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)