Information and Guidance on the
Americans with Disabilities Act

Summer 2001
Volume 5, Number 3

This Issue Highlights Section 508

What's Inside?

Feature Stories

• Casey Martin: Right To Use Golf Cart Upheld
• Access Provisions Take Effect for Federal Information Technology

DOJ Update
Access Board News
Employment Update
Regional News
Publications
Frequently Asked Questions
Great Web Sites
Building Your Rolodex

FEATURE STORIES

CASEY MARTIN: RIGHT TO USE GOLF CART UPHELD

On May 29th, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal disability rights law entitles professional golfer Casey Martin to ride a golf cart between shots while competing in PGA Tour events. In reaching its decision, the Court addressed two distinct legal issues, ruling that:

• The PGA Tour is a "public accommodation" subject to ADA requirements, and
• Under those requirements Martin? use of a cart is a "reasonable modification".

Background

Casey Martin claimed that the PGA Tour discriminated against him on the basis of disability by refusing to let him use a golf cart to travel between holes during Tour competition. Martin is a skilled professional golfer who has Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrome, a degenerative circulatory disorder. This condition causes Martin severe pain and atrophy in his right leg, rendering him unable to walk for extended distances. Martin is nevertheless an accomplished athlete, and in 1997 he complied with the Tour? application requirements, submitting two letters of recommendation and paying an entry fee.

Following this application he was successful in the PGA Tour Qualifying School, which provides the primary means of entree to the PGA Tour. In the first stages of the Qualifying School, competitors are permitted to use carts. However, in the final qualifying stage, and during the Tour itself, the PGA imposes a "walking" rule, requiring competitors to walk from hole to hole. Martin requested a waiver of the Tour's walking rule. The PGA Tour refused, and in 1997 Martin filed his disability discrimination lawsuit in federal court in Oregon.

The Issues

Though focused on Martin? efforts to gain access to the Tour, the case raised legal issues of importance under title III. The issue in this case was whether the law was broad enough to cover the activities of the PGA Tour, which had argued that its spectator opportunities constituted a "public accommodation" but that its competition did not. In its decision, the high court rejected this argument, ruling that the title III definition of "public accommodation" encompasses any organization that invites public participation in its activities, even if admission of competitors is governed by legitimate eligibility criteria that limit participation to an elite few.

Having decided that the Tour was indeed covered by the law, the court proceeded to analyze and apply the law? requirements, identifying three questions to be answered in determining whether an individual with a disability was entitled to a modification:

• whether the modification was "necessary" to the participation of the individual;
• whether it was "reasonable;" and
• whether it would "fundamentally alter" the activity at issue.

The focus of attention in the Martin case was on the latter question, and in particular on the PGA? argument that it need not waive the "walking" rule because such a waiver would be a "fundamental alteration." The trial court had previously rejected this argument, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had agreed, finding that Martin? request to use a cart was a "reasonable modification" that would not fundamentally alter the competition.

The Decision

In agreeing with these lower courts, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for an individualized analysis, to be undertaken in light of available evidence about the individual requesting the modification as well as the activity. The analysis in the Martin case showed that:

• walking was not required during the first rounds of Tour play,
• walking was not a part of the formal rules of golf,
• professional golfers preferred and chose to walk if permitted, so they could experience terrain and weather conditions and remain warmed up,
• the purported fatigue factor of walking was generally minimal,
• due to his disability Martin experienced as much if not more fatigue going from cart to shot; and
• variations of conditions of play for different players were inherently part of the game of golf as played on a multi-day Tour.

Based on this assessment, the high court concluded that Martin? use of a cart would neither fundamentally alter Tour play, nor unfairly advantage him over his competitors. Consequently, the Court ruled, the cart was a "reasonable modification" under title III.

Following up on the Casey Martin ruling, the Supreme Court threw out a lower court's ruling against another disabled golfer who made the same request. Ford Olinger, who has a degenerative hip, unsuccessfully sued the U.S. Golf Association for the right to use a cart in U.S. Open qualifying. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court in Chicago ruled in March 2000 that a golf cart would change the nature of competition.

