Information and Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act 
Summer 1999  Vol. 3, No. 4

This Issue Highlights Information and Resources Regarding Outdoor Recreation

What's Inside?

Feature Stories

• ADA Protections Shaped By Supreme Court Decisions
• Proposed Access Guidelines for Recreation Facilities

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

FEATURE STORIES

ADA PROTECTIONS SHAPED BY SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Recent rulings by the Supreme Court are likely to have significant impact on who is considered to have a disability and what protections will be afforded those covered by the ADA. The five cases heard during the court’s spring session were: Cleveland vs. Policy Management Systems Corp., 97-1008; Sutton et al. v. United Air Lines, Inc. No. 97-1943; Albertsons, Inc., v. Kirkingburg, No. 98-591; Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. No. 97-1992; and Olmstead v. L.C. No. 98-536. The following is a brief summary of each case:

Cleveland vs. Policy Management Systems Corp. The justices voted unanimously in this case, saying courts cannot presume that people who apply for such benefits as Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) are, in essence, admitting to be unqualified to hold a job and therefore cannot invoke the protection of the ADA. The ruling was a victory for plaintiff Carolyn Cleveland.

Cleveland had worked for Policy Management Systems Corp. in Dallas for six months when in January of 1994 she had a stroke. Taking a leave of absence, she applied for Social Security disability benefits.

On her benefits application, she stated that she was unable to work. In April of 1994, Cleveland's doctor cleared her to return to work. Resuming her job with Policy Management Systems, she notified Social Security officials about her improved health. Cleveland had trouble performing her job and asked for several accommodations. Her employer refused each request and eventually fired her.

Subsequently, she renewed her application for disability benefits and, after receiving them, sued Policy Management Systems, alleging that her firing amounted to illegal discrimination based on disability.

A federal trial judge threw out her lawsuit, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal. The Supreme Court decision reinstates Cleveland's lawsuit. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing on the court’s behalf, said the 5th Circuit court was wrong in presuming Cleveland was not qualified under the ADA.

According to Breyer, the 5th Circuit Court "thought, in essence, that claims under both acts would incorporate two directly conflicting propositions, namely 'I am too disabled to work' and 'I am not too disabled to work.'"

"There are too many situations in which… (a Social Security disability) claim and an ADA claim can comfortably exist side by side," he said. Some people who sue under the ADA contend they could work if provided reasonable accommodations, he noted.

Sutton et al. v. United Air Lines, Inc. Albertsons, Inc., v. Kirkingburg Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Decisions in this trio of cases will, in many instances, define the scope of what is a disability. The Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have stated that the determination of whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity and therefore has a disability should be made without regard to "mitigating measures" such as medications or assistive and prosthetic devices. Lower courts have been divided over this issue.

In the Supreme Court's first major interpretations of this issue, a majority said "Disability exists only when an impairment ‘substantially limits’ a person's ability to have a normal work and social life - not where it ‘might,' ‘could,' or ‘would' be substantially limiting if mitigating measures were not taken.''

Writing for the majority in the United Air Lines case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said "Congress did not intend for the disabilities act to cover the estimated 160 million Americans with correctable impairments. The legislation was aimed at protecting some 43 million people whose physical and mental disabilities limit their ‘major life activities.’ The figure reflects an understanding that those whose impairments are largely corrected by medication or other devices are not ‘disabled' within the meaning of the disabilities act."

Additionally, the court said employers have the right to establish physical criteria that suit the job. For example:

United Air Lines, did not discriminate against Karen Sutton and her twin sister, Kimberly Hinton, by requiring global airline pilots to have uncorrected 20/20 vision, even though it does not impose the same criteria on regional pilots or flight instructors. The sisters, who had been regional pilots, had been turned down as global pilots because they wear glasses. Both women have uncorrected visual acuity of 20/200 or worse, but with corrective measures, both function identically to individuals without similar impairments;

UPS did not discriminate when it fired Vaughn Murphy, a mechanic with high blood pressure, because he was unqualified for a particular job that required him to operate motor vehicles and meet a high federal health standard. He is qualified for other mechanic positions; and

Hallie Kirkingburg, a former truck driver for Albertsons who compensated with his right eye for the amblyopia in his left eye, had excellent vision for many jobs, but not good enough for driving a commercial truck.

