A New Law for People with Disabilities: What will it mean to you?
Presenter by Gerard Broeker

            >> GOOD AFTERNOON.  I'M DEBORAH JOHNSON-SMALL.  
   I AM A MEMBER OF THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON 
   EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES.  IT IS MY HONOR TO 
   INTRODUCE OUR SPEAKER TODAY.  GERARD BROKER HAS 
   SERVED AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO THE STATEWIDE 
   INDEPENDENT LIVING COUNCIL OF ILLINOIS SINCE 
   AUGUST OF 2004.  PRIOR TO WORKING AT SILC GERARD 
   WAS A STAFF ATTORNEY AT EQUIPPED FOR EQUALITY FOR 
   FOUR YEARS.  HE IS A TWO-TIME GRADUATE OF THE  I 
   WILL UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS WITH DEGREES IN SPEECH 
   COMMUNICATIONS AND LAW.  HE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN 
   SEVERAL DISABILITY ADVOCACY EFFORTS ON A PERSONAL 
   LEVEL.  HE IS A LIFETIME MEMBER OF THE COALITION 
   ON CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES IN ILLINOIS.  HE 
   SERVED ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE 
   SPRINGFIELD CENTER NO INDEPENDENT LIVING FROM 2002 
   TO 2004 AND IS CURRENTLY A MEMBER OF THE 
   SPRINGFIELD DISABILITIES COMMISSION, AN ADVISORY 
   BODY TO THE MAYOR OF SPRINGFIELD.  HE WAS 
   APPOINTED TO CHAIR THAT COMMISSION LAST MONTH.  IN 
   THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, GERARD HAS GIVEN TESTIMONY 
   ON A VARIETY OF SUBJECTS INCLUDING ISHTS WITH 
   ACCESSIBILITY AND EMPLOYMENT TO THE ILLINOIS 
   GENERAL ASSEMBLY AS WELL AS TRAINING PEOPLE WITH 
   DISABILITIES ON THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS.  IN HIS FREE 
   TIME, GERARD IS A BIG SPORTS ENTHUSIAST.  HIS 
   OFFICE IS A SHRINE TO THE ST. LOUIS CARDINALS AND 
   THE ILINAI FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL TEAMS.  HE HAS 
   BEEN A SEASON TICKET HOLDER SINCE THE EARLY '90S.  
   AS HE LIKE TOSS TELL HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS, IF 
   YOU WANT HIS ATTENTION ON ANYTHING IMPORTANT DON'T 
   ASK WHILE THEY ARE ON AND DEFINITELY DON'T ASK 
   ANYTHING IF THEY LOSE.
      >> ABSOLUTELY.
      >> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOLKS ON THE PHONE IF 
   YOU WOULD HIT STAR 6 TO MUTE YOUR PHONES.  AND 
   THEN IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS LATER IN THE SHOW, HIT 
   STAR 6 AGAIN TO UNMUTE YOUR PHONE.  THANK YOU.  
   (BEEPS).
      >> HELLO.  GOOD AFTERNOON.
      >> CAN THE FOLKS ON THE PHONE HEAR ME OKAY?
      >> I CAN'T HEAR YOU WELL -- CAN'T HEAR WELL -- 
   CAN'T HEAR WELL (REPEATING) CAN YOU SAY IT AGAIN?
      >> I AM GERARD BROKER, AS DEBBY SAID, AND I 
   HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH ICED.
      >> I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
      >> IS THAT BETTER?
      >> SORRY, THIS IS CLAUDIA FAGAN.  THERE IS A 
   LOT OF BACK ----STATIC IN THE BACKGROUND.  I CAN 
   HEAR PHONES RINGING, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED 
   TO REMIND US TO PUT EVERYBODY ON MUTE.
      >> I'D LIENG TO REMIND EVERYBODY ON THE PHONE 
   TO PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONES.
      >> (SPOKEN SPEAKING SPANISH).
      >> WE NEED EVERYONE ON THE PHONE TO MUTE YOUR 
   PHONES BY HITTING STAR 6.  THAT SHOULD REDUCE THE 
   BACKGROUND NOISE.
      >> CAN YOU HEAR ME?  I MUTED MY OWN PHONE.
      >> NO, I STILL HEAR YOU.
      >> OKAY.  STAR 6?
      >> STAR 6.
      >> OKAY.  HOPEFULLY YOU CAN HEAR ME NOW.  IF 
   NOT, PLEASE UNMUTE YOUR PHONE AND LET ME KNOW.  
   BECAUSE IF THIS LAPEL MICROPHONE ISN'T WORKING, I 
   WILL JUST GO AHEAD AND USE A HANDHELD CORDLESS.  
   OKAY.  WELL, HEARING NO COMPLAINTS, I GUESS WE CAN 
   MOVE FORWARD.  AS DEBBY SAID, MY NAME IS GERARD 
   BROKER, AND I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE 
   STATEWIDE INDEPENDENT LIVING COUNCIL.  I HAVE BEEN 
   WORKING WITH ICED, THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON 
   EMPLOYMENT FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, NOW FOR 
   PROBABLY ABOUT THREE YEARS.  AND IT'S BEEN A REAL 
   PLEASURE FOR ME.  BECAUSE THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE 
   WITH DISABILITIES IS NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART.  I 
   HAD AN ACCIDENT IN APRIL IT WILL BE 20 YEARS SINCE 
   I BECAME A QUADRIPLEGIC, AND I HAVE LITERALLY GOT 
   A CRASH COURSE IN WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A PERSON 
   WITH A DISABILITY.
      EVER SINCE THEN I HAVE FOCUSED MY CAREER AND 
   LIFE ON TRYING TO BETTER THINGS FOR PEOPLE WITH 
   DISABILITIES.  IT'S INTERESTING, WHEN DEBBY WAS 
   GIVING YOU MY BIO, THAT ONE OF THE THINGS SHE 
   TALKED ABOUT WAS MY TESTIMONY OVER AT THE CAPITOL.  
   AT 1:30 THIS AFTERNOON, THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON 
   STATE GOVERNMENT AND VETERANS AFFAIRS IS HEARING 
   THE -- THEY'RE GOING TO BE HEARING ON SENATE BILL 
   40, WHICH IS THE NUMBER OF THE BILL WHICH IS THE 
   DISABILITY HIRING INITIATIVE FOR THE STATE OF 
   ILLINOIS.  THAT'S GOING ON THIS AFTER.  SO JUST 
   IRONICALLY, TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF 
   PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES THIS AFTERNOON.  THE 
   SENATE COMMITTEE WILL BE HEARING ON BILL ON HIRING 
   FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.
            OKAY.  TO THE ADA AMENDMENTS ACT.
      AS YOU PROBABLY ALL KNOW, THE ACT WAS SIGNED 
   INTO LAW IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR, AND BECAME LAW 
   ON JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR.  BEFORE I GO INTO 
   WHAT THE ACT ACTUALLY HAS DONE, I WANT TO GO OVER 
   SOME BACKGROUND OF WHY THE ACT WAS NECESSARY.
      THE ADA, THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 
   WAS SIGNED INTO LAW IN 1990, BY THE FIRST 
   PRESIDENT BUSH, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT 
   CONGRESS PUT INTO THE ORIGINAL ADA WAS THE 
   DISABILITY DEFINITION THAT SAID THAT ANY TYPE OF 
   IMPAIRMENT THAT YOU HAD WAS PHYSICAL OR MENTAL AND 
   SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITED A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY WAS A 
   DISABILITY.
            THE CONGRESS ACTUALLY TOOK THAT TERMINOLOGY 
   DIRECTLY FROM THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973.  THE 
   LANGUAGE WAS THE EXACT SAME, AND CONGRESS DIDN'T 
   DREAM THAT THE CLAUSE ABOUT A "SUBSTANTIAL 
   LIMITATION" WOULD BECOME A LIMITING FACTOR IN WHO 
   HAD A DISABILITY, BECAUSE UNDER THE REHABILITATION 
   ACT FOR BASICALLY 17 YEARS, NO ONE HAD EVER 
   CHALLENGED WHAT WAS A "SUBSTANTIAL LIMITATION" TO 
   A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY.
      BUT UNDER THE ADA, THE EEOC , EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 
   OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, WAS GIVEN THE TASK OF 
   CREATING REGULATIONS, AND IN THEIR REGULATORY 
   LANGUAGE, THE EEOC STATED THAT SUBSTANTIAL 
   LIMITATION MEANT A CONDITION WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY 
   RESTRICTED A PERSON'S ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING.
      SO, FOR THE FIRST TIME, DEFENDANTS TO CASES OF 
   EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION WERE FILING MOTIONS TO 
   DISMISS BASED UPON THE SUBSTANTIAL LIMITATION AND 
   WHAT THAT WAS AND WHAT THE EEOC HAD WRITTEN IN THE 
   REGULATORY LANGUAGE.
      THE SUPREME COURT TOOK THE REGULATORY GUIDANCE 
   FROM THE EEOC IN A CASE CALLED SUTTON VERSUS 
   UNITED AIRLINES, AND IN THAT CASE -- TO GIVE YOU A 
   LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THAT -- UNITED AIRLINES 
   POSTED AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR PILOTS.  AND THE 
   SUTTON CASE INVOLVED TWO TWIN SISTERS WHO WERE 
   PILOTS AND WHO HAD APPLIED TO BE COMMERCIAL PILOTS 
   FOR UNITED AIRLINES.
      UNITED GRANTED BOTH OF THEM INTERVIEWS, AND AT 
   THE INTERVIEWS IT WAS DISCOVERED BY UNITED THAT 
   BOTH OF THESE SISTERS HAD VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS IN 
   THEIR GOOD EYES THEY HAD 20/200 VISION, AND IN 
   THEIR BAD EYES THEIR VISION WAS WORSE THAN 20/400.
