PDF: Read the California Supreme Court ruling

A state Supreme Court decision is being heralded as a victory by disability activists but termed problematic for small-business owners.

The unanimous ruling changes past precedent and makes it possible for businesses to be sued for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act without proving the business did so intentionally.

A small-business group says the decision exposes business owners to frivolous lawsuits.

In 2005, Loma Linda resident Kenneth Munson sued Del Taco Inc. when he could not get his wheelchair through a restroom door and had to go to another nearby business. In addition, the San Bernardino restaurant had a sloped sidewalk that made it difficult to enter. The restaurant lost at the federal appellate level and the case moved to the California Supreme Court.

Del Taco spent about $66,000 remodeling to solve the problem, and the two sides had agreed to $12,000 in damages.

In the 23-page opinion, the justices said the decision is in line with changes the Legislature made to disability laws and provides an incentive for businesses to comply with regulations.

John Lonberg said the ruling validates efforts by him and others who fight for access.

“They can’t hide behind the idea that they didn’t intend to discriminate,” said Lonberg, who has been paralyzed below the chest 24 years.

He is suing the city of Riverside for failing to make curbs and sidewalks accessible to the handicapped. The city is appealing a federal judge’s award of more than $200,000.

Inland activist Ruthee Goldkorn said the ruling makes people with disabilities equal to other protected groups because no one else had to prove the discrimination was intentional.

“Let my people in is not a complex concept,” said Goldkorn, who runs No Barriers disability access consulting and serves on the executive board of Californians for Disability Rights.

The National Federation of Independent Business/California will be working with other small business groups to see what remedies might be viable through the Legislature, said John Kabateck, executive director of the foundation’s California office.

He said the process has been maligned over time as lawyers prey on small businesses knowing they are willing to settle out of court.

“This allows those seeking money more than justice to get an easy pass,” Kabateck said.

Karen Harned, executive director of the group’s small-business legal center in Washington, D.C., said the ruling encourages people to file lawsuits over small violations while not winnowing out those who knowingly violate the law or discriminate.

“It’s not like a speed limit,” she said. “It’s harder to figure out whether you’re in compliance to begin with.”

Reach Sonja Bjelland at 951-368-9642 or sbjelland@PE.com

Groups learned the extent of the proposed cuts last week in letters sent out at the request of Governor Pat Quinn.

Those letters included cuts of up to 50-percent for some providers.

Many disability providers are now contacting their clients and telling them to send a message to lawmakers still wrestling over budget cuts.

Carlissa Puckett with the disability group Sparc says her organization will lose more than half a million dollars.

Puckett says that will be reflected in real people, not just numbers.

She says she doesn’t know where people who depend on disability will go because so many support groups are looking at cuts.

Joseph Nyre with the Hope Institute says 16-thousand families from Rockford to Carbondale will lose services.

Nyre says his group is trying to come up with an ethical response to unethical cuts.

Lawmakers are expected to come back to Springfield next week to go over the state budget.

The main alternative to cuts to disability and other service groups is an income tax increase that many are reluctant to pass in tough economic times.

(Copyright 2009 by Newsroom Solutions)

By LAUREN COX
ABC News Medical Unit

Fat can be disabling. A person 180 pounds over a healthy weight is susceptible to arthritis, has increased blood pressure, a weakened heart and could soon need a walker just to get around.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, such a person could legally be labeled as disabled.

But should obesity be considered a disability? On Tuesday the American Medical Association voted a resounding no at its annual meeting.

But in a country where nearly one in three people is obese but where laws do not always cover size discrimination, and many health insurance policies do not cover obesity treatments until a patient develops a more serious health condition — not all who deal with obesity agree on the matter.

“We believe that we passed this for the patient’s benefit,” said Dr. Domenic Federico, an AMA delegate from Michigan. “We do not want to have this limit the ability to have doctors talk about a very serious condition.”

Federico explained that doctors are worried they could be legally reprimanded for discussing obesity with a patient who doesn’t want to hear it.

“If obesity is designated as a disability, physicians could be sued or reprimanded for discrimination under the Americans with Disability Act if a patient takes offense at the physician discussing obesity,” the resolution states. “Therefore be it resolved that our American Medical Association not support the effort to make obesity a disability.”

Federico said he hasn’t heard of any similar lawsuits between doctors and patients with any disability or of an activist group specifically lobbying for obesity to be designated a disability. But he pointed out that bringing up weight in a doctor’s office can be a difficult conversation.