Justice Stevens, writing dissenting opinions on the workplace cases, said a corrective device does not, in itself, relieve a disability. The court majority had a ''crabbed vision'' of the disabilities law, he said, and Congress, ''by reason of legislative myopia, may not have foreseen its definition of ‘disability' might theoretically encompass not just some ‘43 million Americans’ but perhaps two or three times that number.''

EEOC Chairwoman, Ida Castro, commented on the court’s decisions in these cases in remarks to the 10th Annual Convention of the National Employment Lawyers Association days later. "First the Court clearly stated that people who use mitigating measures may still be substantially limited in major life activities and thus may enjoy the protection of the ADA."

"Second," she continued, "the Court did not suggest that any conditions are per se excluded from coverage under the ADA. And third, the Court did not disturb the principle that employers are required, as before, to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities and may not otherwise discriminate against them."

Ms. Castro added: "In essence, all these points will be considered by the Commission as we move forward in assessing the impact of the Court's ADA decisions this term. Toward this end, I have directed EEOC staff to proceed with several important actions." Among other steps, she requested staff:

· Plan for a public Commission meeting in which a forum will be convened to conduct a focused discussion on the ADA in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings; · Reach out and consult with all stakeholders who are involved in both interpreting and enforcing the ADA to bring greater clarity to ADA enforcement; and · Identify those portions of Commission documents that may need to be revised and updated in light the Court's decisions.

Olmstead v. L.C. By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court ruled that states may have to place people with mental disabilities in community-based settings, when appropriate, as opposed to placement in facilities like state hospitals. Central to the case is the contention that federal regulations for Title II of the ADA require public entities (ie. state and local government) to "administer,,,program...in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities." 28 CFR 35.130(d).

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes, "We confront the question whether the proscription of discrimination may require placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings, rather than in institutions. The answer, we hold, is a qualified yes."

Ginsburg added that such action "is in order when the state's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the state and the needs of others with mental disabilities."

The case involves two women, Elaine Wilson and Lois Curtis, who have sued the state of Georgia to get out of a state-run mental hospital in Atlanta. Both had been approved for community-based care, but faced long waiting lists to enter a residential program.

The court’s ruling means that a federal appeals court will restudy the Olmstead case, undertaking "further consideration of the appropriate relief, given the range of facilities the state maintains for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities, and its obligation to administer services with an even hand."

The nation’s high court, through Justice Ginsburg, made clear several issues it was not deciding. Said Ginsburg, "nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings."

She also noted that a state's responsibility, "once it provides community-based treatment to qualified persons with disabilities, is not boundless."

To review the full text of these Supreme Court decisions, visit the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School’s website at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/.

(Sources: Associated Press, "Suits by Disabled Workers Made Easier," May 24, 1999. Associated Press, "Some Mentally Ill Entitled to Homelike Care," June 22, 1999. Boston Globe, "Justices Limit Who Can Sue Over Disability," Mary Leonard, page A01, June 23, 1999.)

Back to top

PROPOSED ACCESS GUIDELINES FOR RECREATION FACILITIES

On July 9, 1999, the Access Board proposed accessibility guidelines for recreation facilities under the ADA. The guidelines are available for public comment until December 8, 1999 to accommodate a public hearing scheduled for November 17, 1999, in Boston, MA during the Build Boston trade show at the World Trade Center. Once finalized, the guidelines will supplement the Board's ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which cover the construction and alteration of facilities in the private and public sector subject to the ADA.

The proposed rule covers a variety of recreation facilities, including amusement rides, boating facilities, fishing piers and platforms, golf courses, miniature golf, sports facilities, swimming pools and spas. It provides both scoping requirements, which specify what has to be accessible, and technical requirements, which spell out how access is to be achieved. Copies of the proposed rule are available from the Board’s web site at http://www.access-board.gov. Print copies are available for $3 from the New England ADA & Accessible IT Center by calling (800) 949-4234 v/tty.

Back to top

ACCESS BOARD NEWS

OUTDOOR DEVELOPED AREAS COMMITTEE UPDATE

In June 1997, the Access Board established a regulatory negotiation committee to develop a proposed rule on accessibility guidelines for newly constructed and altered outdoor developed areas covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Barriers Act. Committe members include: American Camping Association, American Society of Landscape Architects, Appalachian Trail Conference, Association for Blind Athletes, National Association of State Park Directors, National Association of State Trail Administrators, National Center on Accessibility, National Recreation and Park Association, National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Partners for Access to the Woods, TASH, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), and U.S. Department of Interior (National Park Service).