      UNITED AT THEIR INTERVIEWS TOLD THEM THAT THEY 
   SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN AN INTERVIEW BECAUSE 
   UNITED'S REQUIREMENT WAS THAT THEIR PILOTS COULD 
   HAVE UNCORRECTED VISION NO WORSE THAN 20/100.  AND 
   FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH THE 
   VISION SCALE, 20/100 MEANS THAT A PERSON SEES AT 
   20 FEET WHAT THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL WOULD SEE AT 
   100 FEET.
      SO BASICALLY THESE SISTERS WERE EXTREMELY 
   NEARSIGHTED.  SO THEY FILED A SUIT BASED ON A 
   DISABILITY CLAIM, SAYING THAT THEY EITHER HAD A 
   PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT OR UNITED WAS REGARDING THEM 
   AS HAVING A PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT.  AND THE SUPREME 
   COURT SIDED WITH UNITED AND BASICALLY SAID THAT 
   EYEGLASSES ARE A MITIGATING MEASURE, AND THAT WHEN 
   YOU ARE DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON HAS A 
   DISABILITY, YOU HAVE TO TAKE MITIGATING MEASURES 
   INTO CONSIDERATION.  IN PREPARING FOR COMING TO 
   TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS TODAY, I WAS READING SOME 
   OF THE CASES THAT WERE HEARD IN LOWER COURTS 
   BASED -- BASED -- (REPEATING) -- BASED -- BASED 
   ... (AUDIO DIFFICULTY) UPON ... THEM TO CONTINUE 
   TO WALK AND/OR RUN.  THEY DIDN'T SAY WHETHER OR 
   NOT -- IT DIDN'T COME UP AS TO WHETHER THAT 
   ACTUALLY CONSTITUTED A DISABILITY, BUT IT WAS 
   POSSIBLE THAT SOMEBODY WHO HAD AN AMPUTATED LIMB 
   MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED DISABLED FOLLOWING THE 
   SUTTON SUPREME COURT DECISION.
      THEN, IF THAT WASN'T BAD ENOUGH, THE COURT 
   THEN, IN A FOLLOW-UP CASE, CALLED WILLIAMS VERSUS 
   TOYOTA MOTORS, THE COURT HAD TO DETERMINE (AUDIO 
   DIFFICULTY).
      CENTRAL TO THE LIFE OF THE INDIVIDUAL, THAT IT 
   WAS NOT A DISABILITY.  WHAT THEY STATED WAS 
   THAT -- AND LET ME GO BACK JUST A LITTLE BIT.  
   MS. WILLIAMS HAD SEVERAL IMPAIRMENTS, AND SHE WAS 
   ACTUALLY ABLE TO DO HER JOB UNTIL THEY ADDED 
   DUTIES.  SHE WAS AFTERNOON INSPECTOR FOR TOYOTA, 
   AND SHE HAD CARPAL TUNNEL AND A COUPLE OF OTHER 
   IMPAIRMENTS THAT MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR HER TO 
   RAISE HER ARMS FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME.  AND WHEN 
   SHE FIRST (AUDIO DIFFICULTIES) ... THAT MADE IT 
   DIFFICULT SO THAT QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTORS TO 
   WEAK UP (AUDIO DIFFICULTIES OTHER DUTIES TO HER 
   POSITION.  AND THE COURT SIDED WITH TOYOTA IN 
   THEIR CONTENTION THAT WORKING WAS NOT A -- HER 
   ONLY CLAIM WAS THAT SHE COULDN'T DO THE MANUAL 
   TASKS INVOLVED WITH HER WORKING, AND THE COURT 
   SAID THAT HER MANUAL TASKS INVOLVED IN THEIR 
   WORK -- IN HER WORK WERE NOT CENTRAL TO HER LIFE.  
   AND THEY LOOKED AT EEOC LANGUAGE THAT SAID THAT 
   THE MANUAL TASKS OF CENTRAL IMPORTANCE TO A 
   PERSON'S DAILY LIFE ARE HOUSEHOLD CHORES, BATHING, 
   BRUSHING ONE'S TEETH, AND OTHER SIGNIFICANT 
   HYGIENE TASKS, AND SHE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS 
   DOING ANY OF THOSE.  SO THE COURT ULTIMATELY 
   DETERMINED THAT SINCE SHE COULD DO ALL OF HER 
   HOUSEHOLD TASKS OF DAILY LIVING, THAT SHE WAS NOT 
   A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY.
      SO IN RESPONSE TO THOSE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS 
   AND LOWER COURT CASES THAT FOLLOWED THOSE 
   DECISIONS, CONGRESS PASSED WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY 
   CALLED THE ADA RESTORATION ACT.  IT WAS GIVEN A 
   NEW NAME LAST YEAR:  THE ADA AMENDMENTS ACT.  AND 
   AS I STATED BEFORE, THE LAW DID GO INTO EFFECT 
   JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.
      AMONG THE THINGS THAT CONGRESS FOUND WHEN 
   LOOKING TO RESTORING SOME OF THE RIGHTS THAT THEY 
   THOUGHT THEY HAD MADE ON PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 
   WITH THE ADA WAS THAT THE SUPREME COURT CASES OF 
   SUTTON AND WILLIAMS.  AND THE EEOC REGULATORY 
   LANGUAGE WERE WAY TOO NARROW, AND THAT IT WAS 
   CONGRESS'S INTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL ADA TO AFFORD 
   A BROAD COVERAGE OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.
      I WANT TO JUST TAKE A STEP BACK.  ONE OF THE 
   THINGS THAT THE SUPREME COURT LOOKED TO IN THE 
   SUTTON CASE WAS THAT IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE 
   ORIGINAL ADA, CONGRESS FOUND THAT AT THE TIME 
   APPROXIMATELY 43 MILLION AMERICANS HAD A 
   DISABILITY.  AND THE -- AND THEY APPARENTLY DID 
   SOME SORT OF A SEARCH AND FOUND THAT ABOUT 100 
   MILLION AMERICANS WORE SOME TYPE OF CORRECTIVE 
   LENSES.  SO THAT IS WHERE THEY CAME UP WITH THE 
   LANGUAGE THAT THEY NEEDED TO SAY THAT IT WAS NOT 
   CONGRESS'S INTENT TO LOOK AT PEOPLE WITHOUT THEIR 
   MITIGATING MEASURES WHEN DETERMINING THE 
   DISABILITY.
      I'LL COME BACK TO THIS SUTTON CASE IN A WHILE, 
   BECAUSE I FOUND SOMETHING REALLY IRONIC IN THE 
   PASSAGE OF THE AMENDMENTS ACT.
      SO IN PASSING THE ADA AMENDMENTS ACT, CONGRESS 
   STATED THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT CONSIDER MITIGATING 
   MEASURES WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT A 
   CONDITION IS SEVERE ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED A 
   DISABILITY.  AND THIS IS WHERE WE WANT TO GO BACK 
   TO THE SUTTON CASE.  AS YOU RECALL, THOSE SISTERS 
   HAD VISUAL IMPAIRMENT.  THE ONLY EXCEPTION THAT 
   CONGRESS LEFT TO MITIGATING MEASURES IS EYEGLASSES 
   AND CONTACTS.  SO THERE IS SOME SORT OF DISCONNECT 
   WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT SUTTON BEING THE -- BEING TOO 
   NARROW.  BUT THEN THEY EXCEPT EYEGLASSES AND 
   CONTACTS.  AND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID WAS 
   "ORDINARY EYEGLASSES AND CONTACTS."
        SO I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS.  I CAN 
   ONLY ASSUME THAT AT SOME POINT LITIGATION WILL BE 
   BROUGHT AS TO WHAT IS "ORDINARY EYEGLASSES AND 
   CONTACTS" AND WHAT CONSTITUTES EXTRAORDINARY.  SO 
   WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK TO SQUARE 1 WITH THE SUTTON 
   CASE, EVENTUALLY.  THE OTHER THING THAT CONGRESS 
   DID WITH THE ADA AMENDMENTS ACT WAS TO EXPAND WHAT 
   CONSTITUTES A "MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY" TO INCLUDE 
   JUST ABOUT EVERY MAJOR BODILY FUNCTION YOU CAN 
   THINK OF.  RATHER THAN REDO THE LAUND -- RATHER 
   THAN READ YOU THE LAUNDRY LIST, I WILL TELL YOU IF 
   YOU WANT TO LOOK AT WHAT THEY INCLUDED, ALL YOU 
   HAVE TO DO IS DO A GOOGLE SEARCH ON "ADA 
   AMENDMENTS ACT" AND IT WILL POINT YOU TO ANY 
   NUMBER OF PLACES WHERE YOU CAN LOOK AT THE 
   LANGUAGE.
      THE OTHER BIG CHANGE UNDER THE AMENDMENTS ACT 
   IS IN -- REGARDED AS THE DISABILITIES DEFINITION.  
   THERE ARE, UNDER THE ORIGINAL ADA THERE ARE THREE 
   WAYS YOU CAN BE CONSIDERED A PERSON WITH A 
   DISABILITY:  YOU CAN HAVE A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL 
   IMPAIRMENT WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE 
   ACTIVITY, YOU CAN HAVE A RECORD OF SUCH A 
   DISABILITY, OR A EMPLOYER CAN REGARD YOU AS HAVING 
   SUCH A DISABILITY (BACKGROUND NOISE.)
      UNDER THE ORIGINAL ADA, IF YOU ARE A PLAINTIFF 
   IN A CASE AND WERE BRINGING THE CASE UNDER THE 
   REGARDED AS DEFINITION, YOU BASICALLY HAD TO HAVE 
   AN INTEROFFICE MEMO -- YOU HAD TO HAVE THE SMOKING 
   GUN, SO TO SPEAK, THAT BASICALLY STATED THAT THE 
   EMPLOYER REGARDED YOU AS BEING A PERSON WITH A 
   DISABILITY.