“I have people who told me that they choose to go to an obese physician because they know they will never talk to them about their weight,” said Pam Davis a registered nurse in Nashville, Tenn., and a bariatric surgery patient.

Doctors Struggle to Address Weight in Office Visits

Davis, 44, said she has struggled with weight issues her entire life, even after she lost 160 pounds following bariatric surgery eight years ago. At her largest — 330 pounds — Davis said she knew she had a problem. But it was the talk at the doctor’s office when she really felt a burning stigma.

“I know the first time I left my physician’s office carrying that chart that said ‘morbidly obese’ and seeing it in black and white like that — it almost feels like it had been tattooed on my forehead, a scarlet letter,” Davis said.

“It’s definitely is difficult talking to people about obesity,” said Dr. Keith Ayoob, a nutrition and obesity specialist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. “It takes somebody with decent beside manner to approach the topic without placing blame … but it can cause immobility. It’s also a gateway condition to so many other problems.”

Davis said that for all practical purposes, her weight was disabling. She could not go up stairs easily and she couldn’t run and catch her dog in her yard. She was tired all the time and couldn’t get down on the floor to play with her young children.

“But I think that for some it would take it as a step forward in that scarlet letter, if it said, ‘Now at that weight we consider you disabled,’” she said.

As a nurse, Davis said she’s well aware that many insurance companies do not offer general obesity counseling unless there’s a co-morbid condition or a patient is approved for surgery. But she said she’d rather see that issue handled with anti-discrimination laws than under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“I think it makes more sense where we don’t discriminate against someone for their sex, for their ethnic basis, and for their size,” Davis said. “If we were to say, ‘Well, if somebody’s of a certain size then we are considering that as part of the disability act,’ you set up a resentful atmosphere.”

Yet while doctors and obese patients are concerned about the label “disabled,” lawyers who specialize in obesity suits said many people are missing the point.

The Term ‘Disabled’ Used Broadly Under the Law

“There isn’t one paramount definition of disability from a legal standpoint,” said Walter Lindstrom of the Obesity Law and Advocacy Center — a private firm in the San Diego area that specializes in “fighting for the rights of people of size to receive equal access to health care and be free of discrimination in life.”

Lindstrom explained that a disability label from a social security benefits point of view would require different criteria than a disability label from an insurance point of view, or disability as classified under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Each “disability” label also wins a person different rights. According to Lindstrom, the Americans With Disabilities Act covers civil rights protections such as employer discrimination more than compensation benefits.

“You’re talking about disability with a small ‘d’ and disability with a capital ‘D,’” Lindstrom said.

“The problem that the AMA resolution has in all honesty is that they fundamentally don’t understand disability law: Very few medical conditions are a disability by definition,” he said.

Getting a disabled label under the Americans With Disabilities Act requires a person to prove their condition has a physical impairment that also puts substantial limitations on major life activities, Lindstrom said.

However Lindstrom said no two obese people are alike: One obese person might have health issues serious enough to be labeled disabled, while another obese person might not qualify.

“You could have that same scenario with people who suffer from certain joint conditions, brain conditions or diabetes,” Lindstrom explained. “It’s not like there’s a laundry list of diseases to fill in the disability boxes — the AMA knows that and in my mind this is a little bit of grandstanding.”

Lindstrom also thought the move might be “self-protective.”

But the Obesity Action Coalition had a less intense reaction.

“As a coalition of those affected, the OAC encourages discussion around this topic of obesity and disability, as it is not clearly defined and is not simple. The determination of obesity should be based on scientific and medical factual data and not fear of litigation,” OAC executive director Joseph Nadglowski wrote in statement responding to the AMA vote.

“Every individual who is affected by obesity is not disabled, but this does not mean that obesity does not and cannot contribute to disability,” the statement said.

With the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee having set July 13th as the date for the start of confirmation hearings, ADA Watch’s president and founder, Jim Ward has indicated that Judge Sotomayor will receive the full support of ADA Watch, National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR) and many of their coalition partners. For nearly a decade, the ADA Watch coalition of national, state and local disability, mental health, education, civil rights and social justice organizations has educated the disability community and the general public regarding the impact of the judicial nominations process on the civil rights of people with physical, mental, developmental, sensory and cognitive disabilities.

Ward was among a handful of disability community leaders that recently met with the White House Counsel’s Office to outline the priorities of the disability community regarding judicial nominations. 