The committee had its final meeting in July to complete its work on accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas. If the committee reached consensus, their recommendations could be presented formally in September, when the Access Board next meets. Because this is a regulatory negotiation committee, if they have reached consensus, the Access Board will eventually publish their work as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). This process would provide for a period of public comment on the recommendations before, ultimately, they are brought forth as guidelines. It is possible that an NPRM could be made available as early as the summer of 2000.

For further information, contact: Peggy Greenwell, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC, 20004-1111. Telephone number (202) 272-5434 x 34 (Voice); (202) 272-5449 (TTY).

Back to top

DOJ UPDATE

DOJ ISSUES NEW GAS STATION SERVICE POLICY

In response to numerous questions regarding the responsibility of self-serve gas stations to accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities, DOJ has issued a new policy statement clarifying this issue. The text of this policy is as follows:

People with disabilities may find it difficult or impossible to use the controls, hose, or nozzle of a self-serve gas pump. As a result, at stations that offer both self and full service, people with disabilities might have no choice but to purchase the more expensive gas from a full-serve pump. At locations with only self-serve pumps, they might be unable to purchase gas at all.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires self-serve gas stations to provide equal access to their customers with disabilities. If necessary to provide access, gas stations must:

· Provide refueling assistance upon the request of an individual with a disability. A service station or convenience store is not required to provide such service at any time that it is operating on a remote control basis with a single employee, but is encouraged to do so, if feasible.

· Let patrons know (e.g., through appropriate signs) that customers with disabilities can obtain refueling assistance by either honking or otherwise signaling an employee.

· Provide the refueling assistance without any charge beyond the self-serve price.

If you are interested in obtaining a copy of this one-page policy, please contact the New England ADA & Accessible IT Center at (800) 949-4232 v/tty.

Back to top

EMPLOYMENT UPDATE

WIIA PASSES SENATE OVERWHELMINGLY

The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (WIIA 1999, S. 331) was passed by the US Senate on June 16, 1999, by a roll call vote of 99 to 0. This moves the bill one step closer to signature by President Clinton. The proposed legislation is intended to remove significant barriers to the employment of people with disabilities by:

- Providing adequate and affordable health insurance when a person on SSI or SSDI goes to work, or develops a significant disability while working. This includes expanding Medicaid options for States, continuing access to Medicare coverage, providing grants to States to support working individuals with disabilities, and creating a time-limited demonstration program permitting States to extend Medicaid coverage to certain workers with disabilities;

- Encouraging SSDI beneficiaries to return to work by providing assurances that cash benefits would remain available if employment proves unsuccessful; and

- Extending the Social Security Administration's demonstration authority, which expired in 1996 and requires SSA to conduct a demonstration that reduces SSDI benefits by $1 for every $2 earned above "Substantial Gainful Activity."

INFERTILITY TREATMENTS AND INSURANCE COVERAGE

The EEOC has issued a ruling supporting that infertility is a disability covered by the ADA. Rochelle Saks, a 37-year-old bookstore manager from White Plains, NY, sued her employer, the Franklin Covey Company, after the company’s medical plan insisted she pay almost $20,000 to the doctor who treated her for infertility.

The agency found that the company violated the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because it did not provide "substantial" infertility-related benefits, and refused necessary medical care for infertility. Additionally, the EEOC held that the company’s plan offered male employees more comprehensive infertility benefits than it did female employees. The verdict in the Saks case is the first of its kind in New York, and perhaps the nation. Last summer, the Supreme Court proclaimed that reproduction was a "major life activity" and thus, those who were infertile or had difficulty bearing children were protected under the ADA.

The company now has the opportunity to reach a settlement with Saks before the case goes to Federal Court. Few infertility coverage cases have progressed from the administrative domain to court, a statistic due in large part to the Supreme Court decision. Currently, only two states, Illinois and Massachusetts, obligate companies to cover their employees’ fertility treatments. (Source: The Los Angeles Times, "EEOC Backs Coverage for Infertility," April 30, 1999.)

SMALL EMPLOYERS AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

The EEOC has published a new pamphlet answering questions about reasonable accommodation for small employers. Here are a few of the questions addressed.