      THE BEST EXAMPLE THAT I CAN GIVE OF THAT IS IF 
   A PERSON OF SHORT STATURE HAS NO PHYSICAL 
   IMPAIRMENT OTHER THAN POSSIBLY THE ABILITY TO 
   REACH SOMETHING THAT IS UP HIGH, THEY HAVE REALLY 
   NO DISABILITY, PER SE.  THE EMPLOYER MIGHT THINK 
   OF THEM AS BEING A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY JUST 
   BASED ON THEIR STATURE.  UNDER THE NEW ACT, AN 
   INDIVIDUAL CAN PROVE THAT THE EMPLOYER REGARDED 
   THEM AS HAVING A DISABILITY IF THAT INDIVIDUAL CAN 
   ESTABLISH THAT THEY'VE BEEN SUBJECTED TO A 
   DISCRIMINATORY ACT DUE TO WHAT IS PERCEIVED AS A 
   PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT, WHETHER OR NOT THE PHYSICAL 
   IMPAIRMENT LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY.
      SAY, FOR INSTANCE, A PERSON IS DISFIGURED IN 
   SOME WAY, AND THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY'VE BEEN 
   PASSED OVER FOR A PROMOTION BASED UPON THAT 
   DISFIGUREMENT.  THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AN E-MAIL 
   FROM THEIR SUPERVISOR TO WHOMEVER THAT SAYS "I 
   DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD PUT THIS PERSON IN THAT 
   POSITION."  IF THEY CAN PROVE THAT THEY'VE BEEN 
   PASSED OVER AND THE ONLY THING THAT THEY CAN POINT 
   TO IS A PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT, THEN THEY CAN MAKE A 
   CASE FOR BEING REGARDED AS HAVING A DISABILITY, 
   EVEN IF THEY DON'T.
      NOW THE ONE THING THAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE 
   "REGARDED AS" IS THAT IF YOUR IMPAIRMENT IS 
   TRANSITORY IN NATURE.  AND THEY ACTUALLY DEFINE 
   WHAT TRANSITORY IS, WHICH IS A GOOD THING.  AND 
   ACCORDING TO THE AMENDMENTS ACT, TRANSITORY 
   IMPAIRMENT IS SOMETHING THAT LASTS SIX MONTHS OR 
   LESS.
      SO IF YOU HAVE WHAT IS A TRANSITORY IMPAIRMENT, 
   YOU CANNOT MAKE A CLAIM FOR DISCRIMINATION, EVEN 
   UNDER THE ADA AMENDMENTS ACT.
      THE OTHER THING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS 
   THAT IF YOU ARE REGARDED -- IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE 
   BEING REGARDED AS A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY, YOU 
   CANNOT KEEP A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR THE 
   DISABILITY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE.  IF THAT MAKES 
   SENSE.  BUT CONGRESS ACTUALLY SPELLS THAT OUT IN 
   THE ADA AMENDMENT ACT.
      SO THOSE ARE THE NEW -- THAT IS THE NEW LAW.  
   PRETTY MUCH IN A NUTSHELL, AND -- I ALLOWED A HALF 
   HOUR, AND THAT WAS 25 MINUTES.
      SO AT THIS POINT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY 
   QUESTIONS THAT ANYBODY MIGHT HAVE.  (AUDIO 
   DIFFICULTIES.)
       THE.
      >> THE INJURERY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE WORK RELATED 
   FOR HER TO RECOVER.  IF SHE NEEDS ASSISTANCE IN 
   HER ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING, DUE TO AN 
   IMPAIRMENT, SHE WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE OLD 
   ADA, BUT DEFINITELY COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION 
   AS IT'S NOW DEFINED.
      >> I HAVE A QUESTION.
      >> SPRINGFIELD FIRST, AND THEN I'LL GET BACK TO 
   YOU ON THE PHONE.
      >> (QUESTION OFF MIKE.)
      APPROXIMATELY THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO, THE 
   SUPREME COURT CAME UP WITH A RULING THAT STATED IF 
   A PERSON HA A DISABILITY OF ANY KIND.  LIKE THE 
   EXAMPLE YOU PUT HER IN THE EPILEPSY SITUATION, AND 
   THEY WERE TAKING MEDICATION FOR IT AND THE 
   EPILEPSY DOES NOT OCCUR ANY MORE, THEY SAID THAT 
   PERSON DOES NOT HAVE A DISABILITY.  AND SO IS THIS 
   ACT CORRECTING THAT SUPREME COURT RULING THAT WAS 
   IN EFFECT THAT SAID THAT THE DISABILITY IS NO 
   LONGER HERE BECAUSE YOU ARE TAKING MEDICATION?  
   BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS WRONG ALSO.  I THOUGHT 
   IF YOU HAVE A DISABILITY, JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE 
   TAKING MEDICATION, IF YOU MISS MEDICATION OR 
   HAPPEN TO NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE IT OR WHATEVER, AND 
   YOUR SITUATION, EPILEPTIC OCCURS, HAPPENS OR 
   WHATEVER YOUR SITUATION IS, YOUR DISABILITY IS 
   STILL THERE; THE MEDICATION IS JUST ASSISTING YOU 
   IN NOT HAVING TO SUFFER AS MUCH WITH THAT 
   DISABILITY.
      SO MY QUESTION TO YOU, SIR, IS:  DOES THIS NEW 
   AMENDMENT, THEN, DOES THAT CORRECT THAT SUPREME 
   COURT RULING IN THAT OKAY, SO NOW THE MEDICATIONS, 
   EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE TAKING THEM, YOU WILL STILL BE 
   CONSIDERED A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY?
      >> GERARD BROEKER:  YES.  THAT'S ONE OF THE 
   THINGS THAT CONGRESS STATED WHEN THEY PASSED THE 
   NEW ACT, WAS THAT THEY CALLED IT THE AMELIORATIVE 
   EFFECTS OF A MITIGATING MEASURE.  AND BASICALLY 
   WHAT THEY STATED IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO OFF 
   YOUR MEDICAL CIETION AND SUFFER A BUNCH OF -- OFF 
   YOUR HEAD OCCASION AND SUFFER A BUNCH OF SEIZURES 
   TO BE CONSIDERED A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY.  THE 
   COURT NO LONGER CAN LOOK AT YOU IN YOUR MEDICATED 
   STATE.  THEY SHOULD LOOK AT YOU AS IF YOU WERE NOT 
   TAKING THAT MEDICATION.
      SO IF YOU CAN SHOW THAT WITHOUT THE MEDICATION 
   YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF A SEIZURE DISORDER OR ANY 
   TYPE OF IMPAIRMENT LIKE THAT, YOU ARE CONSIDERED A 
   PERSON WITH A DISABILITY UNDER THE NEW ACT.
      >> THAT WAS MY QUESTION, THANK YOU FOR THE 
   ANSWER.
      >> SIR, I'M IN SPRINGFIELD.
      >> GO AHEAD.
      >> I HAVE EPILEPSY.  AND I TAKE MEDICATION 
   (BACKGROUND NOISE).
      >> GO AHEAD IN SPRINGFIELD.
      >> OKAY.  SO WHERE I WORK I HAVE -- EVEN THOUGH 
   I TAKE MEDICATION, I MIGHT HAVE A SEIZURE ONCE IN 
   A WHILE.  SO DEFINITELY I AM CONSIDERED ONE WITH A 
   DISABILITY, IS THAT TRUE?
      >> GERARD BROKER:  YES.
      >> IF I GO FOR A PROMOTION, CAN THEY NOT GIVE 
   ME THAT PROMOTION BECAUSE OF THAT DISABILITY?
      >> GERARD BROEKER:  ABSOLUTELY NOT.  THAT IS A 
   CLEAR VIOLATION OF NOT ONLY THE ADA BUT THE HUMAN 
   RIGHTS ACT.
      >> SO WHEN I FILL OUT AN APPLICATION, DO I HAVE 
   TO PUT DOWN THAT I HAVE EPILEPSY?
      >> NO.  YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED AT ALL TO DISCLOSE 
   A DISABILITY UNLESS YOU ARE SEEKING A REASONABLE 
   ACCOMMODATION FOR THAT DISABILITY.
      BUT IF YOU -- WITH EPILEPSY, IF YOU ARE TAKING 
   MEDICATION AND THAT CONTROLS YOUR SEIZURES, YOU 
   ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE TO DISCLOSE TO THE EMPLOYER 
   THAT YOU HAVE A DISABILITY.
      >> OKAY.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
      >> THANK YOU.  GOOD QUESTION.
      >> SIR?  I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.  I WORK FOR 
   THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND THEY HAVE ACCOMMODATED 
   ME VERY WELL.  BUT I ALSO WORK PART-TIME JOB.  AT 
   THE PART-TIME JOB, I WAS TOLD THAT THE ONLY SHIFT 
   THAT I WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO WORK IS OVERNIGHTS 
   BECAUSE I DON'T DEVELOP -- DUE TO MY DISABILITY.  
   I HAVE A VISION IMPAIRMENT THAT PREVENTS ME FROM 
   DRIVING.  CAN THEY USE MY DISABILITY AGAINST ME TO 
   SAY THAT I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO WORK A DAY SHIFT 
   POSITION BECAUSE I AM NOT ELIGIBLE AND NOT ABLE TO 
   OBTAIN A DRIVER'S LICENSE?
      >> THE LEGAL ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS 
   POSSIBLY.  IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT 
   DRIVING IS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF THAT JOB 
   DURING THE DAY.
      >> OKAY.
      >> IF IT IS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF THE JOB, 
   YOUR INABILITY TO GET A LICENSE WOULD DISQUALIFIED 
   YOU FROM THAT POSITION.  BUT IF IT IS NOT AN 
   ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF THE JOB, THEN THEY WOULD 
   NEED TO MAKE WHAT IS CALLED A REASONABLE 
   ACCOMMODATION FOR THAT, AND ALLOW YOU TO HAVE A 
   DRIVER OR JUST HAVE OTHER PEOPLE DO THE DRIVING.  
   BUT THAT ISSUE HAS COME UP WITH A LOT OF JOBS 
   STATEWIDE.  AND IF IT ALL COMES DOWN TO WHETHER 
   DRIVING IS AN ESSENTIAL QUESTION.