Ward stated, ” In picking Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has upheld his commitment to choosing a nominee with a firm grasp on the law and the role of the judiciary and has responded to the hopes of those in the disability rights movement for Supreme Court Justices that understand disability rights and the intent of Congress in passing vital civil rights protections for people with disabilities. Legal research and analysis of Judge Sotomayor’s opinions reveal a comprehensive understanding of the language and purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Rehabilitation Act, Social Security and more.”

“Furthermore,” Ward continued, “in interviews and opinions, Judge Sotomayor reveals an understanding of disability discrimination forged by the personal experience of being diagnosed with diabetes at a young age.”

In nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, President Obama said “It’s my understanding that Judge Sotomayor’s interest in the law was sparked as a young girl by reading the Nancy Drew series. And that when she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 8, she was informed that people with diabetes can’t grow up to be police officers or private investigators like Nancy Drew. In essence she was told she’d have to scale back her dreams.” Instead, Obama said, her perseverance shows that “no dream is beyond reach in the United States of America.” 

Sotomayor, of course, went on to graduate from Yale Law School and was Assistant District Attorney in New York City. She was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush in 1991 and confirmed in 1992. In 1997, Sotomayor was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was confirmed in 1998.If she is confirmed, Judge Sotomayor would fill the seat being vacated by Justice David H. Souter, who has had a mixed record on disability rights.  

For more information regarding Judge Sotomayor’s legal opinions, see Bazelon’s review and analysis of Judge Sotomayor’s opinions in disability cases (PDF)

A national nonpartisan coalition of disability, civil rights and social justice organizations today announced their opposition to the confirmation of Judge Andre Davis, President Obama’s pick for a lifetime seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  

[Legal research and analysis follows this news release]

ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR) are opposing Davis because his record as a district court judge in Maryland reveals a bias against workers with disabilities. The group stated that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is critical to the efforts of people with disabilities to obtain and maintain employment and to become fully participating members of their communities.

The organization’s president, Jim Ward joined other leaders at the White House last week and informed the Administration of their opposition. Ward stated today, “The current leadership in Congress and the White House have promised to select judicial nominees who understand the challenges facing working Americans and who are committed to core value of equal justice. We believe that in the area of disability rights this nominee’s record does not meet these baseline criteria and, therefore, we are opposed to Judge Davis’s elevation to the Fourth Circuit and will mobilize our membership in this regard.”

·   Judge Davis has repeatedly imposed inappropriately stringent standards that have prevented individuals with disabilities from enforcing rights under federal antidiscrimination laws, particularly in the area of employment.

·   He has made it exceedingly difficult for people to show that they are individuals with disabilities entitled to the protections that Congress provided in the ADA.

·   He has incorrectly imposed procedural hurdles on ADA plaintiffs that are contrary to the ADA’s requirements.

·   He has applied cramped interpretations of law to reject the discrimination claims of workers with disabilities.  

ADA Watch is a national, cross-disability coalition of hundreds of disability, civil rights and social justice organizations united to defend and advance the civil rights of people with disabilities. The National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR) is the national association of state disability coalitions. For nearly a decade, ADA Watch/NCDR’s Campaign for Fair Judges has informed the disability community and the general public regarding judicial nominees that pose a threat, based on their public records, to civil rights protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other disability rights laws. While not all of our national and state coalition partners take positions on judicial nominees or share this position, a majority of our Board of Directors has voted to formally oppose the confirmation of Judge Davis.

Excerpts from letter to White House with legal research and analysis by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law:

The White House has asserted that Judge Davis has a very balanced track record in disability cases.  We appreciate that Judge Davis has reached decisions favorable to the plaintiffs in cases involving issues such as physical access to courthouses and housing developments, and effective communications with medical providers. These cases do not, however, assuage our concerns about Judge Davis’s record in the area of employment discrimination, in which people with disabilities fare particularly poorly.[1]  It is in that context that the vast majority of disability discrimination cases are brought.  As such, it is in that context that we are particularly concerned with ensuring that our judges respect the civil rights of individuals with disabilities.