Olinger's appeal to the Supreme Court had been in limbo while the justices considered the Martin case. The case was sent back to the Chicago appeals court with instructions to resolve the dispute in light of the Martin decision, making it all but certain that Olinger will get permission to use a cart. The USGA said it will abide by the Martin ruling and handle any requests for carts on a case-by-case basis.

In one final case, the Supreme Court dealt a setback to civil rights and environmental plaintiffs who have counted on being reimbursed for legal fees if their lawsuits, brought under federal laws, accomplished their goals. By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled in the case, Buckhannon Board and Care Home v. West Virginia, No. 99-1848, that the fee-shifting provisions of these laws do not apply in the absence of an actual courtroom victory or court-approved settlement agreement. Litigation that only serves as a "catalyst" for a policy change, without producing a legal ruling, does not qualify for reimbursement of fees, the majority said in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist.

The ruling came in a case from West Virginia, which had a law requiring that assisted-living or other residential facilities accept only those residents who were capable of "self-preservation," with enough mobility to escape in case of fire. Threatened with closing by a fire marshal because some residents did not meet the requirement, a group of homes sued the state for violating the ADA and a federal fair housing law. West Virginia? Legislature repealed the law while the case was pending; the plaintiffs sought reimbursement of their lawyers' fees on the ground that the lawsuit had been the catalyst for the desired result and so they were the prevailing party.

Although the Supreme Court had never ruled directly on the validity of the catalyst theory of lawyers' fee awards, it had been accepted by every federal appeals court but one - the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes West Virginia. That court rejected the catalyst theory in a 1994 decision. Applying its precedent to the request for lawyers' fees in this case, the Fourth Circuit said that because the case had not been resolved by a court, the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties within the meaning of the statutes and thus could not recover their fees.

Civil rights lawyers said that the decision would increase the risk of handling complex cases that clients could not pay for and in which the fee-shifting provisions represented the only means of recovering costs.

The Casey Martin case is PGA Tour v. Martin, 00-24, a copy of the decision can be obtained at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-24.pdf. For the appeals court ruling in Olinger v. U.S. Golf Association, 00-434, go to http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html and click on 7th Circuit.

Buckhannon Board and Care Home v. West Virginia, No. 99-1848, can be found at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1848.ZS.html.

(Sources: "Casey Martin Wins Right To Use Golf Cart On PGA Tour," DREDF press release, http://www.dredf.org/Martin.html; "Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration Of Another Golf Cart Case," Anne Gearan, The Associated Press, June 4, 2001; and "Ruling Limits Awarding of Legal Fees for Plaintiffs," Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, May 29, 2001.)

Back to top

ACCESS PROVISIONS TAKE EFFECT FOR FEDERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

On August 7, 1998, President Clinton signed into law the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 which covers access to federally funded programs and services. The law strengthens section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and requires access to electronic and information technology provided by the federal government. It applies to all federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. Federal agencies must ensure that this technology is accessible to employees and members of the public with disabilities.

In late June, accessibility requirements for federal electronic and information technology took effect under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. This law requires that such technology be accessible according to standards developed by the Access Board, which are now part of the Federal government's procurement regulations. These standards, as issued by the Board last December, cover a variety of products, including computer hardware and software, websites, phone systems, fax machines, copiers, and similar technologies. Provisions in the standards spell out what makes these products accessible to people with disabilities, including those with vision, hearing, and mobility impairments. The Board included both technical criteria specific to various types of technologies and performance-based requirements, which focus on a product's functional capabilities.

Section 508 and its enforcement provisions apply to products procured by federal agencies after the June 21st effective date. The law relies primarily on the procurement process to ensure compliance with the new standards. In April, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council effectively folded the standards into the regulations that govern federal procurement. The updated regulation will help federal agencies comply with the law. Compliance with the standards is required except where it would pose an "undue burden" or where no complying product is commercially available. Certain technologies related to national security are exempt.

While Section 508 covers a broad range of technologies, a key concern among many federal agencies is access to websites, often the primary portal to an agency's information and services. The provisions for websites in the 508 standards focus on the interaction with various assistive products people with vision impairments use to access the Internet and other computer-based information. Common among these products are screen readers, which translate what's on a computer screen into automated audible output, and refreshable Braille displays.