Q: How must an individual request a reasonable accommodation?

A: The individual must let the employer know that s/he needs an adjustment or change at work for a reason related to a medical condition. An individual may use "plain English" and need not mention the ADA or use the phrase "reasonable accommodation." Requests do not need to be in writing.

Q: How quickly must an employer respond to a reasonable accommodation request?

A: An employer should respond promptly to a request for reasonable accommodation. If the employer and the individual with a disability need to engage in an interactive process, this too should proceed as quickly as possible.

Q: Is restructuring a job a reasonable accommodation?

A: Yes. This includes: (1) shifting responsibility to other employees for minor job tasks that an employee is unable to perform because of a disability; and (2) altering when and/or how a job task is performed.

Q: Does a reasonable accommodation include changing a person’s supervisor?

A: No. The ADA may, however, require that supervisory methods, such as the method of communicating assignments, be altered.

(Source: EEOC: Small Employers and Reasonable Accommodation.)

Back to top
 

REGIONAL NEWS

Class Action Suit Filed Regarding Vermont’s Forced Drugging Law

A class action lawsuit filed April 27, 1999 in federal district court in Burlington claims that the law passed by the 1998 Vermont Legislature allowing the State to medicate mental health patients against their will even if they have a durable power of attorney for health care violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vermont’s new law, known as Act 114, permits the State to override the durable power of attorney of a person deemed to be mentally ill and inject that person with powerful and long lasting medication against his/her will.

The plaintiff, Nancy Hargrave, 41, of Burlington, VT was involuntarily medicated and is now facing cancer. "It strikes me as fundamentally unfair that I can choose or refuse chemotherapy, which is saving my life, but I don’t have the same right to choose or refuse psychiatric medication. This new law has made my durable power of attorney for health care meaningless. It will not protect me."

Ms. Hargrave is seeking to bring the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of herself and the class of people deemed to have a mental illness and who have been or might be subjected to involuntary medication. While Ms. Hargrave is asking the court to declare that Act 114 violates ADA, no monetary damages are being sought.

Nantucket Begins Removing Barriers

In a unique effort, the U.S. Attorney's Office partnered with the Massachusetts Office on Disability (MOD) for three days in March of training to contractors, architects, business owners, the chamber of commerce, and other interested parties on the island of Nantucket. This effort was the direct result of numerous complaints regarding access into businesses in this tourist community. The U.S. Attorney's Office sent investigators to the island and ultimately cited 85 businesses. They required these businesses to sign commitment letters agreeing to the removal of architectural barriers. MOD was brought in to make the community aware of its responsibilities under Massachusetts state regulations, to ensure that the business owners were receiving full and accurate information, and to continue providing technical assistance to these businesses.

In other Massachusetts news, through a joint effort with the Office of the Secretary of State, Community Access Monitors and City and Town Clerks, MOD is participating in trainings regarding election laws and techniques for surveying polling sites. The goal is that all polling locations in the state will be jointly surveyed by a Monitor and a Clerk in order to ensure access for everyone to be able to vote in the 2000 Presidential primary.

Maine Dentist Loses Final Supreme Court Appeal

On May 24th, 1999, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a Maine dentist who had been successfully sued after refusing to treat in his office a woman infected with HIV. The justices turned away Randon Bragdon's contention that filling a cavity in Sidney Abbott's tooth at his office would have posed a "direct threat" to his health and safety.

Lower courts had rejected that claim when they ruled for Abbott without even holding a trial on her claims of discrimination. When the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals restudied the case, it ruled in December that Abbott's legal victory in the discrimination case should stand and that no trial was necessary. She had won a judgment saying Bragdon should stop discriminating, but received no monetary award. The appeals court portrayed Bragdon's evidence of health risks as "too speculative or too tangential, or in some instances both, to create a genuine issue of material fact."

(Source: Associated Press, "Dentist loses appeal over HIV patient," May 24, 1999.)

NEADATAC News

The New England ADA & Accessible IT Center would like to announce the winners of Incentive Grants for 1999. Awardees include:

Vermont Center for Independent Living
Boards for the Future! training program
Contact: C. Frederick Buck (802) 229-0501
VCIL, in cooperation with the Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights and the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council will conduct a set of three trainings on access and reasonable accommodation on governing boards for people with disabilities.

