YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE ADA AND THE ADAAA, DENIED, DENIED, DENIED! PART 2

I had earlier reported that when Mr. Bill Mulready inquired about his ADA Disability Rights, he was told, "Don't worry, Mr. Mulready, we'll get you a wheelchair if you need one!"  Apparently, whoever told him that should not have been so sanguine.  

In a meeting of the Advisory Board on the Americans With Disabilities Act held on January 17, 2012, Mr. Ronald J. Macchio reported that of the 18 wheelchairs currently available at the judicial branch, only 4 appear to be in good usable condition.  Furthermore, according to Mr. Macchio, "there does not appear to be an existing policy outlining their use."  Apparently, the Board agreed to investigate to see if there was any policy regarding their use, but did not make plans to assure that all the wheelchairs were repaired so they could be usable once the policy is available.  This reflects the foolish thinking and lack of vision of the judicial branch when it comes to the complying with the ADA.  

But it isn't for a lack of asking! 

At the meeting of the Americans with Disability Act Committee held on November 14, 2008, Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines reported that she had prepared a letter to be sent to 22 identified groups and advocates for people with different abilities, inviting them to take part in one or more of three scheduled focus groups.  According to Ms. Lugo-Gines, "The purpose of the focus groups [was] to determine specifically, what issues arise for people with varying physical, intellectual, or developmental abilities when they are attempting to access Judicial Branch facilities, processes, or documents."  

Now, already I have a problem with the manner in which the purpose for the focus groups is articulated because, as it stands, this wording does not include people with mental illness at all. Just so you know, if you were wondering, the terms intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities do not include those with mental health disabilities.  What happened?  We are going to disregard the entire group of people, officially one in five citizens, who have mental health disabilities?  Are you kidding me?  Well, from the wording you see here, seems like they are.

Of course, this reflects quite accurately the policies of the judicial branch which are to deny persons with mental health disabilities any meaningful accommodations for their disabilities.  I have received reports of this from people all over the State of Connecticut.  I am hearing that people are getting laughed at, mocked, disregarded and treated with profound skepticism when they have asked for accommodation for mental health disabilities.  This is unbelievably disgraceful for this worthy group of citizens, some of whom belong to our military who have fought for our country in Iraq.  

Be that as it may, the Focus Group meetings were scheduled for December 3, December 11, and December 16, 2008 and were open to all members of the public.  Of course, were these important meetings advertised to the public, I'd like to know.  I was in trial court in December 2008 and I didn't know of any focus group meetings being held.  This is another genuine concern.  If people don't know about these meetings, how meaningful is it that the meetings are open to them.  Probably not that meaningful!  

In looking at the notes of the focus groups, much is written in short phrases that are missing out words, so it is difficult to get a complete sense of what these discussions were like.  But I will do the best I can to convey the contents of these meetings.  

The first item I noticed was the concern in regard to ADA coaches.  Apparently, overall, focus group members expressed concern that the judicial court did not allow litigants to have the support of their ADA coaches.  How outrageous is that!  In light of the fact that so many citizens who are differently abled need assistance in filling out forms, most importantly forms requesting reasonable accommodation, this is particularly unfortunate.  

Thus, when it came to suggestions, one was to "allow a third person--a non party to the action--to attend proceedings to support the participant and make it easier to request assistance."  In the alien and sometimes frightening environment of the judicial courthouse, this is essential. And just to confirm for you the reality of this problem, I was in trial court recently and I was not allowed to bring my ADA coach with me into the proceedings.  So this is happening.

Members of the focus groups also expressed concern that there were no ADA coordinators at the courthouse.  That was in 2008. It is worth noting that there still are no ADA Coordinators in 2012 anywhere that I can see, even though the ADA and ADAAA specifically require one.  What we have instead are Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines who is a Project Manager. What the heck is a Project Manager and what authority does that give her?  Your guess is as good as mine!  

Aside from Ms. Lugo-Gines, there are numerous contact people at various courthouses.  But the impression I get, and that other people are getting, is that the judicial branch simply grabbed people out of the blue and said "Abracadabra, you are now a Contact Person for the ADA!"  But these people have no training, no understanding of ADA and ADAAA law, no experience with persons of different abilities, and no capacity to do anything other than collect your materials and then pass them back to Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines who then makes all the decisions across the State.  I hardly think that this is a workable situation.

Since there is no point person for the ADA, or a completely ill trained person available to deal with ADA concerns, trial clerks often respond to questions regarding the ADA with blank faces or statements to the effect that they have no idea how to respond to the concerns of those with disabilities, or indications that they don't consider the trial court responsible for making the judicial system accessible.  As members of Focus Group 3 put it, "No one wants to take responsibility" and "Passing the buck is common."  

The most frequently mentioned theme throughout the discussions was how judicial court personnel were consistently insensitive to the needs of citizens with disabilities and how this lack of awareness often led to discrimination, particularly towards parents with disabilities in family court.  

Focus group 2 mentioned how important it is to "Soften the paramilitary approach of the marshalls".  This group also mentioned how "Metal detectors can frighten people, particularly those with mental illness."  

Overall, the focus groups complained of the prejudice, discrimination, and rudeness that their members face in judicial court.  They talked about "verbally abusive behavior by judges [who] don't consider your hidden disability."  They talked about the "denial of accommodations", the "lack of cultural competence of staff", the incapacity to understand "behaviors often associated with disabilities" and the widespread lack of sensitivity towards those with disabilities.  

The end results for these persons were: 1.  Feeling disrespected; 2. Poor communication with court personnel, including judges, attorneys, and family relations officers; 3.  Discrimination against people of different abilities with the resulting effect of frustration, depression, fatigue, stress, and anxiety; 4. Inability to participate in the proceedings; 5. Unequal treatment; 6. The denial of due process rights; 7.   Feelings of being excluded, isolated and victimized.    

Repeatedly, focus group members stated that the end result of this situation is that persons with disabilities were unable to participate in the judicial process and felt that their position had not been heard in the judicial proceedings, or that bias so affected the proceedings that the results of the judicial proceedings were not fair, equitable, or just.  


Now, I understand that these focus groups were held in 2008 and it is now 2012, but, from what I am hearing, the problems described in the minutes of these meetings still remain.  Inevitably, this raises the question of "How long, Oh Lord, how long!"

I think you would agree with me that these observations of the judicial system by people with disabilities who have experienced it personally are pretty damning.  So how does the Judicial Branch respond to these serious and widespread concerns.  It says that "The Judicial Branch is committed to maintaining its compliance with the ADA."  Excuse me, what was that?  "Maintaining"?  Are they kidding, profoundly stupid, or deliberately disingenuous?  

To be continued...