr. Love.

Antonio Love's unfortunate brush with the law ended when a city magistrate refused to sign off on charges against him. The police wanted to charge him with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and failure to obey a police officer, but they ended up taking him home.

It certainly appears this was an appropriate — if belated — outcome. Mr. Love was caught in a snafu, not a criminal incident. His deafness and limited mental abilities likely account for behavior the police initially interpreted as menacing or defiant.

Given Mr. Love's disabilities, the officers' decision to use a Taser appears callous and unwarranted. However, the officers didn't discover that Mr. Love was deaf until after they removed him from the bathroom. The use of a Taser may have been justified, considering the situation the officers confronted when they arrived on the scene.

It's what happened — or didn't happen — after Mr. Love was taken into custody that raises questions about the po lice department's sensitivity to issues involving disabled people.

The Americans with Disabilities Act mandates that law enforcement agencies "provide the communication aids and services needed to communicate effectively with people who are deaf or hard of hearing." Based on comments from police officials and Mr. Love, the police did not provide a sign language interpreter for him, even though he was facing criminal charges.

According to information provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, trained interpreters may be required in situations "such as interviewing a victim, witness, suspect or arrestee." If an interpreter's services are needed, the police agency must provide them.

Since the ADA was passed by Congress in the 1990s, the Justice Department has taken civil action against a number of police departments that did not meet ADA standards in dealing with the deaf during traffic stops, arrests and criminal interrogations.

Mobile police officials need to thoroughly investigate the incident involving Mr. Love and determine whether he received the required assistance. If he was left in a communications vacuum because of his physical and mental limitations, the department must take steps to ensure that in the future officers do what's necessary to communicate effectively with the deaf or mentally disabled.

President Obama might call this "a teachable moment." Often, police officers must be forceful and aggressive in performing their difficult duties, but there are times when sensitivity is required. It's a reasonable assumption that a little sensitivity would have gone a long way in the Antonio Love incident.

Attorneys, Deaf Clients, and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Last Updated on Sunday, 13 December 2009 17:03 Written by National Association for the Deaf Law Center Wednesday, 22 July 2009 23:15

Attorneys have responsibilities to provide deaf clients with sign language interpreters and other accommodations that they may need to communicate. A lawyer who fails to communicate effectively with a client is not meeting his or her duty of competent and zealous representation under the Canons of Ethics. Furthermore, attorneys have a statutory duty to provide effective communication to deaf clients under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which went into effect on January 26, 1991. Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12183, provides people with disabilities the right to equal access to public accommodations. Both Title III of the ADA, and the U.S. Department of Justice regulation pursuant to Title III, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, specifically include the offices of lawyers in the definition of public accommodations. 42 U.S.C. §12181; 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.

Under Title III, public accommodations are required to provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication with deaf and hard of hearing people: A public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c). Lipreading and writing notes back and forth are seldom effective methods of communication with sign language users. An attorney who relies on these methods cannot be assured of communicating effectively or accurately with his or her client. A comprehensive list of auxiliary aids and services required by the ADA is set forth in this regulation, and includes, for deaf and hard of hearing individuals:[q]ualified interpreters, notetakers, computer-aided transcription services, written materials, telephone handset amplifiers, assistive listening devices, assistive listening systems, telephones compatible with hearing aids, closed caption decoders, open and closed captioning, telecommunication devices for deaf persons (TDD's), videotext displays, or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments. 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b)(1). The term qualified interpreter is defined in the regulation to mean "an interpreter who is able to interpret effectively, accurately and impartially both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary." 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.

Read more: Attorneys, Deaf Clients, and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Doctor liable for not providing sign language interpreter

Last Updated on Wednesday, 07 October 2009 17:28 Written by By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff Sunday, 24 May 2009 00:42

Original article can be found here. Copyright 2009 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

A punitive damages verdict is enough to catch anyone's attention. But a verdict for punitive damages in a disability discrimination case can be a double whammy for physicians.

Since such claims are not covered under traditional medical liability insurance, any judgments would come out of doctors' own pockets.

That is exactly what befell New Jersey rheumatologist Robert A. Fogari, MD, when a Hudson County jury in October 2008 unanimously handed down a $400,000 award against him for allegedly refusing to pay for a sign language interpreter for a patient who is deaf. Half of the award was for punitive damages.

Read more: Doctor liable for not providing sign language interpreter