Northeast Independent Living Program
Polling Place Access Training
Contact: Jim Lyons (978) 687-4288
Project consists of two major trainings: one ADA/Polling Place Access training for members of local Commissions on Disability Issues and followup access surveys at a minimum of 36 polling places. The project complements the Massachusetts Office on Disability and the Massachusetts' Secretary of State statewide polling place accessibility initiative.

Alpha One
Business & Consumer Workshops on Accessibility to the Hospitality Industry
Contact: Steven Temblay (207) 767-2189
The project will focus on training people with disabilities and proprietors and staff members of hospitality businesses in greater Portland. The program consists of a series of workshops that strive to improve the knowledge of both consumers and the hospitality industry regarding disability issues and the ability to facilitate quality, accessible service.

Independence Unlimited
"A Day in the Life of Joey" video
Contact: Marsha Brown/Joey Paladino (860) 267-3221
This project builds on an ongoing outreach and training effort by Independence Unlimited to young people who've become disabled through gang violence. They've found that their hardest job is to communicate an appreciation of the impact of the ADA in securing equal access to opportunity and community integration.

Americans with Disabilities Act Coalition of Connecticut
Law Enforcement Training Program
Contact: Norman Message (860) 297-4383
ADACC's project builds on the model training program designed for the Town of Middletown in 1997. The new project will provide a statewide training on the ADA for law enforcement agencies and the Municipal Police Training Academy.

Kathy Gips speaks at an Ontarians with Disabilities Act forum in Toronto

Kathy Gips, director of training, was the keynote speaker at an Ontarians with Disabilities Act forum in Toronto, Canada. The purpose of the forum was to advocate for legislation in Ontario that will break down education, transportation, communication, physical and employment barriers for people with disabilities. Kathy was invited to speak about our experience with the Americans with Disabilities Act and to make recommendations for legislation in Ontario.

The New England ADA & Accessible IT Center is sponsoring several audio conferences in September.
They are as follows:

• ADA Employment Updates '99 - Audio conference with Sharon Rennert, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Thursday, September 23, 1999 2-3:30 pm.
• ADA US Department of Justice Updates '99 - Audio conference Irene Bowen, US Department of Justice, Thursday, September 2, 1999 2-3:30 pm.
• Access to Higher Education for Students with Disabilities: ADA, Section 504 and Post-Secondary Education - Audio conference with Ralph D'Amico, Office for Civil Rights, US Department of Education, Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 2-3:30 pm.

Cost for each audio conference is $15 registration plus your phone charges. For more information: Kathy Gips, director of training kgips@adaptiveenvironments.org or (800) 949-4232. Registration will be available through our website www.adaptiveenvironments.org.

Back to top

PUBLICATIONS

These 5 publications are available from our Center by calling 800-949-4232 V/TTY:

• Accommodating All Guests Booklet -- American Hotel & Motel Association guide. 70 pp.
• Recommendations for Recreation and Outdoor Areas. 201 pp., $2
• ADAAG for Buildings and Facilities: Proposed Rule for Play Areas $1
• ADAAG Manual: A Guide to the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. New from the US Access Board, 143 pages clarifies the complexities of the ADAAG, lots of helpful drawings. Cost is $10
• EEOC: Small Employers and Reasonable Accommodation $1

The following 3 books are available from MIG Communications, 800 Hearst Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710, (800) 790-8444 Phone, (510) 845-8750 Fax:

• Natural Learning: Creating Environments for Rediscovering Nature’s Way of Teaching, by Robin C. Moore and Herb H. Wong, © 1997
• Universal Access to Outdoor Recreation: A Design Guide, © 1993
• Universal Access to Outdoor Recreation: A Pocket Guide, © 1994

Universal Access: Outdoor Recreation Opportunities for People of all Abilities This brochure is available from the Universal Access Program of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, PO Box 484, Amherst, MA 01004, (413) 545-5353 Voice, (413) 577-2200 TTY

Swimming Pool Accessibility: Final Report, September 1996 This book is available from the National Center on Accessibility, 5020 State Road 67 North, Martinsville, IN 46151, Phone (800) 424-1877 or (317) 349-9240 Voice/TTY, (317) 342-6658 Fax

Back to top

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Playground Access

The National Center on Accessibility offers technical assistance to recreation providers. Please note, this is not legal advice, merely suggestions based on the most current information available to provide optimum access for children with disabilities and adult supervisors with disabilities on and through play areas.

