PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

PART I: CASE STUDY ON THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH'S LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL ADA LAW!

By Elizabeth A. Richter

INTRODUCTION:

As a citizen, I was interested in seeing whether there had been any improvements in the CT Judicial Branch response to inquiries in regard to the ADA since I first began to approach the Branch about the ADA in 2006.  After all, in January 2014, I received a letter from Attorney John Hughes stating he intended to conduct an investigation into CT Judicial Branch compliance with the ADA.  Since several news outlets reported on this investigation, you might imagine this would make the Branch more eager to demonstrate their compliance.

With this in mind, on August 21, 2014 I approached the CT Judicial Branch with a request  for information about the option of obtaining audiorecordings as a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability.  This request showed a certain amount of prescience, because on October 14, 2014,  a Connecticut citizen, Adam McNiece,  filed a lawsuit complaining that the CT Judicial Branch denied him audiorecordings which he required as a reasonable accommodation for his disability. See link: 


http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/12/ct-law-tribune-pokes-fun-at-self.html


I was making the inquiry as an advocate, not as a person with a disability.  However, had I been a person with a disability such as Adam McNiece, the process of requesting reasonable accommodation would have been incredibly frustrating.  First, I couldn't obtain a timely response to my inquiry, so if I'd been asking according to the standard timeframe, i.e. two weeks prior to the hearing, I would not have been able to obtain the accommodation on time.  Second, for the life of me, I couldn't get a clear information from the CT Judicial Branch spokespeople with whom I came into contact in response to my questions.  This latter is a complete violation of the federal ADA mandate to provide effective communication with people who have disabilities, and also the mandate to provide full and relevant responses to inquiries. 


DATA:

On August 21, 2014, I wrote to Sandra Lugo-Gines, the staff member at the CT Judicial Branch generally considered in charge of all ADA inquiries.  My question:  "Will the Connecticut Judicial Branch provide audiorecordings of Legal Proceedings for litigants who have disabilities"

After sending that email, I waited for a full ten days and did not receive a single response from Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines.  This is an unacceptably long time to wait for a response and shows how rude the CT Judicial Branch is in response to inquiries about the ADA.

On August 31, 2014, I then sent an email to other CT Judicial Branch employees, attorneys who have previously responded to my ADA questions and addressed the same inquiry to them.  The employees I sent the email to were as follows:  Heather Collins, Maureen Finn, Martin Libbin, and Viviana Livesay.  In my email, I provided a copy of the earlier August 21, 2014 email I'd sent  to Sandra Lugo-Gines and asked them to answer the question:  "What is the Connecticut Judicial Branch policy in regard to audiorecordings as a modification for a person with a disability under the ADA?"

Two days later, on September 2, 2014, I received a response from Attorney Maureen Finn stating as follows:


"There is no specific policy in regard to audio recordings.  As with any other aid or service, each request for accommodation is reviewed individually."


So, is that a "yes" or a "no"?  I wasn't sure.  In fact, Unbeknownst to me, right at that very time that I proposed that question, Mr. Adam McNiece, who had his doctor confirm the fact that he had a disability, had asked for just that accommodation of audiorecordings and had been turned down. 

To get an additional confirmation what Attorney Finn had said, I sent out the following question in response:
 
"I am assuming that anything listed on the CT Judicial Branch [website] as an aid or auxillary [service] would be automatically granted upon request [to a person with a disability].  Is that a correct?"
 
I also asked, "When you say, each case is reviewed individually, do you have a protocol for such a review?

And I asked, "What safeguards do you have in place to ensure that reasonable modifications are provided in a consistent manner?"

In response, the next day, on September 3, 2014, Attorney Finn sent me the following statement, "The items you request in the below email are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  The FOIA does not require public officials to answer questions regarding the specific laws that are relied upon when evaluating ADA requests.  The FOIA only provides a right to attend public meetings within the meaning of the FOIA."


I didn't ask for specific laws, I asked for "a protocol" and for "safeguards".  So what Attorney Finn did was simply reinterpret my request so that she could then deny it.  Also, when she states that the FOIA only "provides a right to attend public meetings" she forgets all the CT Judicial Branch internal reports and training materials that she has previously handed over to me personally in response to my FOIA requests.  That goes well beyond the opportunity to attend public meetings!  So, essentially, in her response, Attorney Finn is playing around with words, redefining my questions in a way I did not intend, if not outright lying.

Then Attorney Finn continues on to say, "I can advise you that we do not review requests for accommodation in an automated fashion.  All are reviewed on an individual basis."

In other words, no person with a disability can be guaranteed that he or she will have access to the aids and auxillary services that the CT Judicial Branch has available even if they are listed as available on its website.  And while it sounds nice that each person with a disability will be considered on an individual basis, the fact that such individuals cannot be guaranteed even a minimal level of  reasonable modifications has to be terribly anxiety provoking.  It places people with disabilities in a permanent posture of supplication, which is actually rather humiliating and degrading.

Later that afternoon, on September 3, 2014, I responded to Attorney Finn by saying, I don't get the FOIA reference, but  would the following statement reflect the CT Judicial Branch's position on audiorecordings.  See the following which I wrote:

"The CT Judicial Branch reviews request for reasonable modifications on an individual basis.  Audiorecordings are one of the reasonable modifications which are an option for litigants and jurors with disabilities and the Branch will consider whether the accommodation of audiorecordings makes sense for a litigant with a disability on a case by case basis."


In response, on September 4, 2014 Attorney Finn stated, "Again, there is no separate policy in regard to audiorecordings.  If someone requests audiorecordings as an accommodation, that request will be reviewed in the same manner as any other ADA request."

Of course, this is not a "yes" or "no"!  Also, we are well aware, that even as Attorney Finn was stating that the CT Judicial Branch would review a request for audiorecordings as an accommodation "in the same manner as any other ADA request" the Judicial Branch was turning down Adam McNiece's fully documented request for that very same accommodation!"
 
Given what McNiece was going through, my next question sent an hour later has particular relevance.  I asked Attorney Finn the following, "Would there ever be a reasonable basis for turning down such a request to a qualified individual with a disability?  If so what would that be?"
 
So there was a pause in the conversation.

September 5, 2014 goes by.

September 6, 2014 goes by.

September 7, 2014 goes by.

September 8, 2014 goes by.

Then on September 9, 2014, at 4:44p.m., I received the following answer from Attorney Finn:

"I prefer not to speculate about possibilities.  I don't think it is productive and it can create confusion."

As if I wasn't already totally confused already!

No comments:

Post a Comment