New pages or sites developed after the effective date through a procurement action, such as a contract with an outside firm, are fully subject to the 508 standards and enforcement provisions. Existing web pages and those developed or updated in-house by agency staff are not covered by 508's enforcement provisions, but access to the information provided is important in view of an agency's obligation to accommodate people with disabilities, including employees, under the Rehabilitation Act.

The Board recently issued additional guidance material on Section 508 and the standards, which is available on its website at www.access-board.gov/508.htm. For technical assistance or training on the standards, call the Board at (800) 872-2253 (voice) or (800) 993-2822 (TTY) or send an e-mail to 508@access-board.gov.

(Source: Access Currents, Volume 7, No. 3, May/June 2001.)

Back to top

DOJ UPDATE

Attorney General Orders Swift Implementation Of Olmstead Decision

Attorney General John Ashcroft announced support for the Olmstead executive order signed by President Bush as part of his New Freedom Initiative. The New Freedom Initiative increases the responsibilities of Executive Branch agencies whose programs affect the lives of people with disabilities. The executive order directs federal agencies to assist states and localities in ensuring prompt and effective implementation of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1999 decision, Olmstead v. L.C.

Olmstead requires states to place individuals with disabilities in community settings rather than institutions, where such placement is appropriate and reasonable. Unjustified isolation or segregation of persons with disabilities through institutionalization is a form of discrimination prohibited by the ADA.

The Department of Justice's Special Litigation Section currently has cases or investigations in 12 states involving community placement. Some of these include:

• Indiana - DOJ recently entered into a settlement agreement involving two facilities for persons with developmental disabilities. The agreement includes provisions for the development of a comprehensive plan for the provision of services and supports in the most integrated setting and for the transfer of residents to the community.
• Pennsylvania - DOJ settled two cases involving a developmental center and a nursing home. The agreements require the continual assessment of the appropriateness of individualized placements and of the services provided in the community.
• Tennessee - Following contested litigation in one case and settlement in another, DOJ is monitoring court orders requiring the community placement of individuals from all of the state's institutions for persons with mental retardation to ensure that placements are safe and appropriate.
• Virginia - DOJ has entered into settlement agreements involving Northern Virginia Training Center, Eastern State Hospital, Northern Virginia Mental Health Institute and Central State Hospital. All four agreements provide for individualized assessments of persons with disabilities and placement in the most integrated setting.
• Wisconsin - DOJ has entered into a settlement agreement involving two facilities for persons with developmental disabilities that ensures appropriate placements, in the most integrated settings with the appropriate community services for those persons.

Back to top

ACCESSBOARD NEWS

Advisory Committee Issues Report on Passenger Vessels

The Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee has presented its recommendations to the Access Board on accessibility guidelines for passenger vessels. The report details access criteria for various types of vessels, including ferries, gaming boats, cruise ships, and sightseeing boats. The recommendations are specific to newly constructed and altered passenger vessels covered by the ADA.

Committee members represented a variety of interests and fields of expertise, including owners and operators of various passenger vessels, naval engineers, and disability organizations. Regional committee members included: Stephen Spinetto of the Boston Commission for Persons with Disabilities, Christine Griffin from Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Robert Gearing of the Rhode Island Tourism Division.

Identifying the types of vessels to be addressed was a key part of the Committee? mission. The Committee took a wide variety of vessels into consideration, from those used primarily for transportation, such as ferries, to those used for recreation or other purposes, such as gaming boats and cruise ships. Recommendations were modeled on the work of an earlier advisory committee charged with reviewing and updating the Board's ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) for Buildings and Facilities. The Board will propose guidelines based on the committee's report that will be made available for public comment.

Board Issues Guidance on Movie Captioning

The Access Board has issued a technical bulletin on closed captioning technologies for movie theaters to provide access for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. This bulletin describes several new systems that present movie captions in a discreet manner that does not interfere with the typical viewing experience. Guidance is provided on how the different systems work, their design requirements, costs and availability. Information is included on:

• "Rear Window" and "Bounce Back Mirror Image" systems that reflect captions from a reverse-text display at the back of the theater onto adjustable reflective panels attached to seats that individually serve users;
• a captioning system which projects captions below the movie screen in a manner which is noticeable only through the use of polarized glasses;
• personal captioning glasses equipped with a small monitor for displaying captions; and
• caption displays that are mounted on the backs of seats.