            We could find only one published decision, in nearly 14 years on the bench, in which Judge Davis ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the substance of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) employment discrimination claim.[2]  A number of the decisions in which he ruled for the employer are deeply troubling in ways that relate to core disability community concerns:

• In Rose v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 186 F. Supp.2d 595 (D. Md. 2002), Judge Davis set out extraordinary hurdles for a person to demonstrate that he had a disability.  The judge refused to recognize Gary Rose’s disability because he “did not follow the proper protocol in determining whether he had vasomotor rhinitis” and “did not receive a proper treatment plan for his impairment.”  Nothing in the ADA requires a person to have a proper diagnosis or a treatment plan in place for his disability in order to receive protection from discrimination.  Judge Davis, however, found that Rose should have followed up with a different doctor, undergone a CT scan to rule out the possibility of a different diagnosis, and “consistently followed a treatment regime” in order to establish his disability. This type of analysis is particularly problematic for individuals with disabilities that are challenging to diagnose accurately and treat effectively, including many individuals with psychiatric disabilities.  The notion that individuals should be denied protection under the ADA until they have spent months or years trying to obtain effective treatment to control the effects of their disabilities is a perversion of the ADA, and is certainly not suggested by the decisions of either the Supreme Court or the Fourth Circuit.[3]

• In Fitch v. Solipsys Corp., 94 F. Supp.2d 670 (D. Md. 2000), Judge Davis held that the ADA’s “regarded as” prong did not protect someone who is repeatedly referred to as a “cripple” by his employer.  Keith Fitch presented evidence that he was referred to by his employer as a “cripple” on multiple occasions due to a heart condition that limited him from lifting more than forty pounds.  Judge Davis concluded that this was not sufficient to show that he was regarded as disabled in the context of a work environment where “employees regularly used derogatory nicknames for each other.”

·         In Martell v. Sparrow’s Point Scrap Processing, LLC, 214 F. Supp.2d 527 (D. Md. 2002), Judge Davis held that the “regarded as” prong did not protect someone who is denied a job, even though the employer did not hire the applicant precisely because of his “abnormal hearing.”  Robert Martell presented evidence that he was regarded as substantially limited in hearing and working when an employer withdrew a job offer after learning that he had a hearing impairment, even though his hearing aids allowed him to recover “virtually all of his auditory capacity.”  In a holding not required by Fourth Circuit authority, Judge Davis found that Martell was not regarded as substantially limited in either hearing or working, even though the employer explicitly admitted that it refused to hire Martell because it believed that his “abnormal hearing” would create a danger in a noisy industrial setting. 

·         In Campbell v. Federal Express Corp., 918 F. Supp. 912 (D. Md. 1996), the plaintiff, an applicant for a courier position whose left hand had been injured and lacked flexion, did not challenge Federal Express’s refusal to hire him with the federal Department of Transportation.  Judge Davis held that the ADA requires a person bringing an employment claim under the ADA to exhaust an administrative review process with another agency, in this case the DOT, in addition to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) where an employer relies on that agency’s regulations to support its defense.  There is no requirement in the ADA or its regulations that plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases do so, only that they first seek relief from the EEOC before filing in federal court.

·         Finally, Judge Davis requires even pro se ADA litigants to overcome significant hurdles in exhausting their claims before filing. In Walton v. Guidant Sales Corp., 417 F. Supp.2d 719 (D. Md. 2006), Judge Davis dismissed the disability employment discrimination claim of a pro se plaintiff for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  Judge Davis ruled that, even though the EEOC itself considered the plaintiff to have filed a sufficient administrative charge within the statute of limitations, he had not.  Judge Davis also ruled that equitable tolling should not apply.  Equitable tolling applies when a pro se plaintiff misses a charge filing deadline due to reliance on misleading or incorrect information from the EEOC.  Judge Davis held that the plaintiff here had not met this standard even though the plaintiff had contacted the EEOC on numerous occasions to inquire about the status of his administrative charge, was initially sent the wrong form by the EEOC, alleged that he timely filed the corrected form that he was sent after informing the EEOC of their mistake, and was helped by the EEOC to complete another charge after the deadline because they could not find his earlier form and had experienced problems with their data management system during the relevant time period.

These holdings demonstrate a troubling misunderstanding of Congress’s intent that the ADA offer significant protections from discrimination to millions of workers with disabilities.  Our concern is not diminished by the enactment last year of the ADAAA, which restored the ADA’s definition of disability to the broad scope intended by Congress and wrongfully restricted by decisions such as Judge Davis’s.   These decisions, erroneously decided as they are, leave us fearful that Judge Davis may similarly misinterpret last year’s amendments.