      >> I HAVE A QUESTION IN CHICAGO.  ON THE 
   EPILEPTIC SEIZURES, WE HAVE AN EMPLOYEE WHO 
   DOESN'T LIKE TO TAKE HER MEDICATION, AND WE'RE 
   TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW FAR WE HAVE TO GO.  WE 
   KNOW SHE'S NOT TAKING IT BECAUSE SHE WILL PASS A 
   NOTE TO WHATEVER EMPLOYEE CLOSE TO HER "I'M ABOUT 
   TO HAVE A SEIZURE" AND SHE WILL GO INTO THE 
   BATHROOM.  SHE'S UPSETTING A LOT OF PEOPLE AROUND 
   HER BECAUSE SHER NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR TRYING TO GET 
   HER HELP.  BUT SHE WON'T TAKE THE MEDICATION AND 
   WON'T GO TO THE HOSPITAL.  WHERE DOES IT GET TO 
   THE POINT WHERE WE SAY:  YOU'RE FIRED.  GO AWAY?
      >> WELL, THAT'S -- A GOOD QUESTION.  AND IT'S 
   AN EXTREMELY LONG ANSWER.  I'LL TRY TO GIVE YOU 
   THE SHORT ANSWER.  AND THAT IS IF THE INDIVIDUAL 
   BECOMES A DANGER -- COULD BE DANGEROUS TO OTHERS, 
   BUT IF IT'S -- UNDER THE ADA THAT THE INDIVIDUAL 
   COULD BE DANGEROUS TO HERSELF, AND AT THE POINT 
   IT'S A DANGER HAVING THAT INDIVIDUAL IN THE 
   WORKPLACE, THAT'S WHEN YOU COULD SAFELY TERMINATE 
   THE EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT RUNNING THE RISK OF HAVING 
   A SUCCESSFUL ADA COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU.  DOES THAT 
   ANSWER THE QUESTION?
      >> YES, BASICALLY -- YES.  OKAY.  THANK YOU.
      >> GERARD BROEKER:  I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO 
   SAY AND IMAISKLY YOU'RE RIGHT.  WE HAVE A -- 
   BASICALLY YOU'RE RIGHT.  WE HAVE A QUESTION HERE 
   IN THIS ROOM.
      >> GOING BACK TO THE MITIGATING MEASURES ABOUT 
   THE MEDICATION, HOW ABOUT SURGERY?  WOULD SURGERY 
   BE A MITIGATING IF YOU HAVE SURGERY TO CORRECT 
   YOUR PROBLEMS, ARE YOU STILL CONSIDERED A PERSON 
   WITH A DISABILITY AFTER SURGERY?
      >> GERARD:  WOULD YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF 
   WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
      QI DON'T KNOW.  SOME TYPE OF CANCER OR A HEART 
   CONDITION OR SOMETHING THAT SURGERY CAN MORE OR 
   LESS CORRECT.
      >> GERARD:  YES.  THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS 
   IF YOU HAVE SURGERY AND -- WELL, THE QUESTION IS 
   IF YOU HAVE SURGERY AND IT CORRECTS YOUR 
   CONDITION, WOULD YOU STILL BE CONSIDERED A PERSON 
   WITH A DISABILITY?  THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS 
   YES, BECAUSE UNDER THE RECORD OF -- PRONG OF THE 
   DEFINITION, YOU HAVE A RECORD OF HAVING SUCH AN 
   IMPAIRMENT.
      >> AS LONG AS I'VE GOT THE MIC, I HAVE TO 
   FOLLOW UP.  THERE THERE ANY REJECTIONS, LIKE THE 
   ILLINOIS RESIDENTS FIGURE THIS 10.8 PERCENT HAVE A 
   DISABILITY.  ARE THERE ANY PROJECTIONS ON HOW MANY 
   PEOPLE WILL BE CONSIDERED HAVING A DISABILITY 
   UNDER THIS ADA/AA--
      >> GERARD:  THE ANSWER IS AS FAR AS I KNOW, 
   CONGRESS DIDN'T DO ANY PROJECTIONS LIKE THEY DID 
   WITH THE ORIGINAL ADA, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT 
   THEY DIDN'T WANT THE SUPREME COURT TO LOOK AT THE 
   PREAMBLE TO THE ADA AMENDMENTS ACT AND SAY:  WELL, 
   CONGRESS IS STILL SAYING THAT ONE IN FIVE 
   INDIVIDUALS -- THEY DON'T WANT TO GET BACKED INTO 
   THINGS THEY DEALT WITH UNDER THE ORIGINAL ADA.  
   NOW I DON'T KNOW IF JANUARY, THE ACCOMMODATION 
   NETWORK WHO DID THE HANDOUT THAT WENT ALONG WITH 
   THIS PRESENTATION, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE DONE 
   ANY PROJECTIONS.  BUT I KNOW THAT CONGRESS 
   SPECIFICALLY DID NOT WANT FOR DO ANY PROJECTIONS 
   BECAUSE THEY WANT THE ADA TO BE AS SPECIFIC AS 
   POSSIBLE WITH RESPECT TO INDIVIDUALS WITH 
   IMPAIRMENTS.
      >> THANK YOU.
      >> I HAVE A QUESTION.
      >> I HAVE A QUESTION IN CHICAGO.
      >> OKAY.  WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE ON THE PHONE.  GO 
   AHEAD, ONE AT A TIME.
      >> I WORK FOR THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.  IF I'M 
   GOING FOR A PROMOTION, DO I HAVE TO PUT DOWN THAT 
   I HAVE EPILEPSY ON MY APPLICATION?
      >> GERARD:  NO.  AGAIN, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO 
   DISCLOSE A DISABILITY, UNLESS YOU ARE SEEKING A 
   REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR IT.
      >> OKAY.  BUT LIKE ON A LOT OF APPLICATIONS IT 
   ASKS YOU:  DO YOU HAVE A DISABILITY OR ANYTHING.  
   IF I DON'T PUT IT DOWN, I'M LYING.
      >> GERARD BROEKER:  THE SHORT ANSWER TO THE 
   QUESTION IS IT SHOULD BE OPTIONAL, AND IT SHOULD 
   STATE THAT THE ONLY -- ON AN APPLICATION IT SHOULD 
   STATE THAT THE ONLY REASON TO DISCLOSE A 
   DISABILITY IS IF YOU NEED A REASONABLE 
   ACCOMMODATION.
      >> THANK YOU.
      >> ALL RIGHT.  MAY I ASK MY QUESTION NOW?  
   (MYSELF AND SEVERAL OF MY CO-WORKERS HAVE FIBRO--
      >> COULD YOU SPEAK UP.  IT'S HARD TO HEAR YOU.
      >> MY QUESTION IS REGARDING MYSELF AND TWO OF 
   MY CO-WORKERS.  WE SUFFER FROM FIBROMY ALLEGE 
   YEAH, AND -- FIBROMIAL GENTLEMAN, AND JON IF ANY 
   OF US HAVE -- MY QUESTION IS HOW DO WE GET 
   STARTED?  SEVERAL YEARS AGO I SIMPLY WENT TO MY 
   SUPERVISOR AND TOLD HER THAT I HAD FIBROMYALGIA 
   AND I NEEDED A BETTER CHAIR.  I JUST GOT THE 
   CHAIR.  IN THE FUTURE IF I NEED SOMETHING ELSE, 
   WHAT DO I NEED TO DO?  DO I REGISTER, OR HOW DO 
   YOU GET STARTED IN SEEKING ACCOMMODATIONS?
      >> GERARD BROEKER:  WELL, THE PROCESS IS SET UP 
   TO BE A GIVE AND TAKE PROCESS.  IF YOU CAN GET 
   YOUR ACCOMMODATIONS THROUGH INFORMAL MEANS, JUST 
   BASICALLY REQUESTING SOMETHING FROM YOUR 
   SUPERVISOR, THAT'S FINE.  BUT TO ENSURE THAT YOU 
   GET THE ACCOMMODATIONS THAT YOU NEED, THE BEST -- 
   YOUR BEST BET IS TO WRITE SOMETHING UP THAT STATES 
   WHAT YOUR DISABILITY IS AND WHAT REASONABLE 
   ACCOMMODATIONS YOU ARE SEEKING.  THERE IS  NO -- 
   WELL, THE STATE MIGHT HAVE A REASONABLE 
   ACCOMMODATION FORM.  I'M GETTING NODS THAT THEY 
   DO.  YOU SHOULD ASK YOUR HUMAN RESOURCES 
   DEPARTMENT OR THE ADA COORDINATOR FOR YOUR 
   DEPARTMENT FOR A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST 
   FORM.
      >> MAY I ASK MY QUESTION NOW, HELLO?
      >> GERARD:  YES, GO AHEAD IN CHICAGO.
      >> ALL RIGHT.  THANK YOU.  I HAVE A DISABILITY.  
   MY DISABILITY IS CARPAL TUNNEL.  I'VE HAD AT LEAST 
   FIVE SURGERIES AND MULTIPLE SURGERIES WITHIN EACH 
   OF THOSE.  THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS UNDERSTANDING 
   ABOUT THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AND ALSO, I 
   HAVE -- THE -- (AUDIO DIFFICULTIES) REASONABLE OF 
   THE EMPLOYER KNOWING I NEED REASONABLE 
   ACCOMMODATIONS.  THEY GAVE ME A LITTLE PLASTIC 
   THING TO RST MY WRIST ON WHICH ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT 
   WORK.  BUT MY JOB IS A TWO--FOLD JOB.  ONE THAT 
   REQUIRES YOU DO QUITE A BIT OF DATA ENTRY, AND THE 
   OTHER THAT DOESN'T.  IT WOULDN'T BE A PROMOTION, 
   HOWEVER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS IN ORDER 
   TO, IN EFFECT, GET THE ACCOMMODATIONS THAT IS 
   ACTUALLY THERE WHICH WOULD HELP ME.
      >> GERARD BROEKER:  WELL, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE 
   THE FIRST THING YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK IS A 
   WORKSITE EVALUATION TO SEE, WHAT IT IS (AUDIO 
   DIFFICULTIES) ...