The Board is making this guidance available for use by the operators and designers of movie theaters and specialty film theaters who wish to explore captioning solutions. The bulletin is available at www.access-board.gov/news/captioning.htm or can be ordered free by calling the Board at (800) 872-2253 (v) or (800) 993-2822 (TTY).

(Sources: Access Currents, Volume 6, No. 6 November/December 2000 and Volume 7, No. 2, March/April 2001.)

Back to top

EMPLOYMENT UPDATE

EEOC Settles Genetic Testing Suit

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that is has settled its first court action challenging the use of workplace genetic testing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). EEOC had sought a Preliminary Injunction against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) to end genetic testing of employees who filed claims for work-related injuries based on carpal tunnel syndrome.

"EEOC sought the preliminary injunction to prevent irreparable harm to employees who faced the impossible choice of potentially losing their jobs or revealing their genetic makeup," said former Commission Chairwoman Ida Castro. "Our swift action in this case allows Burlington Northern employees subjected to genetic testing to continue to work free of retaliation and future invasions of privacy in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act."

According to EEOC's Petition, Burlington Northern's genetic testing program was carried out without the knowledge or consent of its employees, and at least one worker was threatened with termination for failing to submit a blood sample for a genetic test. This settlement, in which BNSF admits that it tested certain employees for a genetic marker, is in the form of an Agreed Order and includes the following terms:

• BNSF shall not directly or indirectly require its employees to submit blood for genetic tests;
• BNSF shall not analyze any blood previously obtained;
• BNSF shall not evaluate, analyze or consider any gene test analysis previously performed on any of its employees; and
• BNSF shall not retaliate or threaten to take any adverse action against any person who opposed the genetic testing or who participated in EEOC? proceedings.

In addition, as part of the settlement, BNSF shall preserve all evidence relevant to its genetic testing until several charges of discrimination filed with EEOC against the company are resolved. In its ongoing investigation of the initial charge filings, EEOC may seek compensatory and punitive damages up to $300,000 per individual for a class of claimants ranging from 20 to 30 BNSF workers who were either subjected to genetic testing or retaliated against for failing to submit to such tests.

EEOC Commissioner Paul Steven Miller said: "Employers must understand that basing employment decisions on genetic testing is barred under the ADA's ?egarded as' prong, as stated in EEOC's 1995 policy guidance on the definition of the term 'disability.' Moreover, genetic testing, as conducted in this case, also violates the ADA as an unlawful medical exam."

Back to top
 

REGIONAL NEWS

Adaptive Environments Awarded Five-Year ADA Grant

Adaptive Environments is pleased to announce that we have been awarded a 5-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education? National Institute for Disability Rehabilitation and Research (NIDRR) to continue and expand the programs and services offered by the New England ADA Technical Assistance Center. The new grant, which runs from October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2006, continues the successful design of a regionally-based infrastructure to support voluntary compliance with the ADA. Since 1996, the New England ADA Technical Assistance Center has provided technical assistance, training, and materials dissemination to individuals and entities with rights or responsibilities under the ADA.

NIDRR added a new scope of work to this grant having to do with accessible Information Technology (IT) in educational entities. Educational entities include public and private K-12 and higher education in all its forms: institutions of higher learning, proprietary schools, and adult education programs. The goals of the grant are to provide technical assistance, training, and information dissemination on accessible IT; to provide information for conducting self-assessments; to provide technical assistance on how to make existing IT accessible and ensure that new IT acquisitions are accessible; to promote best practices; and to provide information to the independent living centers and parent training centers in the region. Ultimately, we will strive to build simultaneously an appetite for accessible education-based IT and a capacity to meet it with knowledgeable advocates and technical assistance at the state and local level. Throughout, best practices will be identified and shared as case studies.