The selection of judicial nominees is extraordinarily important to our community given the serious obstacles that individuals with disabilities have faced in trying to enforce their rights in the courts, particularly in the context of workplace discrimination.  The Fourth Circuit is of foremost concern to us, since that court is now closely split and in recent years has decided many significant disability rights decisions by divided panels.  More than any other circuit, the Fourth Circuit has the potential to undergo significant balance-shifting when its vacant seats are filled. 

The ADA’s protections are critical to the efforts of people with disabilities to obtain and maintain employment and to become independent and fully participating members of their communities.  We are very concerned that Judge Davis’s elevation to the Fourth Circuit will do little to ensure that their rights are protected.  We hope that you will recognize that and will take seriously the concerns of people with disabilities in the Judiciary Committee’s consideration of Judge Davis’s nomination.

“Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was,” Reid said, referring to Samuel Alito, the second Supreme Court justice nominated by President George W. Bush. “But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen.” 

Reid’s comments, which came during a wide-ranging discussion hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, reflect Democratic concerns that Roberts presented himself as a neutral arbiter of the law but has wielded a relentlessly conservative agenda. Republicans reject the attacks, saying Roberts has been a fair judge and has been consistent in his opinions. 

Although Reid said that Democrats will try to put moderates on the bench, he said he will not try to deny Republicans the right to filibuster nominees. In 2005, then-Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to eliminate the filibuster, sparking a furious reaction by Reid and other Democrats who said the so-called nuclear option would quash the rights of the minority. 

“As I said at the time, the nuclear option was the most important issue I’ve ever worked on in my entire career, because if that had gone forward it would have destroyed the Senate as we know it,” Reid said. 

“If the Republicans want to filibuster a judge, that is directly contrary to what their political philosophy was, but I guess it’s all subject to change,” he added. 

Reid called GOP efforts to block President Bill Clinton’s judges “a dark point in the history of our country. I would hope we don’t have to go through that again.”

See origional story at Politico.com

With thousands of advocates in DC and at more than 120 conference call-in sites across the country, Community Choice Act (CCA) cosponsors Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Arlen Specter and Congressman Danny Davis made crystal clear their commitment to passing the Community Choice Act in the 111^th Congress. The event was an upbeat event at times filled with thunderous applause and the chanting of “Pass CCA Now!”

Sen. Tom Harkin led off this important event on Capitol Hill and declared that CCA will pass in this Congress and be on the President’s desk either as a part of the healthcare reform bill or on its own. He noted that it has been 10 years since the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision which affirmed the Constitutional rights of people with disabilities to live in the least restrictive environment and he told the critics who say CCA will cost too much that by allowing individuals with disabilities to live and work in their own homes and communities rather than institutions, the costs will be offset by new taxpayers. Harkin declared: “We can’t afford not to do this!”

ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR) are longtime supporters of CCA, formally known as MiCASSA, the legislation that gives people real choice in long term care options. This legislation ends the institutional bias in the Medicaid program by giving individuals who are eligible for nursing facility services or other institutional “care” equal access to community-based services and supports, like attendant services.

The event was moderated by Kansas ADAPT member, Mike Oxford and the other speakers included  Dawn Russell, ADAPT, Andy Imparato, American Association of Persons with Disabilities (AAPD), Marty Ford, Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), John Lancaster, National Council on Independent Living (NCIL), Victor Robinson, Self Advocates Becoming Empowered (SABE), and Mitch LaPlante, University of California, San Francisco.

Congressman Danny Davis received huge applause when, after promising to do everything in his power in the House this session, he quoted the lyrics to a Sam Cooke song:

I was born by the river in a little tent
And just like that river I’ve been running ever since
It’s been a long time coming
But I know a change is gonna come, oh yes it will

With a progressive president in the White House, powerful co-sponsors in a more receptive Congress and more than 700 disability organizations signed-on in support of the Community Choice Act, the chant of “Pass CCA Now!” at the conclusion of this rally had an empowered and celebratory tone rather than a pleading one. All of the speakers, however, acknowledged that there is hard work ahead for all as the community works to attract Congressional sponsors to the bill, educate the media and mobilize public support for CCA.

Today, everybody seemed ready to take on that hard work.  

For more information about the Community Choice Act, go to www.adapt.org

In this post we have compiled a number of articles and commentary on this very loaded issue and we hope they provide a diverse and provocative snapshot of the reaction to the President’s words. There is a full range of responses with no shortage of emotion on either side.