      >> THEY ACTUALLY DID CHANGE MY POSITION TO A 
   JOB THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH EASIER AND WOULDN'T 
   REAGGRAVATE THE CONDITION.  BUT BECAUSE SOMEONE 
   DECIDED THAT -- I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN 
   HEAR ME OR NOT.
      >> YES, GO AHEAD.
      >> I KNOW I'M NOT A MUTE.  THEY ACTUALLY DID 
   DECIDE TO PUT ME IN A POSITION THAT WOULD REQUIRE 
   THAT I DO AS -- WOULDN'T REQUIRE I DO AS MUCH 
   TYPING.  AGAIN, IT IS PART OF MY PRESENT JOB TITLE 
   AND DESCRIPTION.  HOWEVER, SOMEONE OVERRULED THAT, 
   EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD HAVE GREATLY HELPED.  NOW 
   I'VE REAGGRAVATED THE CONDITION AND I'M JUST AT A 
   LOSS AS TO WHAT THE APPROPRIATE ACTION IS AND HOW 
   I GET THAT WORK SHIET EVALUATION, WHICH REALLY 
   WOULDN'T REQUIRE THEY CHANGE MY JOB AT ALL, JUST 
   PUT ME IN THE PORTION OF MY JOB THAT WOULDN'T 
   REAGGRAVATE MY CONDITION AS IT ALREADY HAS.
      >> GERARD BROEKER:  OKAY.  AS FAR AS GETTING A 
   WORKSITE EVALUATION, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A 
   FORMAL PROCESS IN PLACE, BUT THE ADA COORDINATOR 
   FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT WOULD BE THE PERSON TO ASK AND 
   BASICALLY THEY HAVE TO GET YOU THAT EVALUATION 
   UPON REQUEST WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME.  
   SO IF YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RESPONSE WITHIN A MONTH 
   OR TWO, YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE ADA COORDINATOR 
   AGAIN.  AND IF THEY'RE NOT BEING RESPONSIVE, GO 
   OVER THEIR HEAD TO SOMEBODY THAT CAN ACTUALLY GET 
   THAT DONE FOR YOU.  AND SUSAN ALLEN FROM HUMAN 
   RIGHTS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
      >> THANK YOU.
      >> SUSAN ALLEN:  MAYBE THIS WOULD BE HELPFUL.  
   EACH STATE AGENCY HAS A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 
   REQUEST FORM AND A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 
   PROCEDURE, AND THAT REQUEST FORM APPEARS IN THE 
   AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN.  GENERALLY THE PERSON 
   WOULD GO TO HIS OR HER SUPERVISOR AND SAY THAT 
   THEY WANT A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, THERE'S A 
   FORM THAT WOULD BE FILLED OUT.  YOU PROVIDE 
   LIMITED INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DISABILITY, AND 
   THEN AS GERARD SAID, IT WOULD BE A GIVE AND TAKE 
   PROCESS.  YOU SAY:  I NEED THESE ACCOMMODATIONS 
   BECAUSE OF CARPAL TUNNEL.  THEY SHOULD COME BACK 
   AND SAY:  WHAT WOULD YOU NEED?
      >> AS GERARD SUGGESTED:  MAYBE A WORKPLACE 
   EVALUATION.  AND THEN THE PROCESS GOES FROM THERE.  
   BUT EVERY AGENCY HAS THEIR OWN PROCEDURE, AND IT 
   APPEARS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN, AND YOU 
   SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THAT FROM THE EEO OFFICER, 
   THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICER, WHICH 
   EACH AGENCY HAS.
      >> GERARD:  THANK YOU, SUSAN.
      >> I HAVE A QUESTION IN CHICAGO.
      >> GERARD:  OKAY.  GO AHEAD.
      >> CAN YOU TELL ME, BOTH AS A PERSON WITH A 
   DISABILITY AND AS ADVOCATE FOR PERSONS WITH 
   DISABILITY, CAN YOU TELL ME, I HAVE EPILEPSY.  IF 
   MEDICATION HAS STOPPED THE SEIZURES FROM 
   HAPPENING, HOWEVER, IF I ALSO HAVE A BALANCE 
   PROBLEM WHICH NECESSITATES ME USING A CANE, CAN 
   YOU TELL ME, IF I WOULD GO TO A STATE AGENCY TO 
   REQUEST TO BE HIRED, DO I NEED TO SAY WHAT -- 
   EVERYTHING?  AND ALSO AS LONG AS I HAVE MEDICAL 
   RECORDS OF HAVING THE EPILEPSY, DOES THAT MEAN I 
   AM TOTALLY COVERED UNDER THE ADAA?
      >> GERARD BROEKER:  YES, YOU ARE COVERED UNDER 
   BOTH THE ADA AND THE ADAA.  AND THE ANSWER TO THE 
   QUESTION ABOUT DISCLOSING THE EPILEPSY, NO, YOU DO 
   NOT HAVE TO DISCLOSE.
      >> I AM FROM HERE IN SPRINGFIELD.  I HAVE 
   EPILEPSY ALSO, AND EVERY TIME I HAVE A SEIZURE -- 
   I HAVE PARTIAL SEIZURES, WHICH I DON'T THROW UP AT 
   THE MOUTH OR FAINT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.  BUT 
   EVERY TIME I HAD A SEIZURE THEY WERE CALLING AN 
   AMBULANCE, WHICH COST ME A LOT OF MONEY FOR COPAY.  
   WHAT I HAD TO DO, THERE IS AN EPILEPSY RESOURCE 
   CENTER HERE, AND I HAD THEM COME TO EDUCATE THESE 
   PEOPLE WHAT THEY NEED TO DO WHEN I HAVE A SEIZURE.  
   I DON'T NEED TO BE CALLED AN AMBULANCE FOR THIS 
   PURPOSE.  BECAUSE THAT COSTS ME MORE MONEY.
      AND THAT ONE LADY THAT SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE 
   GIRL THAT WENT TO THE BATHROOM ALL THE TIME, 
   EPILEPSY IS A NERVOUS -- A NERVOUS DISORDER 
   DISEASE, BASICALLY.  AND I GET REALLY DEPRESSED 
   TOO SOMETIMES, AND YOU JUST NEED TO GO FIND A 
   CORNER THAT YOU CAN REALLY CRY INTO.  AND THAT'S 
   WHAT EPILEPSY DOES, REALLY REACTS ON YOUR NERVES.
      >> GERARD:  OKAY.  THANK YOU.  THERE IS A 
   QUESTION ALL THE WAY IN THE BACK IT LOOKS LIKE.
      >> HI.  I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE 
   ADA AMENDMENTS ACT IN TERMS OF WHERE IT'S EITHER 
   REMEDIATED OR EPISODIC.  PARTICULARLY REVOLVING 
   AROUND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION.  AS A PERSON THAT 
   DOES REVIEW REQUESTS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ONE 
   OF THE THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY 
   PRESENT FOR THAT EMPLOYEE IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE 
   ASKING FOR TO BE ACCOMMODATED.  SO IT'S HARD TO 
   EVALUATE THAT IF IT'S A PROSPECTIVE ACCOMMODATION 
   REQUEST.
      SO WHAT IF THIS HAPPENS?  I MAY NEED X.
      SO I GUESS I WOULD ASK YOU, GERARD, IF YOU 
   COULD ELABORATE IN TERMS OF A PRACTICAL 
   APPLICATION.  IF SOMEONE IS INDICATING THAT IT'S 
   EPISODIC OR BEEN REMEDIATED SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE 
   ANYTHING CURRENTLY THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IN TERMS 
   OF WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING, HOW WOULD YOU INDICATE 
   A RESPONSE MIGHT BE UNDER THIS LAW?
      >> GERARD BROEKER:  SURE.  THE QUESTION IS VERY 
   GOOD, AND BASICALLY THIS REALLY GETS INTO THE 
   GIVE-AND-TAKE PROCESS.  AND IF AN INDIVIDUAL 
   STATES THAT THEY HAVE A CONDITION AND MAY NEED 
   SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE OF IT, YOU 
   CERTAINLY -- MY RESPONSE WOULD BE:  WELL, WHEN THE 
   TIME COMES YOU NEED TO LET US KNOW, AND WE WILL 
   WORK WITH YOU AT THAT TIME.  BUT IF YOU'RE NOT 
   CURRENTLY REQUESTING ANYTHING, IT'S GOOD THAT YOU 
   HAVE LET US KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A DISABILITY AND IF 
   WE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE YOU IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL 
   CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE GET TO IT.  DOES THAT 
   ANSWER THE QUESTION?
      >> YEAH.  I GUESS, YES, IN TERMS OF THE 
   PRACTICAL APPLICATION.  I APPRECIATE THAT.  I 
   GUESS FOR ME, I'LL BE ANXIOUS TO SEE HOW EEOC 
   INTERPRETS CERTAINLY THAT KIND OF AN EXPLANATION.  
   GIVEN IN THE PAST, YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY DO SOARKT 
   THE ACCOMMODATION, THE PERSON IS REQUESTING, AND 
   HOW THAT ALLOWS THAT INDIVIDUAL TO PERFORM THE 
   ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THAT JOB.  SO IF IT ISN'T 
   CURRENTLY PRESENT FOR THE PERSON, THEY MUST BE 
   PERFORMING THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB 
   WITHOUT ANY ACCOMMODATION I GUESS IS WHAT I'M 
   TRYING --
      >> GERARD:  YES, AND THAT PART OF THE LAW 
   HASN'T CHANGED.  THEY STILL NEED TO BE ABLE TO 
   PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT 
   ACCOMMODATIONS.
      >> QUESTION.
      >> GERARD:  YES, GO AHEAD.
      >> I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY A STATEMENT MADE BY 
   SUSAN ALLEN.
      DID YOU ENDORSE THAT A WORKSITE EVALUATION CAN 
   BE PART OF THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION?