The New England ADA Technical Assistance Center will be welcoming new staff and consultants to assist in the transition into the new grant cycle. Oce Harrison has been hired to be the new Project Director. Among the consultants committed to the project: David Clark as Technology Consultant and Candace Low as Telecommunications Trainer.

Adaptive Environments is a Boston-based educational non-profit founded in 1978 dedicated to making places and things work seamlessly and well for everyone, across variation in ability and age. Our founding premise is that design and designers are instruments of that mission.

Fleet Announces Plan To Install Talking ATMs

In a major initiative to make banking services more accessible to millions of people who are blind or visually impaired, Fleet and the Disability Law Center (DLC) have announced a comprehensive plan to ensure that persons with vision impairments, including the growing number of senior citizens, can more conveniently access banking services at Fleet. The plan includes installation of the first talking ATMs in New York and New England, a program to enhance access to printed materials, and improved website accessibility at www.fleet.com.

More than 16 Fleet talking ATMs are already installed and operating in Massachusetts. The total of talking ATMs, which provide audio instructions over a headset, will increase to more than 150 throughout Massachusetts, New Hampshire and the metropolitan New York area by the end of the year. Over the next two years, Fleet will complete the installation of 1,420 talking ATMs throughout its northeast retail service area, from Maine to Pennsylvania.

Fleet? Talking ATMs will be equipped with universal audio jacks, and the bank will provide listening devices to persons with vision impairments through which they can receive private audio instructions for transactions typically displayed on the ATM screen for cash withdrawals, balance inquiries, transfers & payments and deposits. In addition to installing talking ATMs, Fleet will now provide important financial materials including statements, brochures and other account information in Braille, audiocassette, and large print formats. The bank also is designing and generating each page of its website to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

To locate the nearest talking ATM, consumers may call Fleet Customer Service at (800) 841-4000. A complete list of talking ATM locations will later be available on the Fleet website. Fleet worked closely with representatives of the blindness community, the Disability Law Center, and California disability rights lawyer Lainey Feingold, to develop a plan to effectively meet the needs of this important and underserved segment of consumers.

Stadium-Style Movie Theaters Come Under Scrutiny

Former U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, Donald Stern, sued two movie chains, claiming their theaters with stadium-style seating discriminate against people with disabilities. Stern accused National Amusements Inc. and Hoyts Cinemas Corp. of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and relegating people with disabilities to inferior movie seats, according to separate lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Boston.

The federal lawsuit claims the two chains began building stadium-style theaters in 1997 as part of a trend in the industry. Such theaters typically have both traditional seats toward the front of the theater and stadium-style seats located on a series of risers behind them. The new design virtually eliminates the problem of blocked views, but Stern and advocates for the disabled contend the theaters were built with little regard for accommodating people who use wheelchairs, have other disabilities, or are elderly. The suit says because the stadium-style seats must be reached by climbing steps, people who use wheelchairs or are otherwise unable to climb stairs, cannot gain access to the stadium-style seats. Instead, people in wheelchairs have been forced to either the extreme front or back rows.

Stern's suits seek court orders to require Hoyts and National Amusements to design, construct and operate their theaters so that they comply with all ADA requirements. The suit also calls for the chains to renovate any existing stadium-style theaters so that people with disabilities have access to the same sightlines as all customers.

National Amusements and Hoyts each operate theaters with stadium-style seating in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, as well as 10 other states.

(Sources: "Theaters Alleged to Slight Disabled," Boston Globe, Ralph Ranalli, Page B01, December 19, 2000; ?heaters Sued Over Disabled Seating," The Associated Press, December 18, 2000; and ?ovie Chains Sued Over Stadium-Style Seating," Reuters, Tim McLaughlin, December 18, 2000.)