Q: Does every element or piece of equipment on the playground need to be accessible?

A: A playground that is accessible and allows for integration is a playground that when viewed in its entirety provides like opportunities for children of varying abilities. This does not mean that each and every feature of play event has to be usable by every individual. For instance, if a playground which offers play experiences such as swinging, sliding, and climbing, the same, or similar experiences should be provided for all.

A playground should not just be accessible for children. It should be accessible for adults with disabilities as well. At times there may be teachers, parents, or even grandparents at the play area that may have disabilities and need to access different elements of the play area should children using the equipment need support, supervision, or first aid.

Q: What part of the Americans with Disabilities Act addresses playgrounds?

A: Under Title II of the ADA, it is specified that all state and local government services, programs and activities must be made accessible. Play areas for public use, such as in a park, are considered programs under the ADA and required to be accessible. Moreover, under the ADA after January 26, 1992, all new construction must be built accessible. Please remember the intent of the law is that no person, solely on the basis of a disability, can be denied participation in, or be denied the benefits of programs, services or activities.

Privately held businesses providing public accommodations with playgrounds are covered by Title III of the ADA. Playgrounds that you find at fast food restaurants, day care centers, and those indoor playgrounds that you pay admission to use are required under Title III to provide programs and activities that are accessible.

Q: I have changes that need to be made now on my playgrounds, but wouldn't it be better to wait until the standards are out?

A: It is not recommend that you wait until the standards are finalized to make changes toward access for several reasons. If you have equipment that is in need of replacement or renovation and you wait until the standards are out, you may be creating a safety hazard. Even though standards for play areas are not complete, there is a legal obligation to make programs, services, and activities accessible.

Q: If I make changes in an effort to make the playground more accessible now and the standards are something different, do I have to immediately make changes again?

A: If you are designing a new playground at this time, you are responsible to use the most current knowledge and information and make decisions based on that information. Facilities constructed prior to developed standards will be evaluated based on the best available information at the time of construction.

Q: I have never seen a child that uses a wheelchair using our playground. How can I justify doing major changes for just a few children?

A: You may not see children with disabilities using existing playgrounds. However, the reason is most likely not because of lack of desire, but probably due to barriers preventing them from using the playground. Most people without disabilities can remember countless hours spent playing on playgrounds. This is an opportunity for fun and social interaction that is denied to many children with disabilities. These children have the right to play as much as any other children.

(Source: National Center on Accessibility (NCA), http://www.indiana.edu/~nca. Phone (800) 424-1877 or (317) 349-9240 V/TTY.)

Back to top

GREAT WEB SITES

National Center on Accessibility (NCA)
http://www.indiana.edu/~nca
5020 State Road 67 North Martinsville, IN 46151
Phone: (765) 349-9240 (voice/TTY), Fax: (765) 342-6658, E-mail: nca@indiana.edu
The NCA provides technical assistance to organizations of all sizes who are designing and retrofitting leisure areas and programs for accessibility. The NCA conducts, promotes, and facilitates research on issues essential to accessibility. NCA serves organizations working to make the arts, beaches, sports, national monuments, resorts, amusement parks and playgrounds inclusive to all people.

Beneficial Designs, Inc
http://www.beneficialdesigns.com/
5858 Empire Grade Santa Cruz, CA 95060-9603
Phone: (831) 429-8447, E-mail: mail@beneficialdesigns.com
Beneficial Designs offers comprehensive design, consultation, and product testing services to manufacturers and developers of rehabilitation products. Beneficial Designs has played a role in the coordination and development of national and international wheelchair standards in its work with the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Design accomplishments include adaptive equipment for skiing, cycling, kayaking, and flying.

Wilderness Inquiry
http://www.wildernessinquiry.org
1313 Fifth Street SE, Box 84 Minneapolis, MN 55414-1546
Voice/TTY: (800) 728-0719 E-mail: info@wildernessinquiry.org
Wilderness Inquiry is a non-profit organization that focuses on getting people from all walks of life to personally experience the natural world. Trips are usually integrated to include many different folks: older people, younger people, and people with disabilities. In addition to trips, WI conducts a variety of activities, including research, training, equipment design, and policy development.