What is your opinion? At the bottom of this post, as well as at the bottom of any of the featured articles throughout ADA Watch, is a comment form. Take a moment to add to the national dialogue about the President’s words. Or respond to another posted comment that pushes your buttons one way or the other. 

In a public statement, Special Olympics Chairman Timothy Shriver explained that President Obama “called and expressed his regret and he apologized. He said that he did not intend to humiliate Special Olympics athletes or people with intellectual disabilities. ”

Shriver said, “Words hurt and words matter. Words can cause pain and result in stereotypes that are unfair and damaging to people with intellectual disabilities. And using “Special Olympics” in a negative or derogatory context can be a humiliating put-down to people with special needs.”

Shriver continued, “This is a teachable moment for our country. We are asking young people, parents and leaders from all walks of life to engage in conversation and help dispel negative caricatures about people with intellectual disabilities. We believe that it’s only through open conversation and dialogue about how stereotypes can cause pain that we can begin to work together to create communities of acceptance and inclusion for all. ”

San Francisco-based disability rights advocate, Gary Karp, points to the irony in the fact that the President, just prior to the Tonight Show taping, was at a town hall event in LA where he thoughtfully expressed support for disability rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In a lengthy response to Karp’s questioning, Obama highlighted the need for “enforcing the ADA and fighting back on some court opinions that have tried to narrow in ways that I think are inappropriate the original intent of that legislation.” The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Karp explaining, “The fact is, President Obama gets disability issues pretty well. He devoted more energy to it than any candidate on either side,” in the last election.

Kareem Dale, Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy, in addition to apologizing for the “insult,” also points to the Obama record:

“President Obama’s first two months have been filled with positivity for the disability community from the signing of SCHIP, to appointing 3 persons at the White House to handle disability issues, to inclusion of people with disabilities at the fiscal summit, health summits (both regional and at the White House), to inclusion of people with disabilities at all public White House events, just to name a few.”

But former vice presidential candidate, Republican Governor Sarah Palin, thinks otherwise. The mother of a young son with Down syndrome, she said she was “shocked” by the “degrading remark about our world’s most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world”. She added that she hoped the president’s comment did not reflect his true feelings about the “special needs community.”

News reports indicate that Governor Palin was also busy on the Thursday this all went down. Seems that the stimulus funds she dramatically rejected that day included funds for training special education teachers and more than $165 million in overal education funds for Alaska. A similar disconnect between rhetoric and policy haunted Palin on the campaign trail last year when, despite the welcome attention to disability issues, she refused to support policy important to people with disabilities — including the Community Choice Act — and, as Think Progress and others reported, even proposed dramatic cuts to Special Olympics funding.      

[Comment on this, if you will: Does anybody get tired of hearing both sides throw around words like "vulnerable" and "precious" when they are talking about us? And, while we are at it, what about "special?"]

Speaking of the Community Choice Act, the proposed legislation to make home and community-based services and supports available and end the institutional bias in healthcare funding, ADAPT also weighed-in on the Tonight Show controversy.

“While I am convinced the President did not intentionally set out to disparage people with disabilities,” said Bob Kafka, national organizer for ADAPT, “the remark that flew out of his mouth is so indicative of the deeply held and, until now, widely tolerated stereotypes of people with disabilities. Look at all the people who laughed. These stereotypes have resulted in our exclusion from the mainstream of society and have kept us locked up and segregated in institutions and nursing homes.”

“Actions speak louder than words, so ADAPT challenges the President to make good on those welcome words by advancing and promoting a strong disability policy agenda,” added Kafka. “One that includes community-based long-term services and supports in health care reform, and assures that people with all disabilities of all ages have the opportunity to live, work, go to school, and recreate in their communities alongside their neighbors. People with disabilities have so much to contribute to the fabric of American life, but we can’t do it locked away or shunted aside in segregated environments.”

ADAPT’s comments, like those from other disability organizations, are in line the the overwhelming majority of the responses of people with disabilities and a large number of pundits and policymakers outraged by the remarks. (Although many angry blog posts and letters to the editor, with many writers even questioning why they voted for President Obama, are being written without the benefit of the doubt that Kafka offers up regarding the President’s intentions.)

That said, opinion polls and many prominent media representatives suggest many believe that we should just “lighten up.” An Entertainment Weekly poll, for example, suggests that the majority of respondents belive that the gaffe was “Humorless but harmless.” (Responding to this sentiment, one blogger asks how people might have felt if Obama said he “Threw a ball like a girl?”)