      >> SUSAN ALLEN:  YES.  YES, THAT COULD BE PART 
   OF IT.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 
   RIGHTS HAS A BLIND INDIVIDUAL WHO IS AN 
   INVESTIGATOR, AND WE ASKED THE CHICAGO LIGHTHOUSE 
   FOR THE BLIND TO COME OUT, WHICH THEY DID, FREE, 
   AND MADE AN EVALUATION AND DETERMINED YOU NEED 
   THIS SOFTWARE AND THIS AND THIS AND THIS.  AND 
   SAID WHERE YOU GET IT.  THERE'S ALSO THE ILLINOIS 
   ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM HERE IN SPRINGFIELD.  
   BUT IT'S AVAILABLE STATEWIDE, THAT WILL DO SUCH 
   WORKPLACE EVALUATIONS.  THERE IS A COST TO THAT, I 
   SAY A MINIMAL COST OF $100 OR SOME DOLLARS.  BUT 
   NOT EVERY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WOULD NEED 
   THAT.  BUT IF YOU DO NEED THAT, THAT'S SIMPLER 
   THAN "I NEED X," "WE DON'T HAVE X LET'S TRY Y" 
   PREAVMENT.  THIS IS A PERSON THAT SAYS THIS IS 
   WHAT IS NEEDED AND HERE IS HOW YOU GET IT.  ALSO 
   THE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ALLOWS YOU TO BORROW 
   EQUIPMENT AND SEE IF YOU WANT TO GET IT.
      >> FOR AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A BAD BACK, WE WERE 
   DENIED THAT EVALUATION AND THEY GAVE HIM A CHAIR.  
   ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY, ONE OF THE ASSISTIVE 
   TECHNOLOGY THEY DO NOT HAVE IS CHAIRS.
      >> GERARD:  YOU'RE REALLY GETTING INTO IF THE 
   INDIVIDUAL HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO TRY IT OUT, IT'S 
   REALLY JUST A GUESSING GAME AS TO WHETHER THE 
   PIECE OF EQUIPMENT WILL MAKE IT SO THAT THE 
   INDIVIDUAL CAN PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL JOB 
   FUNCTIONS.
      >> THANK YOU.
      >> I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
      >> GERARD:  OKAY.  GO AHEAD.
      >> FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO FIND OUT, FOR THE 
   REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST, I'VE HEARD FROM 
   SUPERVISORS THAT IF AN EMPLOYEE GETS AN 
   ACCOMMODATION, WHETHER IT'S A CHAIR OR WHATEVER IT 
   MIGHT BE, THAT IF THEY MOVE TO ANOTHER POSITION, 
   THEY DON'T GET TO TAKE IT WITH THEM.  THAT DOESN'T 
   MAKE SENSE TO ME.  I MEAN, IF THEY'RE IN THE SAME 
   AGENCY, WHY WOULDN'T THEY BE ABLE TO TAKE IT WITH 
   THEM?  THEY'RE GOING TO NEED IT NO MATTER WHAT 
   POSITION THEY GO TO.
      >> GERARD:  WELL, THE -- THE ANSWER TO THE 
   QUESTION IS, THAT GETS INTO THE POLITICS OF WHICH 
   DEPARTMENT OR WHICH DIVISION PAID FOR THE PIECE OF 
   EQUIPMENT, AND OWNSWHO  THE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT.
      IT SHOULD BE, ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE SAME 
   AGENCY, IT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR THE 
   INDIVIDUAL TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THE PIECE OF 
   EQUIPMENT WITH THEM.  IT MISA -- MAKES A LOT MORE 
   SENSE FOR THEM TO MOVE IT TO ANOTHER DIVISION 
   WITHIN THE SAME AGENCY RATHER THAN HAVE ANOTHER 
   DIVISION BUY THE SAME PIECE OF EQUIPMENT.  BUT I'M 
   NOT A STATE EMPLOYEE, SO I CAN SAY THAT THE STATE 
   DOESN'T ALWAYS MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS WHEN IT 
   COMES TO SPENDING MONEY.
      >> OKAY.  AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS, A LOT 
   OF PEOPLE I HEAR DON'T WANT TO LET THEIR EMPLOYER 
   KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A DISABILITY; THEY THINK IT'S 
   A BAD THING.  WHAT CAN YOU SAY TO THEM TO LET THEM 
   KNOW THAT IT IS NOT A BAD THING?
      >> GERARD:  WELL, THE INDIVIDUAL -- AS YOU 
   KNOW, THE INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO 
   DISCLOSE.  IF YOU'RE WANTING DISCLOSURE JUST SO 
   YOU HAVE MORE OF AN ACCURATE IDEA OF HOW MANY 
   EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES YOU HAVE, YOU CAN LET 
   THEM KNOW THAT THAT INFORMATION IS KEPT 
   CONFIDENTIAL.  THE OTHER THING THAT IS REQUIRED 
   UNDER THE OLD ADA IS THAT IF AN INDIVIDUAL 
   DISCLOSES A DISABILITY, THAT IS NOT PUT INTO THEIR 
   PERSONNEL FILE.  IT'S KEPT IN A SEPARATE FILE, AND 
   SO THOSE WOULD BE THINGS THAT YOU COULD LET THEM 
   KNOW THAT MIGHT ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO DISCLOSE 
   A DISABILITY.  BUT AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO, 
   UNDER EITHER THE ADA OR THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT.
      >> OKAY.  I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO CHICAGO.  THERE 
   SEEMS TO BE A PERSON THERE THAT HAS A QUESTION.
      >> GO AHEAD.
      >> HI.  CAN YOU HEAR ME?
      >> GERARD:  YES, GO AHEAD.
      >> HI.  I HAVE EPILEPSY, I'VE HAD IT SINCE I 
   WAS 6.  AND RECENTLY I HAD A SEIZURE AT MY JOB, 
   AND I WAS OKAY.  BUT MY BOSS ASKED ME TO GO HOME, 
   AND I HEARD THE NEXT DAY THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED 
   THAT I MIGHT TRY AND SUE THEM.  AND I WAS 
   WONDERING IF THERE WAS SOME KIND OF DOCUMENT THAT 
   I COULD SIGN RELIEVING THEM OF ANYTHING.  DOES 
   THAT MAKE SENSE?
      >> GERARD:  YES, BUT I WOULDN'T DO IT.  
   (LAUGHTER) I'M NOT -- I'M NOT YOUR ATTORNEY, AND I 
   DON'T PRETEND TO PLAY ONE ON TV.  BUT I WOULD 
   RECOMMEND AGAINST EVER SIGNING ANY RIGHTS AWAY.
      >> OKAY.  THANK YOU.
      >> ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS IN CHICAGO?
      >> YES, I HAVE A QUESTION.  HOW DO I KNOW 
   WHETHER OR NOT I'M COVERED UNDER THE OLD ADA OR 
   THE ADA AA?  MY ACCOMMODATION, AS FAR AS I KNOW, 
   WAS UNDER JUST THE ADA, BUT I'M NOT REAL CLEAR ON 
   THE DIFFERENCE OF THE ADA AND THE ADAA.
      >> GERARD:  I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.  
   YOU'RE STILL MAKING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 
   REQUESTS, AND YOU'RE STILL COVERED AS A PERSON 
   WITH A DISABILITY UNDER THE OLD ADA -- (BACKGROUND 
   NOISE:  ADA CONFERENCE) -- THEY CAN'T HEAR ME OF 
   COURSE, BUT --
      >> GERARD:  ACTUALLY, WE CAN HEAR YOU 
   (LAUGHTER) WE CAN HEAR YOU JUST FINE.
      >> GERARD:  TO FINISH YOUR ANSWER, YOU MAKE 
   YOUR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST UNDER THE 
   ADA OR THE ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, WHICH EVER, 
   BUT THE ONLY THING THAT THE ADA AADOES IS MAKE THE 
   ORIGINAL LAW MORE INCLUSIVE.
      >> OKAY.  SO ACTUALLY I WOULD BE COVERED UNDER 
   BOTH?
      >> GERARD:  CORRECT.
      >> OKAY.
      >> NOW THERE WAS SOMEONE ELSE THAT WAS TRYING 
   TO GET IN WITH A QUESTION.
      >> HELLO.  MY NAME IS ANNICA AND I WORK FOR 
   DCFS.  AND I NEEDED TO FIND OUT IF THIS 
   AMENDMENT -- WILL YOU BE ABLE TO TAKE FROM PLACE 
   TO PLACE YOUR REQUEST FOR REASONABLE 
   ACCOMMODATION?  BECAUSE EVERY TIME THAT THE 
   DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED ME AROUND, I WOULD HAVE TO 
   START THE PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN.  THE LAST TIME 
   IT TOOK ME FROM 1997 TO 2004 TO GET THE REASONABLE 
   ACCOMMODATION THAT I NEEDED, AND I HAD TO GET THE 
   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES -- OR HUMAN 
   RIGHTS, CIVIL UNIT, I WENT TO THE GENERAL -- THE 
   INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE. TO GET SOME 
   RESOLUTIONS.
      SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS AMENDMENT, 
   BECAUSE I HAVE A PERMANENT DISABILITY AND IT WAS 
   JOB-RELATED, DOES IT, YOU KNOW, GO WITH YOU?  OR 
   DO YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DO ALL THIS STUFF, YOU 
   KNOW, WHENEVER YOU GET A CHANGE, EVEN IN YOUR OWN 
   AGENCY?
      >> GERARD:  THE AMENDMENT DOESN'T CHANGE THE 
   REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS.  WHAT I WOULD 
   SAY TO YOU IS THAT IF IT'S WITHIN THE SAME AGENCY, 
   THE PROCESS SHOULD BE THE SAME.  IF YOU FILLED OUT 
   A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST FORM, IF YOU 
   MOVE FROM DIVISION TO DIVISION WITHIN THE 
   AGENCY --
      >> NO, I WAS -- I'M SORRY.  SIR.  IT WAS THE 
   SAME DIVISION, EXCEPT THAT, YOU KNOW, A DIFFERENT 
   LOCATION.  IT WASN'T EVEN, YOU KNOW, A DIFFERENT 
   DIVISION.