Recreation.Gov
http://www.recreation.gov/
Recreation.Gov is a partnership among federal land management agencies aimed at providing a single, easy-to-use website with information about all federal recreation areas. The site allows you to search for recreation areas by state, by recreational activity, by agency, or by map. Recreation.Gov includes information about: National Parks, Forests, and Wildlife Refuges; Bureau of Land Management sites; Army Corps of Engineers sites; and Bureau of Reclamation sites.

Global Access -- Disability Travel Network
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1502/
Travel is for everyone, but most guidebooks and web sites simply aren't designed for disabled adventurers. Global Access wants to help fill that information gap by providing a site where disabled travelers can share their experiences. Get and share information about: How to plan trips and research destinations; Accessible Camping in Europe; Accessible Travel Tips to New York, Paris, Venice, Tokyo, London, India, Australia, Israel, and more.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/dem/access.htm
DEM's Universal Access Program is dedicated to providing outdoor recreation opportunities in Massachusetts State Parks for visitors of all abilities. Accessibility to State Parks is achieved through site improvements, specialized adaptive recreation equipment, and accessible recreation programs. Use this guide to discover accessible parks and forests that offer recreation opportunities.

Back to top

BUILDING YOUR ROLODEX

Regional Recreation Resources

Outdoor Explorations
98 Winchester Street
Medford, MA 02155
Voice: (781) 395-4999
TTY: (781) 395-4184
E-mail: information@outdoorexp.org
URL: http://www.outdoorexp.org

Northeast Passage
PO Box 127
Durham, NH 03824-0127
(603) 862-0070 Voice
NH Relay 800-735-2964
E-mail: webmaster@nepassage.org
URL: http://www.nepassage.org/

Maine Handicapped Skiing
RR 3 Box 1971
Newry, ME 04261
(207) 824-2440 Voice
(800) 639-7770
E-mail: info@skimhs.org
URL: http://www.skimhs.org

Shake-A-Leg, Inc.
76 Dorrance Street, Suite 300
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 421-1111 Voice
E-mail: shake@shakealeg.org
URL: http://www.shakealeg.org/

AbilityPLUS
206 Chace Hill Road
Sterling, MA 01564
(978) 365-6200 Voice
E-mail: info@abilityplus.org
URL: http://www.abilityplus.org/

Vermont Adaptive Ski & Sport
PO Box 261
Brownsville, VT 05037
(802) 484-3525 Voice
E-mail: vass@sover.net
URL: http://www.sover.net/~vass/

Back to top

EVENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS

Designing for the 21st Century
Second International Conference on Universal Design
June 14-18, 2000
Providence Convention Center, Providence, RI
Sponsored by Adaptive Environments and the Center for Universal Design
For additional information, contact Valerie Fletcher at (617) 695-1225 ext. 26 or visit the conference website: www.adaptiveenvironments.org/21century

Access Expo of Northern New England '99
September 14, 1999
Center of NH Holiday Inn, Manchester, NH
Hosted jointly by Alpha One, GSILF, MaineCite Project, NH Assistive Technology Partnership Project, and Vermont Assistive Technology Project
Contact: David Robar at (800) 826-3700 V/TTY

1999 National Tour of Employment Fairs
September 18, 1999
World Trade Center, Boston, MA
Hosted by President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
Contact: Fox Productions Inc. at (248) 656-1700 or www.foxprodinc.com/PCEPD.html

U.S. Access Board Public Hearing on the Proposed Rule for ADAAG
Build Boston November 17, 1999
World Trade Center, Boston, MA
Sponsored by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Adaptive Environments, and Build Boston
Contact: Adaptive Environments at (800) 949-4232 v/tty or the Access Board at (800) 872-2253 v/tty

Hidden Disabilities and The ADA
November 17, 1999
Sheraton Tara, Nashua, NH
Sponsored by Governor’s Commission on Disability
Contact the Commission at (800) 852-3405 (in NH only) or (603) 271-2773
E-mail: mjenkins@gov.state.nh.us

Psychiatric Disabilities in the Workplace: Complying with the ADA
October 27, 1999, 9am - 4pm
Boston University
Sponsored by Boston University's Pike Institute on Law and Disability and Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation.
Cost is $145. Contact Pat Freedman at pfreedma@bu.edu or 617-353-2904, or Kim MacDonald-Wilson at kmacwils@bu.edu or 617-353-3549.

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.

Back to Top

Back to Previous Page