DOJ Enforcement in New England

The U. S. Department of Justice, as part of its Project Civic Access, has entered into a settlement agreement with Narragansett, RI after initiating a compliance review under title II of the ADA. The review was conducted by the Disability Rights Section (DRS) of DOJ? Civil Rights Division and focused on compliance with the following title II requirements:

• to conduct a self-evaluation of its services, policies, and practices by July 26, 1992 and make modifications necessary to comply with the title II regulations;
• to notify applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons of their rights and the Town? obligations under title II;
• to designate a responsible employee to coordinate its efforts to comply and carry out the Town? ADA responsibilities;
• to establish a grievance procedure for resolving complaints;
• delivery of services, programs, or activities in alternate ways, including, for example, redesign of equipment, reassignment of services, assignment of aides, home visits, or other methods of compliance or, if these methods are not effective in making the programs accessible,
• to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and members of the public with disabilities are as effective as communications with others, including furnishing auxiliary aids and services when necessary;
• to provide direct access via TDD or computer to telephone emergency services, including 911 services, for persons who use TDDs and computer modems;
• to provide information for interested persons with disabilities concerning the existence and location of the Town? accessible services, activities, and facilities; and
• to provide signage at all inaccessible entrances to each of its facilities, directing users to an accessible entrance or to information about accessible facilities.

DOJ limited its program access review to the town? programs, services, and activities that operate in the following facilities: Sprague Park, Narragansett Recreation Tennis Clubhouse, The Towers, The Gazebo, Domenic H. Christofaro Park, Narragansett Town Beach South Pavilion, Narragansett Town Beach North Pavilion, Narragansett Pier Beach Club at the North Pavilion, Cabanas, Leroy Thompson Memorial Playground, Narragansett Public Safety Building, Downtown Comfort Station, Narragansett Public Library, George C? Park, Eastward Look Playground and Park, Town Hall, Narragansett Senior/Community Center, Sunset Farms, and Canochet Farms.

Other towns in New England that have settlement agreements with DOJ include Farmington, ME and Windham, CT.

Obstetrical Practice To Pay $60,000 In Interpreter Case

A jury of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in U.S. v. York Womens' Care Associates awarded $60,000 in damages to a deaf individual who was denied a sign language interpreter for medical consultations involving his wife's high-risk pregnancy. Due to the lack of an interpreter, the couple, both of whom are deaf, was unable during office visits to fully communicate with the medical practice about dietary concerns and other complications caused by the wife's gestational diabetes. The patient herself did not receive a damages award because the jury found that she had waived her request for an interpreter. The U.S. Attorney will ask the court to require the practice to pay civil penalties and to enter an order preventing future violations. This is important because under title III individual plaintiffs can not receive monetary damages. However, when the Department of Justice files an action it can seek monetary damages for the individuals.

Back to top

PUBLICATIONS

DOJ ADA CD-ROM
All of DOJ's ADA regulations, architectural design standards, and technical assistance publications in HTML, WordPerfect, and text (ASCII). Many also in Acrobat PDF. Order at www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/cdrequestform.htm or 800-514-0301 voice, 800-514-0383 tty.

New Publications Available from our Center

• Section 508 Guidelines
• FCC Section 255 Fact Sheet
• Section 255 Statute & Regulations -- $2
• Section 255 Guidelines -- $4
• Software Accessibility Checklist
• Web Page Accessibility Checklist
• Information Technology Machines (ITMs) Accessibility Checklist
• Information Technology (IT) Equipment Accessibility Checklist
• Bulletin # 7: Access to IT
• A Guide for People with Disabilities Seeking Employment -- This document is the result of a joint effort involving the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The guide explains rights under the ADA that apply to individuals with disabilities who are receiving Social Security disability benefits but who want to become employed.

Back to top

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Questions & Answers About Section 508

Q: What is Section 508 and what does it require of federal agencies and departments?

A: Section 508 is a part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It requires that when federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology, they must ensure that it is accessible to people with disabilities, unless it would pose an undue burden to do so. Federal employees and members of the public who have disabilities must have access to and use of information and services that is comparable to the access and use available to non-disabled federal employees and members of the public. The law went into effect as of June 21, 2001.

Q: What does the law mean by "accessible?"

A: Standards developed by the Access Board explain the detailed technical and functional performance criteria that will determine whether a technology product or system is ?ccessible." In general, an information technology system is accessible to people with disabilities if it can be used in a variety of ways that do not depend on a single sense or ability. For example, a system that provides output only in audio format would not be accessible to people with hearing impairments, and a system that requires mouse actions to navigate would not be accessible to people who cannot use a mouse because of a dexterity or visual impairment.