      >> GERARD:  YES, SO THE PROCESS SHOULD BE 
   EXACTLY THE SAME FROM LOCATION TO LOCATION.  AND 
   IF YOU FILLED OUT A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 
   REQUEST FORM, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET A COPY OF 
   THAT AND JUST PRESENT IT TO YOUR SUPERVISOR AT 
   YOUR NEW LOCATION.
      >> THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.  
   HOWEVER, I -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE ANY 
   EXPERIENCE WITH ANY OTHER STATE AGENCIES, BUT HERE 
   IT'S, YOU KNOW, THEY TRY TO THROW YOU OUT OR YOU 
   GET TIRED OF REQUESTING THINGS IN ORDER FOR, YOU 
   KNOW, FOR NOT TO ACCOMMODATE YOU.
      >> GERARD:  WELL, IF IT'S THAT DIFFICULT IN 
   PRACTICALITY, THEN THERE'S A PROBLEM.  AND IT 
   NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE AGENCY.
      >> WELL, YOU KNOW, I DID TRY TO DO IT IN HOUSE, 
   AND I HAD TO GO OUT OF THE HOUSE, AND EEOC WAS NO 
   HELP AT ALL.  I EVEN HAD THE DEPARTMENT LIKE ONE 
   OF THE LADIES SAID, HOW DO I GET FOR THEM TO COME 
   AND ASSESS MY SITUATION?  WELL, WHEN THE INSPECTOR 
   GENERAL ASKED FOR A FLAIS TO COME AND -- A PLACE 
   TO COME FROM PALATINE TO ASSESS THE NOISE PROBLEM, 
   THEY REQUESTED IF I COULD GO AND GET SOME TESTING 
   DONE, I SAID:  I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM.  I'M NOT 
   HIDING ANYTHING.  SO I WENT.  THEY RECOMMENDED 
   THAT THE MANAGEMENT DIDN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL I SAW 
   THIS OTHER EXPERT ON AN AREA AND I SAID:  I'M 
   GOING TO DO IT, I DON'T CARE IF YOU PAY FOR IT OR 
   NOT, I ALREADY HAVE AN APPOINTMENT AND THIS IS 
   WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.  AND THEN THEY DECIDED TO 
   PAY FOR IT.
      >> GERARD:  DID YOU AT ANY TIME --
      >> BUT YOU HAVE TO BE AGGRESSIVE ON THIS 
   BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET WHAT YOU 
   NEED.
      >> GERARD:  DID YOU AT ANY TIME CONTACT THE ADA 
   COORDINATOR.
      >> OH, YES.
      >> GERARD:  SARAH GARDENER.  YOU CONTACTED HER?
      >> AT THAT TIME IT WAS MR. ... OH ... LAMBERT.  
   AND BESIDES THAT, THEY DIDN'T, YOU KNOW -- THE 
   DEPARTMENT WAS VERY OPPOSED, BECAUSE THEY DON'T 
   WANT TO DO A PRECEDENCE ON HAVING TO ACCOMMODATE 
   PEOPLE.
      >> GERARD:  I'M BEING TOLD THAT THINGS HAVE 
   CHANGED SOMEWHAT SINCE THEN.
      >> WELL, I HOPE SO.
      >> GERARD:  FRANK McKNEEL, WHO IS YOUR EEO 
   OFFICER IS HERE IN THE ROOM IN SPRINGFIELD, AND HE 
   SAID IF YOU'RE HAVING PROBLEMS, GET IN TOUCH WITH 
   HIM.  THANK YOU, FRANK.
      >> OKAY.  ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF ANYBODY 
   OVER THE INTERNET.
      >> YES, I HAVE A FEW, ACTUALLY.
      >> GO AHEAD, MIKE.
      >> MIKE:  I HAVE ONE, THERE IS A LOT OF 
   ADDITIONS TO THE ADA.  IS THIS A SEPARATE 
   DOCUMENT, OR A REWRITE OF THE ORIGINAL ADA?
      >> GERARD:  THE ANSWER IS:  IT IS A SEPARATE 
   DOCUMENT, BUT WHAT IT DOES IS PROVIDE 
   CLARIFICATION TO WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE 
   ORIGINAL ADA TO LOOK LIKE.
      >> MIKE:  OKAY.  I HAVE ANOTHER PERSON WRITE ON 
   IN.  THEY'VE HAD A WORK-RELATED INJURY RESULTING 
   IN FOUR SURGERIES.  AT THE TIME THEY RETURNED TO 
   WORK, BUT THEY HAVE ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT 
   PROGRAM, BUT THEY'RE FINDING THEY HAVE PROBLEMS 
   SITTING, OPERATING THE COMPUTER, WHICH IS KIND OF 
   NEW TO THEIR JOB.  THEY WORK IN THE BASEMENT, IT'S 
   COLD AND DANK ALL DAY, AND THEY ARE AFRAID TO ROCK 
   THE BOAT.  WHAT CAN A PERSON LIKE THAT DO, OR DOES 
   THIS RULE APPLY TO THEM AND CAN THEY RECEIVE A 
   REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION SINCE THEY'VE ALREADY 
   RETURNED TO WORK?
      >> GERARD:  CERTAINLY.  THE REASONABLE 
   ACCOMMODATION REQUEST CAN BE MADE AT ANY TIME.  
   THERE'S NO TIME LIMIT AFTER YOU RETURN TO WORK.  
   IF YOU DISCOVER THAT DUE TO A CONDITION THAT IS 
   RELATED TO YOUR IMPAIRMENT, THAT YOU ARE 
   EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTY DOING YOUR JOB, YOU CAN 
   REQUEST AN ACCOMMODATION TO MITIGATE THE PROBLEMS 
   THAT YOU'RE HAVING AT ANY TIME.  AND I WOULD SAY 
   TO THAT INDIVIDUAL:  MAKE THE REQUEST SOONER 
   RATHER THAN LATER.  BECAUSE THERE'S NO REASON TO 
   BE GOING THROUGH PAIN EVERY DAY IF YOU DON'T HAVE 
   TO.
      >> MIKE:  OKAY.  ANOTHER PERSON.  THEY HAVE 
   MANY PHYSICAL AND MENTAL DISABILITY, EMPHYSEMA, 
   HEART, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE.  POST TRAUMATIC 
   DISORDER.  DEPRESSION, DISSOCIATED PERSONALITY 
   DISORDER.  THE LIST GOES O-THEY ALSO HAVE 
   CATARACTS, WHICH THEY ARE UNABLE TO TAKE CARE OF.  
   THEY HAVE NO ONE TO GET THEM TO AND FROM WORK 
   WHILE UNDERGOING A EYE SURGERY.  ONE SURGERY TWO 
   WEEKS AND ANOTHER SURGERY TWO WEEKS LATER, WHICH 
   MEANS THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DRIVE BACK AND FORTH 
   FROM WORK.
      WHEN THE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, ILLINOIS HAS AND 
   IS TAKING IT OUT ON THE PEOPLE.  I CAN'T AFFORD 
   THE SURGERY, NOR DO I HAVE ANYONE TO HELP ME GET 
   TO AND FROM THE SURGERIES.  THEY DON'T ALLOW YOU 
   TO TAKE TAXIS OR BUSES, OR TO -- OR GO TO AND FROM 
   WORK.  DO I JUST GO BLIND AND FILE BANKRUPTCY?
      I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT ONE.
      >> GERARD:  THAT IS A MUCH MORE IN-DEPTH 
   QUESTION THAN I THINK I CAN ANSWER RIGHT NOW.  I 
   WOULD BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ASSIST THAT INDIVIDUAL, 
   MIKE.  IF --
      >> MIKE:  I WILL FORWARD IT ON TO YOU.
      >> GERARD:  MAKE SURE YOU GET PERMISSION FROM 
   THE INDIVIDUAL TO FORWARD IT ON, BUT THERE'S A LOT 
   MORE QUESTIONS THERE THAN I CAN ANSWER RIGHT NOW.
      >> MIKE:  OKAY.
      >> WERE YOU DONE MIKE?
      >> MIKE:  I HAD TWO MORE QUESTIONS.  ACTUALLY 
   ONE IS A STATEMENT OR A QUESTION I GUESS.  TO THE 
   PERSON WHO STATED THAT SHE DOES NOT NEED MEDICAL 
   EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE EVERY TIME SHE HAS A SEIZURE, 
   WHAT DOES THE EMPLOYER HAVE TO DO FOR THE SAFETY 
   OF THE EMPLOYEE AND THE LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER?
      >> GERARD:  I'LL ANSWER THAT.  THE ANSWER IS 
   THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS EPILEPSY SHOULD PUT IN 
   WRITING A PROCEDURE FOR WHAT THEY NEED DONE IF A 
   SEIZURE SHOULD OCCUR.  AND IF THE AGENCY FOLLOWS 
   THAT PROCEDURE, THE AGENCY -- WHILE I WOULD HAVE 
   SAID UNTIL SOMEONE WAS JUST SUED FOR BEING A GOOD 
   SAMARITAN -- I WOULD HAVE SAID THE AGENCY WOULD BE 
   EXEMPT FROM ANY INJURY THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MIGHT  
   INCUR.
      BUT THAT'S NEVER 100 PERCENT FOOLPROOF.  BUT, 
   LET'S FACE IS, ANY ONE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES COULD 
   SLIP AND FALL AT ANY TIME AND YOU'D HAVE A -- THE 
   POSSIBILITY OF A LAWSUIT FOR WORKPLACE INJURY OR 
   WORKERS COMP CLAIM.  SO THE ANSWER IS THAT IF AN 
   INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT WANT TO BE TAKEN AWAY IN AN 
   AMBULANCE, THEY SHOULD PROVIDE THE EMPLOYER WITH A 
   LIST OF THE ACCOMMODATIONS THAT THEY NEED IN THE 
   EVENT THAT A SEIZURE OCCURS.
      >> I HAVE A QUESTION IN CHICAGO.  CAN YOU HEAR 
   ME?
      >> GERARD:  I THINK WE HAD ONE MORE INTERNET 
   QUESTION, RIGHT MIKE?
