As you may recall, I mentioned that the Judicial Branch invited around 22 agencies and advocates to meet on three separate days to discuss the barriers to justice that prevent people with disabilities from obtaining access in court services, programs and activities. Since the focus groups were held in 2008, one of the most significant achievements of the Judicial Branch in regard to the ADA has been the development of the ADA page on the Connecticut Judicial Branch website.
This means that when you go to the website for the Connecticut Judicial Branch online there is a readily identifiable ADA link on the homepage. You will find this link on the upper right hand side at the top of the list under "Quick Links". This link provides hyperlinks to: an overview of the ADA at the Judicial Branch; a complete list of branch-wide ADA contact people (I am careful to say contact people although the ADA Committee notes refer to these people as coordinators. Such a term is a special term under ADA legislation and not to be used carelessly or, as in this case, inaccurately), a description of currently available auxiliary aids; information about wheelchair access to courthouses; a link to the homepage for the Americans with Disabilities Act Committee, and a link to the homepage for the Advisory Board on the American's With Disability Act, including internal and external subcommittees.
The ADA link also has a hyperlink to Request for Reasonable accommodation forms as well as forms that describe the procedure for obtaining reasonable accommodation. In addition, for both the superior court and the appellate courts, there are hyperlinks to grievance forms for both the superior court and the appellate courts, as well as a hyperlink to the write up of the procedures for both.
The ADA Committee made a real effort to make these forms clear and easy to understand and have succeeded in this effort, so they are to be commended for that.
Finally, there is a juror accommodation form which allows potential jurors to inform the trial court online of their disability in advance. Of course, this form makes me nervous simply for reasons of confidentiality. I mean, who is on the receiving line for getting these emailed forms--just anyone? I wouldn't like to see forms like that going into outer space. But that is just my personal preference.
I am glad to see the work that has been done to inform the public of their rights under the ADA on the judicial website. On the other hand, now that these items have been posted on the website, this is when litigants begin to ask the question: Do they work? Are requests for reasonable accommodation taken seriously? If the branch denies a request for reasonable accommodation, does it then have a meaningful grievance process to review that denial?
The problem I have here is that, from what I have heard, unless you have a visible or sensory disability, the CT Judicial Branch is unlikely to grant any reasonable accommodations for a litigant. In other words, unless a request for accommodation is for a condition that is clearly visible to one of the contact people, the request will go up to Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines, who will then automatically deny that accommodation. So for a considerable number of people, particularly those with invisible disabilities, they are unlikely to receive the ADA Accommodations to which they are entitled by federal law.
Elizabeth Richter, a litigant I mentioned in my initial blog, has, among other things, a physicial disability that is not visible. Thus far, despite repeated requests, Elizabeth has not been granted her requests for reasonable accommodations for that disability. From her subsequent experience in regard to complaints/grievances, Elizabeth indicated that she did not believe that the complaint/grievance procedure was at all meaningful. She pointed out, and rightly so, that on all of these ADA Committees and workgroups the names repeat themselves again and again: The Honorable Patrick L. Carroll III, Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines, Mr. Patrick R. Caron, Ms. Laurie Parent, Attorney Stephen N. Ment, Attorney Mark Ciarciello, Attorney Stephen Pelletier, Attorney Richard D. Coffey, etc., etc.
These folks have created their own little private club within the Judicial Branch running the ADA their way whether anyone likes it or not. These are people who rub elbows against one another in committee meetings all the time. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that you have a meaningful grievance process when a grievance on a denial of a request for reasonable accommodation ends up in the hands of one or other of these committee members instead of in the hands of an independent grievance committee outside the Judicial Branch.
I can just imagine how that works. Ms. Lugo-Gines picks up a grievance complaint from her desk, wanders down the hallway and dumps it on, say, her pal Attorney Coffey's desk and says, "Got another one of these jokers for you, Richie."
Furthermore, Elizabeth Richter complained that when they reviewed her grievance, the Judicial Branch didn't even bother to obey the procedure that they had outlined in their own grievance procedure. When she confronted them about that, they said in so many words, "We are only required to have a grievance procedure, not to obey it."
The end result is that the Judicial Branch simply dismisses or denies a considerable number of perfectly valid requests for accommodations from litigants with disabilities. This was not the intention of the creators of the ADA legislation and is a complete disgrace. The end result is that litigants give up asking for any reasonable accommodations. Also, attorneys advise their clients, no matter what, even if you ask you will not be allowed to have reasonable accommodations under the ADA, so don't even bother to try. And then, I guess, the contact people the ADA can say, "We don't get that many requests so we don't have to put much effort into complying with the ADA because it isn't necessary." Obviously, that would be a lie, but that is another way the judicial branch can cover up their lousy, non complying asses.
So if the Judicial Branch isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing, i.e. complying with the ADA, what is it doing? They have sort of been doing the proverbial fiddling while Rome burns. Apparently, among other things (fiddling), they continue big time to update their ADA webpage. They have edited their official judicial branch publications to update the telephone numbers available for people with hearing or speech difficulties. They are keeping track--i.e. making sure of the existence--of their auxillary aids and services such as wheelchairs. They are continuing to do research and to provide training on the ADA to staff. They will be offering an ADA newsletter, and, wonder of wonders, it looks like we are going to have an art exhibit with artwork made by persons with disabilities!
This latter focus seems pretty misplaced to me. You will forgive me for saying I'd much rather have my rights as a person with a disability instead of an art exhibit, but that's just me. Training, websites, inventories of auxillary aids! Yes, but what about my rights? Can we hear about those?
When it comes to requests for reasonable accommodation, how many of them has the trial court granted? Can we get a number? We are asking because so many of us have been denied reasonable accommodation, we are skeptical about whether anyone is being accommodated. And that is a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Judicial Branches' compliance, or rather lack of compliance, with federal law as dictated by the ADA and the ADAAA.
No comments:
Post a Comment