President Obama has also received support from some unikely sources…

The right wing Washington Times newspaper editorial board wrote that “the President has real problems to address beside hurt feelings” and that “the PC police need to relax and learn to take a joke.” 

Conservative commentor, Tucker Carlson, responding to questions online for the Washington Post, declared:

“But let me be one of the few to defend Obama’s Special Olympics “gaffe.” First it was sort of funny, in a self-deprecating way, and I don’t think we should ever discourage humor, even unsuccessful attempts at it. We don’t have enough as it is.”

“Second, it was true. Special Olympians generally don’t bowl as well as other people. That’s why they’re in the Special Olympics.”

“Before you hit send on that hate mail, know that I’m hardly attacking kids with special needs. I think we ought to cherish and protect them (for instance by ceasing to abort the vast majority of kids with Down Syndrome). But I also think we ought to let people make lame jokes if they want, and not jump down their throats in a frenzy of self-righteousness.”

The Orlando Sentinel’s editorial board, like many others, countered this argument. They wrote…

 ”The president also has himself to blame for leaving it to his White House press secretary to publicly explain it away. He’s offered mea culpas on his administration’s poor vetting of Tom Daschle and its failure to block A.I.G. bonuses. Why on Earth leave it to Robert Gibbs to say, “He understands that they deserve a lot better than … the thoughtless joke that he made”?”

Mr. Obama also offered an apology to the Special Olympics chairman. But 50 million disabled Americans deserve one, too. It wasn’t just “thoughtless.” It was insensitive and hurtful.”

It’s tough being president - tougher than ever in the era of the 24/7 news cycle. No president, despite his better political instincts, has managed to avoid embarrassing himself or insulting others. But when he does the latter, casually or not, he consequently can injure millions.”

“Speedily and forcefully, he then has to make things right.”

Obama & Special Olympics Headlines:

Official statement from Special Olympics Chairman Timothy Shriver
Fox News Raw Story

Obama’s comment about Special Olympics sparks debate
Sentinel & Enterprise

Not bowled over by Obama’s Special Olympics joke
Los Angeles Times

Obama’s Special Olympics comment bothersome
York Daily Record

President Obama’s ‘Special Olympics’ Joke Lands Him In Hot Water

Sarah Palin’s shock at Obama’s comment about Special Olympics
The Times

Schwarzenegger: Obama’s ‘heart’ right
The Swamp - Tribune’s Washington Bureau

Obama’s ‘Special Olympics’ gaffe: Simple blunder, or big news?
Kansas City Star

Slip of the tongue lands Obama in gutter
Globe and Mail

Mich. Special Olympian: ‘I can beat the president’
Detroit Free Press

I’ve been racking my braintrying to figure out how to explain this to you. I guess it’s about a dumbing down, a denial of respect, a denial of dignity, a loss of voice.

I have a voice. I have a well thought out opinion. I have valuable knowledge. I am capable of making sound decisions.

But some people apparently think I don’t and I’m not. Just because I use a wheelchair. There’s a stereotype, an assumption, that people who use a wheelchair, people who are blind, people who are deaf, and other people with disabilities are not very intelligent.

As a result, some service providers, family members, co-workers, and community members feel compelled to tell us what to do. They feel a need to instruct us, guide us, inform us, explain to us, decide for us, and lecture us about how we should live our lives. And then they want to speak for us.

In other words, they treat us like children who must be protected for their own good. How terribly patronizing. It curls my toes. It sets me to screaming in frustration.

I am 46 years old. I have a college degree with a 4.0 GPA. I am a successful professional. I raised two children into two awesome and successful adults. I am not a child. Despite the fact I use a wheelchair.

I don’t need you to tell me how to manage my disability, what health care to pursue, what prescription drugs I should be taking, what supplements I should be taking, what food I should be eating, what exercise I should engage in, what extracurricular activities I should be participating in, where I should be living, whether or not I should be applying for social security benefits, what I should think, what I should believe, what I should do, and how I should breathe.

I really can figure these things out for myself. I am capable of doing my own research. And I have. I am capable of seeking out and evaluating the opinions of professionals. And I have. I am capable of weighing all the evidence and deciding for myself. And I have.

Why is it some people without a disability automatically think they know better than a person with a disability about how to live with a disability? It just doesn’t make sense.