      >> MIKE:  WE'RE GETTING A LOT MORE.  YEAH, LET 
   ME THROW ONE LAST ONE IN.  THIS PERSON IS A GULF 
   WAR VETERAN THAT SUFFERS FROM SEVERE MIGRAINES.  
   THAT HAVE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AT THEIR 
   AGENCY THAT THEY WILL HAVE A QUIET PLACE, A ROOM 
   AVAILABLE TO THEM WHEN THEY HAVE A MIGRAINE 
   ATTACK.  HOWEVER, WHEN THEY DO, THERE IS NO 
   CONFERENCE ROOM OR ANYTHING AVAILABLE FOR THEM.  
   WHAT CAN THEY DO IN THIS CASE?
      >> GERARD:  WELL, THE BEST ANSWER I CAN GIVE IS 
   THEY NEED TO REMIND THAT THIS SUPERVISOR, THAT 
   THIS WAS A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST THAT 
   WAS GRANTED, AND THAT THEY NEED TO FIND THAT 
   INDIVIDUAL SOME QUIET PLACE WHERE THEY CAN GO WHEN 
   IT'S NEEDED.
      >> HELLO?  I WOULD LIKE TO INTERRUPT FOR JUST A 
   MOMENT.  THERE WAS A FORM THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED 
   WITH THIS SEMINAR THAT HAS GERARD'S INFORMATION ON 
   IT, AND ALSO THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE INFORMATION 
   ON IT.  SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN'T 
   ADDRESS DURING THIS SEMINAR, YOU CAN ALWAYS SEND 
   IT TO GERARD OR TO ICED.
      I GUESS IF --
      >> I HAVE A QUESTION IN CHICAGO.
      >> YES, GO AHEAD.
      >> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT CHANGES CAN BE 
   MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE EMPLOYEES WITH PHYSICAL 
   IMPAIRMENTS THAT ARE ON OXYGEN THERAPY.  TEND TO 
   GO MAKE USE OF VERY LIMITED PARKING.  THERE IS 
   ACTUALLY ONLY ONE DISABLED PARKING SPACE RESERVED 
   FOR THE EMPLOYEE LOT, AND THE OTHER DISABLED 
   PARKING SPACES IN TOWN ARE -- I'M SORRY, NEARBY 
   ARE PRETTY FAR AWAY FROM THE ENTRANCE.  AND THOSE 
   ARE NORMALLY OCCUPIED AS WELL.  MORE OFTEN THAN 
   NOT, THEY ARE OCCUPIED.  AND IT'S A VERY BUSY AREA 
   TO BEGIN WITH.  SO IT'S A LITTLE CUMBERSOME FOR 
   THE DISABLED EMPLOYEE TO NAVIGATE FROM THE CAR 
   WITH THE OXYGEN TO THE ENTRANCE FOR THOSE REASONS.  
   WHAT CAN BE DONE?  THE OFFICE IS LOCKED INTO A 
   LEASE, AND WANTS TO KNOW WHAT CAN BE DONE.
      >> GERARD:  A COUPLE THINGS.  THE EASIEST FOR 
   THAT SCENARIO WOULD BE TO ACTUALLY HAVE ONE OF THE 
   SPACES IN THE EMPLOYEE LOT THAT'S NEARBY THE DOOR, 
   ACTUALLY RESERVED FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL RATHER THAN 
   ASK FOR ANOTHER DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE SPOT.  
   BECAUSE IF IT'S DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE, ANY 
   EMPLOYEE WHO HAS A PLATE OR A PLACARD COULD USE 
   THAT SPOT.  AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY RESERVE SPOTS 
   FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE WITHIN STATE AGENCIES.  SO THAT 
   COULD BE DONE.
      OF COURSE THAT WOULD CERTAINLY MEAN THAT THAT 
   INDIVIDUAL WOULD HAVE TO DISCLOSE THEIR 
   DISABILITY.
      THE OTHER PART OF THE QUESTION WAS WHAT COULD 
   BE DONE IN THE WORKSITE.  AND AGAIN, I'M CERTAINLY 
   NO EXPERT ON OXYGEN DEPENDENCE, AND I WOULD SAY 
   THAT THAT WOULD BE A CASE WHERE I WOULD REFER THAT 
   INDIVIDUAL TO THE ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM, 
   WHO HAVE EXPERTS ON WORKSITE EVALUATIONS.
      >> THANK YOU.  I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE TIME 
   FOR MORE QUESTIONS.  WE'RE ABOUT TO WRAP UP THIS 
   BROADCAST.  IT WILL STOP RIGHT AT 1:30.  I WOULD 
   LIKE TO REMIND PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE INTERNET THAT 
   THEY CAN GET A COPY OF THE INFORMATION, HOW TO 
   CONTACT GERARD OR THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE AT OUR 
   WEBSITE.  www.STATE.IL.US/ICED.  ALSO TO LET YOU 
   KNOW THAT OUR UP COMING SERIES IN LATE MARCH WILL 
   COVER VETERANS ISSUES AND IN LATE MAY, THE FMLA.
      THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE HAS SPECIFIC GOALS TO 
   INCREASE DISABILITY AWARENESS AND TO BE AWARE OF 
   LEGISLATION AS IT RELATES TO EMPLOYMENT ISSUES.  
   WE DO HAVE A NEWSLETTER.  WE ACTIVELY HAVE A 
   CONFERENCE EVERY YEAR AND LEGISLATIVE RECEPTION.
      WE HAVE MEETINGS THE FIRST TUESDAY OF EACH 
   MONTH, AND IT IS AN OPEN MEETING.  IF YOU ARE 
   WANTING TO ATTEND, YOU ARE CERTAINLY WELCOME.  YOU 
   CAN ATTEND IN PERSON OR BY VIDEO CONFERENCE.  JUST 
   CONTACT SUSAN ALLEN AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 
   RIGHTS.  I GUESS IF THERE'S JUST A SHORT QUESTION, 
   WE MAY HAVE TIME FOR ONE MORE.
      >> IS THERE --
      >> GERARD:  AND IF WE DON'T GET TO YOUR 
   QUESTION.  FEEL FREE TO SEND IT TO ME BY E-MAIL.  
   GO AHEAD WITH YOUR QUESTION.
      >> SHOULD THERE BE AN ADA COORDINATOR IN A 
   STATE FACILITY AT THE WORKSITE?  AND IF SO, HOW DO 
   WE KNOW WHEN THOSE POSITIONS ARE AVAILABLE?
      >> GERARD:  THERE IS AN ADA COORDINATOR WITHIN 
   EACH AGENCY, BUT NOT NECESSARILY EACH WORKSITE.
      >> OKAY.
      >> GERARD:  SO YOU'D HAVE TO CONTACT YOUR 
   PERSONNEL OFFICE TO FIND -- IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHO 
   THE ADA COORDINATOR IS, CONTACT PERSONNEL, AND 
   THEY CAN GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION.
      >> HOW WOULD YOU KNOW WHEN THOSE POSITIONS ARE 
   AVAILABLE?  DO THEY HAVE TO POST THEM?
      >> GERARD:  THEY WOULD BE POSTED JUST LIKE ANY 
   OTHER POSITION WITHIN STATE GOVERNMENT.
      >> OKAY.
      >> CAN WE HAVE GERARD'S LAST NAME, PLEASE?
      >> GERARD:  YES, IT'S BROEKER.  IT'S SPELLED 
   B-R-O-E-K-E-R.
      >> THANK YOU.
      >> MIKE:  GERARD, I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION.  
   CAN YOUR SUPERVISOR TELL YOU THAT YOUR PERSONAL 
   ASSISTANT CANNOT BE IN THE ROOM WITH YOU IF THEY 
   ARE ASSISTING YOU WITH LIKE LUNCH PREPARATION?
      >> GERARD:  NO.  BASICALLY YOU SHOULD MAKE 
   THAT, AGAIN, A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST, 
   THAT YOU HAVE A PERSONAL ASSISTANT WHEN YOU HAVE 
   ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING THAT YOU NEED CARRIED 
   OUT THROUGHOUT THE DAY, WHETHER THAT BE USING THE 
   TOILET, PREPARING LUNCH, BUT IF YOU NEED THAT AS A 
   WORKPLACE ACCOMMODATION, ABSOLUTELY YOU ARE 
   ENTITLED TO HAVE YOUR PERSONAL ASSISTANT WITH YOU.
      >> IF YOU WANTED TO OBTAIN THE TUESDAY -- 
   ATTEND THE TUESDAY MEETING EACH MONTH, WOULD YOU 
   BE ELIGIBLE FOR A WORK AWAY TO ATTEND THAT 
   MEETING?
      >> I THINK THAT'S UP TO YOUR SUPERVISOR.  YOU 
   WOULD HAVE TO ASK YOUR SUPERVISOR ABOUT THAT.
      >> IS IT HELD IN SPRINGFIELD?
      >> THE MEETINGS ARE IN SPRINGFIELD, BUT THEY 
   ARE VIDEO CONFERENCED FROM CHICAGO.  OR ACTUALLY, 
   WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HOOK YOU UP WHEREVER YOU ARE.  
   WE WILL HAVE TO TRY TO SET UP A TEST FOR THAT.
      >> I'M IN ELGIN.
      >> IF YOU COULD CONTACT SUSAN ALLEN AT THE ICED 
   FSMTION THAT IS PROVIDED ON THE INFORMATION SHEET, 
   WE COULD SEE IF WE CAN GET YOU CONNECTED.  I WOULD 
   ALSO LIKE TO TAKE THIS TIME TO THANK CMS AN DECA 
   FOR PUTTING ON IN PROGRAM.  I THINK IT'S BEEN 
   HELPFUL.
      >> GERARD:  THANK YOU ALL FOR ATTENDING.  I'M 
   HAPPY TO SEE THIS MANY PEOPLE INTERESTED IN ADA 
   AND DISABILITY RIGHTS ISSUE.
      >> GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO LISTEN AND 
   GIVE FEEDBACK.
      >> AND WE WANT TO THANK GERARD.
      >> THANK YOU (APPLAUSE).  (EVENT CONCLUDED)