Q: What is meant by "electronic and information technology?"

A: The Access Board defined "electronic and information technology" consistent with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. That Act defines "information technology" to include "any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment, that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information." It includes computer hardware, software, networks, and peripherals as well as many electronic and communications devices commonly used in offices.

Q: Are there any exemptions to the technology accessibility standards?

A: A federal agency does not have to comply with the technology accessibility standards if it would impose an undue burden to do so. This is consistent with language used in the ADA and other civil rights legislation, where the term ?ndue burden" has been defined as "significant difficulty or expense." However, the agency must explain why meeting the standards would pose an undue burden. Section 508 also contains a limited exemption for national security systems.

Q: How will Section 508 be enforced?

A: There is an administrative complaint process which enables individuals with disabilities to file complaints alleging that a federal department or agency has not complied with the accessible technology standards. The complaint process is the same as that used for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It provides injunctive relief and attorney's fees to the prevailing party, but does not include compensatory or punitive damages. Individuals may also file a civil action against an agency.

(Source: "Questions & Answers about Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998," http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/FAQ.htm.)

Back to top

GREAT WEB SITES

Here are some sources for information on Section 508:

Federal IT Accessibility Initiative (FITAI)
http://www.section508.gov/
FITAI, an interagency partnership organized by the General Services Administration (GSA), serves as a key government resource on access to electronic and information technology and agency compliance with Section 508. FITAI has organized training programs on Section 508 and its effects on the procurement process.

The Access Board
http://www.access-board.gov/508.htm
The Board recently issued additional guidance material on section 508 and the standards which are available on its website. They also provides technical assistance and training on the standards.

Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center (ITTATC)
http://www.ittatc.org
ITTATC promotes the creation, use and dissemination of accessible telecommunications and information technology (IT) by providing technical assistance, training and information.

GovExec.com Section 508 Resources
http://www.govexec.com/508/index.htm
GovExec.com is government's business news daily for federal managers and executives. Editorial goals include: Covering developments affecting organization and management of the executive branch and Helping federal executives and their agencies improve the quality of services they provide by reporting on management innovations.

Department of Justice Section 508 Home Page
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508home.html
Information regarding the obligations of federal agencies to comply with Section 508 and conduct self-evaluations of their electronic and information technology.

Back to top

BUILDING YOUR ROLODEX

Section 508 Resources

The Access Board
1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1111
(800) 872-2253 (v)
(800) 993-2822 (tty)
(202) 272-5447 (fax)
email: 508@access-board.gov

ITTATC
Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access
490 10th Street
Atlanta, GA 30318
(866) 948-8282 (v/tty)
(404) 894-9320 (fax)
email: webmaster@ittatc.org

U.S. Department of Justice
Section 508 Coordinators
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
(202) 305-8304 (v)
(202) 353-8944 (tty)
(202) 307-1198 (fax)
email: sec508.questions@usdoj.gov

Trace Research & Development Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
5901 Research Park Boulevard
Madison, WI 53719-1252
(608) 262-6966 (v)
(608) 263-5408 (tty)
(608) 262-8848 (fax)
email: web@trace.wisc.edu
website: http://trace.wisc.edu

World Wide Web Consortium
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Laboratory for Computer Science
200 Technology Square
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-2613 (v)
(617) 258-5999 (fax)
website: http://www.w3.org/

CAST
39 Cross Street
Peabody, MA 01960
(978) 531-8555 (v)
email: cast@cast.org
website: http://www.cast.org

Back to top

Look for the FALL issue of Access New England.

Attention Subscribers!
Are you interested in receiving our newsletter via e-mail? Send us a message at adaptive@adaptiveenvironments.org and we'll drop Access New England directly into your e-mail letterbox. Moved recently? Changed your name? No longer interested in receiving our newsletter? Let us know so we can keep our mailing list up-to-date and effective. Call us at 800-949-4232 V/TTY or drop us a line at 374 Congress Street, Suite 301, Boston, MA 02210. Questions about the ADA? Call us at 800-949-4232 V/TTY for answers and guidance.