Then some people without a disability want to speak to other people without a disability about what it’s like for people with a disability. How about if people with disabilities speak about what it’s like for people with disabilities?

I have a voice.

TASH, a civil rights organization for people with disabilities (www.tash.org) shares the following verse:

“You do not know what I see, what I believe, what I dream, what I know. You do not live my life! You cannot be my voice. - From the Voice of the Highly Regarded (If I ever do want you to speak for me I’ll give you a call.)”

T-shirts with the saying are available from The Nth Degree at www.thenthdegree.com<http://www.thenthdegree.com>; .

Sometimes I might have an opinion with which you might disagree. Sometimes I might make a decision with which you might disagree. Sometimes I might take a risk and do something that’s not totally safe. And that is my right.

There is dignity in formulating my own opinions. There is dignity in making my own decisions. There is dignity in taking risks. Not to mention a life well lived.

Show me respect my granting me this dignity. 

Published: http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20090315/NEWS/903159975/1078&ParentProfile=1055&title=Disability%20101%20%20I%20Have%20a%20Voice

Now, as a disabled worker, the 29-year-old is competing with thousands of nondisabled job seekers going for jobs once allocated for the disabled population.

Welsh was laid off from his job as an executive assistant in 2006.

“I did mortgages, refinances and purchase deals. I was dismissed from that job and after that I was sent over to the Bobby Dodd Institute to do my vocational rehab counseling,” he said.

The Bobby Dodd Institute in Atlanta provides job training and rehabilitation for people with disabilities.

Meg Godfrey, an employment specialist with BDI, has been handling Welsh’s case.

“He came to us originally looking for a position in administrative clerical type work. We have lowered his goals to greeting and ticket-taking, but those are the first jobs that go in this type of economy,” she said.

As part of her job, Godfrey seeks potential employers who will allocate some of their positions for people with disabilities, but as unemployment has soared, competition has gotten fierce.

“Usually, we can get three to five jobs a month. Lately it’s been one or no jobs each month. There are some employers I have talked to about hiring our clients. It’s in a restaurant-type business and they have people coming in and putting applications that have previously worked at Morgan Stanley,” she said.

For Welsh, the competition and the wait have proven too long. He recently started a home cake-making business using cooking skills he learned from his grandmother when he was growing up in Alabama. He gets orders from local clients and delivers the cakes with the aid of public transit for the disabled. He gets about three orders a week, at an average price of $15 per cake.

Welsh said he evaluated his skills and abilities before starting his business.

“I know that I can bake cakes. I know that people like cakes; people like to eat a little something sweet, ” he said.

He added that he has not lost hope about finding a job.

Wayne McMillan, CEO of BDI, says job numbers for people with disabilities show little hope.

“It’s terrible to be without a job in this country. It’s tragic to have a disability and be without a job. We are having people come through the programs that we are not being able to place. Last year we placed 171 folks; during the month of December zero; January two. This is a real crisis for us,” McMillan said.

For the first time, the Department of Labor in February released a report tracking unemployment ratesamong disabled job seekers. The survey found a 14 percent unemployment rate among disabled workers — almost double that of the nondisabled population. And only 21 percent of the available working disabled population is employed, compared with the 65 percent of nondisabled workers.

“It is not at the top of most people’s minds,” said Megan Rutter Branch, director of communication for BDI. “They are seeing family members go off and have the dignity of work, and earn a paycheck, and the only expectation that is had of them is to sit at home, watch TV and stay out of trouble.”

She emphasized that disabled workers have one of the highest retention rates in the industry, 82 percent to 87 percent, according to BDI figures. “Our folks wouldn’t want to leave. They had to overcome all these hurdles to get a job.”

According to the U.S. Census, people with disabilities comprise the largest minority group, approximately 20 percent of the population.

Robin L. Shaffert, senior director of corporate social responsibility with the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), says it is critical for this group to be included in economic recovery plans.

“It is very important for our society that we are using all the productive force of our society. It is important that we are also looking at people with disabilities and make sure we are looking for solutions for them as well,” Shaffert said.

AAPD research shows that President Obama’s economic stimulus package has allocated funds to help people with disabilities, such as increased Medicaid help, vocational rehabilitation, help with independent living and specialized education.

Until that help comes, Welsh, who suffers from spina bifida, says he is holding onto his faith.

“You got to keep God in your heart. As long as you got him in your side everything will go smoothly,” he said.

By Mayra Cuevas Nazario
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/18/disabled.workers/