On November 17, 2014 I was struck by an article in the CT Law Tribune stating that the CT Judicial Branch had been cited by the National Center for Access to Justice (NCAJ) as having "the highest overall ranking for any state for its programs aimed at providing equal court access to all citizens."
This was a surprise to me since I have been closely involved in advocacy aimed at getting the CT Judicial Branch to comply with the ADA, which for the better part it does not do. I then today took note of the fact that the CT Judicial Branch itself is boasting of its great work as well on the front page of its website, also citing the NCAJ.
Wanting to get a better grasp of this absurd announcement, I actually clicked on the link to the National Center for Access to Justice and was not surprised to see that the touted justice index which praises Connecticut so greatly is brand new and was first started on February 25, 2014. Well, I think then, given how new this index is that it can be forgiven a little idiocy until it catches up with the rest of us more grizzled participants in the field of disability rights!
The next thing I did was take a look at the parameters which earned the Connecticut Judicial Branch such high ratings, despite the fact that it has such a widespread reputation among litigants for obstructing the ADA at every turn. So, folks, these are the parameters that the Justice Index used as the basis of its determinations. Mind you, they didn't speak to anybody--either judicial branch employees or litigants with disabilities. What they did was surf judicial branch websites in states throughout the nation for answers to the following questions:
1. Are courts required or allowed to charge deaf or hard of hearing for sign language interpreters?
2. Certification of sign language interpreters a. Is there a State statute, rule, or other guidance requiring courts to use only certified sign language court interpreters? b. Are courts required to give preference to sign language interpreters who have training in how to interpret in a legal setting?
3. Does the state judiciary’s web site tell court users: a. How to request an accommodation because of disability or who to contact to request an accommodation? b. How to file a complaint about difficulty accessing court facilities or services because of disability? c. Who to contact to file a complaint?
4. Is there a State statute, rule or other guidance requiring courts to allow service animals?
Questions one and two out of the four questions are in regard to the deaf. I would suspect this is directed towards the CT Judicial Branch which signed a settlement with the Department of Justice in November 11, 2003 agreeing to provide accommodations for folks who are deaf. Hard as it is to believe, prior to that date, they were not doing so.
From the data I have, deafness is pretty much the only disability the CT Judicial Branch accommodates. So what about all the other various disabilities that need to be accommodated--they don't receive any honorable mention?
Question three appears to indicate that the Connecticut Judicial Branch provides litigants with information on who to contact in order to request an accommodation and who to contact in order to submit a grievance. In fact, this is not true. The CT Judicial Branch website tells you to speak to a contact person--and there are over a 100 listed on the website--at the clerk's office for a request for accommodation.
This is hardly a name.
For a grievance, you are asked to submit your documents to the Director of the Human Resources Management Unit.
So you do not actually get the name and contact information of a specific individual, i.e. Designated Responsible Employee, who is in charge of the implementation of the ADA at the CT Judicial Branch which is what the ADA actually requires.
What this comes down to is the fact that this so called justice index has been produced on the most superficial level possible and has no more credibility than, say, a law diploma ordered from the internet for a modest fee.
Apparently, a considerable number of Carbozo Law students were involved in compiling the data used in the making of this justice index. Oops! Sorry, I meant Cardozo School of Law students. Ok, call me a snob, but I would probably have been more impressed with these results if they had been compiled by students from Harvard Law, Cornell Law, or Columbia Law--you know, schools with some actual prestige--but, you know, they would probably not have been willing to participate in such a laughable project no matter how many brib--excuse me--much money you gave them.
Ok, so students from the University of Pennsylvania Law school (ranked 7th or 8th in the country) did some research as well, but what with the Sandusky affair and the kids for cash scandal, I wouldn't credit any institution from Pennsylvania!
The bottom line in any investigation of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act is whether the CT Judicial Branch actually provided accommodations to the litigants who used the court system and whether the Branch actually reached out to litigants to let them know that such accommodations were available. Yes, item number four regarding service dogs is important, but not half as important making sure that the ADA is applied to everyone.
I myself was unaware of the existence of ADA accommodations at the CT Judicial Branch until three years after my case was filed, and I am not the only one who has had that kind of experience.
That is a pretty miserable record, in my humble opinion.
From what I can see, the National Center For Access to Justice is largely made up of and funded by -- you guessed it -- attorneys! I thought it was interesting to see the Pfizer Legal Group is participating since Pfizer is such a major corporation in Connecticut.
Needless to say, when lawyers and their legal institutions start praising themselves and their accomplishments, which they are never too modest to do--see the Super Lawyers website which is equally powered by scuzzy brib--excuse me--financial contributions--you've got to start feeling a little nervous.
I can only assume that this recent desperate ploy of establishing a fake justice index indicates that the Connecticut Judicial Branch and its judges are feeling the heat from several Federal and State ADA Lawsuits which have been filed against it within the last two years for non-compliance with the comprehensive civil rights mandate of the ADA. My response is only to say one day we shall overcome, we shall overcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment