Enforcing the ADA A Status Report from the Department of Justice (April-September 1995) This Status Report covers the ADA activities of the Department of Justice during the second and third quarters (April-September) of 1995. Copies of this report and earlier reports, including the July 26, 1995, Special Fifth Anniversary Status Report, are available through our ADA Telephone Information Line (see page 23). 1995, Issue 3 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a comprehensive civil rights law for people with disabilities. The Department of Justice enforces the ADA's requirements in three areas - Title I: Employment practices by units of State and local government Title II: Programs, services, and activities of State and local government Title III: Public accommodations and commercial facilities I. Enforcement Through lawsuits and both formal and informal settlement agreements, the Department has achieved greater access for individuals with disabilities in over 400 cases. Under general rules governing lawsuits brought by the Federal Government, the Department of Justice may not file a lawsuit unless it has first unsuccessfully attempted to settle the dispute through negotiations. A. Litigation The Department may file lawsuits in Federal court to enforce the ADA and may obtain court orders including compensatory damages and back pay to remedy discrimination. Under title III the Department may also obtain civil penalties of up to $50,000 for the first violation and $100,000 for any subsequent violation. 1. Decisions Supreme Court Lets Stand Helen L. Decision -- The Supreme Court has decided not to review _Helen L._ v. _Didario_, a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the failure to provide home care services can in some cases violate title II. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) had refused to provide home attendant care services, under an existing program, to an individual with a mobility impairment who needs such services in order to live at home with her two children. In order to obtain the assistance that she needs, she was forced to enter a DPW-maintained nursing home even though she does not need nursing care. The State asserted that the attendant care program is underfunded and that the plaintiff must continue on the waiting list. Pennsylvania agreed, however, that the most appropriate setting for the plaintiff is in the attendant care program. The State also agreed that attendant care for the plaintiff in her home would cost Pennsylvania $9,300 less per year than nursing home care. The Department argued in an amicus brief in the Third Circuit that the title II regulation, which requires public entities to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual with a disability, mandates, in this particular situation, that the plaintiff be permitted to enter the existing attendant care program. The Third Circuit agreed that Pennsylvania had violated title II and ordered the State to admit the plaintiff to the home care program. Appeals Court Rules on Franchisor Coverage -- In _Neff_ v. _American Dairy Queen_, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that American Dairy Queen, the national franchisor of Dairy Queen stores, does not "operate" two franchisee-owned stores in San Antonio, Texas, within the meaning of title III of the ADA, and therefore is not subject to the ADAþs barrier removal requirements. This case was brought by Margo Neff, a person with a mobility impairment, who alleged that American Dairy Queen failed to remove barriers to access in the two stores in San Antonio. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas had granted summary judgment for American Dairy Queen on the ground that, as franchisor, American Dairy Queen does not own, operate or lease the two stores and therefore could not be held liable as a public accommodation under the ADA. On appeal the Department filed an amicus brief arguing that American Dairy Queen retained enough control in its franchise agreement over the design, maintenance, and operation of the two stores to "operate" the stores within the meaning of title III. The Fifth Circuit stated, however, that in determining whether a franchisor "operates" a store for purposes of title III, the relevant inquiry is whether under the agreement it specifically operates the store with respect to the "removal of architectural barriers to the disabled." The court held that a provision giving American Dairy Queen the right to disapprove any proposed modifications to building or equipment was inadequate to meet this standard. 2. New lawsuits The Department initiated or intervened in the following lawsuits. Title II _Gorman_ v. _Bishop_ -- The Department has moved to intervene to defend the constitutionality of title II in a lawsuit brought against the Kansas City Police Department for alleged title II violations committed during the plaintiffþs arrest. Mr. Gorman, an individual with a disability who uses a wheelchair, alleges that the police department violated title II by failing to make the reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, and procedures necessary to ensure safety during arrest and transportation to the police station. This failure resulted in personal injuries and damage to the plaintiffþs wheelchair while he was in custody. An earlier lawsuit, _Gorman_ v. _Guitars & Cadillacs_, which raised the same claims under title II and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, was voluntarily dismissed, but the parties agreed that the plaintiff could refile his complaint within one year of the dismissal. The Department also participated as intervenor and amicus in this earlier suit. Title III _Abbott_ v. _Bragdon_ -- The Department has intervened to defend the constitutionality of title III in this suit alleging discrimination on the basis of HIV/AIDS by a dentist. We are also participating in an amicus role to argue that the refusal to provide routine dental care to a patient because the patient has HIV or AIDS violates the ADA. In its motion for summary judgment the Department argued that the ADA is a constitutional exercise of Congressþ commerce clause authority as applied to defendantþs dental practice, that the ADA does not infringe on defendantþs due process liberty interest in personal safety because that interest is adequately protected by the statutory "direct threat" defense, and that ADA does not infringe on defendantþs constitutional right to contract. On the merits of the case, the Department urged the court to find that defendantþs policy of refusing to treat persons with HIV/AIDS, solely on that basis, violates the ADA as a matter of law, that asymptomatic HIV is a disability within the meaning of the ADA, and that the dental treatment of persons with HIV/AIDS does not constitute a direct threat to health or safety. The case is scheduled to go to trial on December 4, 1995. 3. Consent decrees Some litigation is resolved at the time the suit is filed or afterwards by means of a negotiated consent decree. Consent decrees are monitored and enforced by the Federal court in which they are entered. Title I _United States_ v. _State of Illinois, City of Aurora and Board of Trustees of the City of Aurora Police Pension Fund_ -- After eighteen months of litigation initiated by the Department, Illinois repealed discriminatory provisions in its police and fire pension code. This repeal enabled the parties to enter into a consent agreement successfully ending the Departmentþs first title I suit. The Department had sued the State, the Board of Trustees of the Aurora Police Pension Fund, and the City of Aurora for excluding police officers and firefighters from pension funds on the basis of disability. Under the challenged system, police officers and firefighters were required to undergo separate physical examinations after they were hired to determine eligibility for retirement and disability benefits. Even though they were performing successfully on the job, police officers and firefighters could be denied disability and retirement benefits. Under the consent decree, the State is providing extensive notice to affected individuals of their rights. All formerly excluded police officers and firefighters have the right to enter the pension funds and, upon payment of premiums, gain creditable pension rights retroactive to the date they started work. Title III _United States_ v. _Pleasant Travel Service, Inc. and Hawaiian Hotels and Resorts, Inc._ -- The Department sued Pleasant Travel Service, Inc., and its subsidiary, Hawaiian Hotels & Resorts, Inc., who own and operate several resort hotels in Hawaii and California. The Department alleged that the hotels failed to remove barriers to access and renovated the hotels in ways that did not comply with the ADAþs standards. Under a consent decree, the Royal Lahaina Resort, the Royal Kona Resort, and the Kauai Coconut Beach Resort will provide accessible parking; modify restrooms to make them accessible; provide access to restaurants, swimming pools, and the luau areas; and offer between 12 and 14 accessible guest rooms (including 4-5 with roll-in showers) at each hotel. These rooms will also contain accessibility features for deaf or hard of hearing individuals, including visual alarms and notification devices. Each hotel will also provide from 8 to 11 additional rooms that are accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing and from 8 to 11 TDDþs for use by hotel guests. The hotels agreed to provide tactile signs for all guest units and restrooms, modify the hall call buttons and elevator control panels, and provide audible signals both inside and outside elevator cabs. The defendants also agreed to pay a total of $25,000 in compensatory damages to two individuals who use wheelchairs and $25,000 in civil penalties. _United States_ v. _Morvant_ -- Under a consent order a New Orleans dentist, Dr. Drew B. Morvant, agreed to pay $60,000 in damages to the family of one deceased patient, Ismael Pena, $60,000 to another patient, and to stop discriminating against persons with HIV or AIDS. A Federal court had earlier ruled that Morvant violated the law by referring persons with HIV or AIDS to another dentist solely on the basis of the patientþs HIV-positive status. Under the consent order, Morvant may refer such patients to another dentist only when the dental treatment being sought or provided is outside his area of expertise. The order also requires Morvant and his staff to undergo training on the treatment of persons with HIV or AIDS, infection control in the dental workplace, and the ethical duty to treat persons with HIV or AIDS. 4. Amicus Briefs The Department files briefs in selected ADA cases in which it is not a party in order to guide courts in interpreting the ADA. Title II _Tyler_ v. _City of Manhattan, Kansas_ -- The Department filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit arguing that title II authorizes awards of compensatory damages regardless of whether the discrimination is intentional. The brief also argues that the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial when seeking such damages. The district court had found that Manhattan violated title II of the ADA by holding town meetings and baseball games, which the plaintiff was interested in attending, in inaccessible areas, and by failing to create an adequate self-evaluation plan. However, the district court decided that damages were not available under title II in the absence of intentional discrimination, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial under title II. _Szarlan_ v. _Connecticut Bar Examining Committee_ -- In a private action in which the Department joined in an amicus role, an individual seeking licensing as an attorney charged that the Connecticut Bar Examining Committee had violated the ADA by requiring applicants to the bar to state whether they had ever sought treatment for or been diagnosed as having a nervous, mental, or emotional condition. Applicants who answered in the affirmative were required to sign a consent form authorizing the release of any and all mental health records, and otherwise undergo investigatory procedures not uniformly required of all applicants. The bar committee held public hearings on the issue, obtained technical assistance from the Department, withdrew the challenged inquiry, and substituted a revised inquiry focusing more narrowly on impairment of the ability to practice law. Title III _Orr_ v. _KinderCare_ -- The Department participated as amicus curiae in this suit against a major daycare provider challenging the exclusion of a nine-year old boy because of his disabilities. KinderCare had decided to terminate Jeremy Orr, a child who has developmental disabilities, low vision, and a mild seizure disorder, from its after-school program. He needs assistance in eating, walking, diapering, and interacting with other persons. After six months of serving Jeremy in its two-year-old room, KinderCare argued that it could not meet Jeremyþs individualized needs in "a group care setting." KinderCare also refused to modify its procedures to accommodate an aide for Jeremy proposed by his parents. This aide would be provided by a third party with full State support. The Department argued that Jeremyþs presence had not fundamentally altered KinderCareþs program and that accommodating an aide for Jeremy in the future also would not fundamentally alter KinderCareþs program. The court entered a preliminary injunction that ordered KinderCare to retain Jeremy pending trial. Under a consent decree resolving the lawsuit, KinderCare will retain Jeremy Orr in its after-school program and allow him to be accompanied by an aide funded by the State. He will be allowed to attend the program in an age-appropriate classroom when the aide is present, and the two-year oldsþ room when the aide is not present. KinderCare agreed to mandatory staff training and periodic conferences with Jeremyþs parents regarding how best to include him in program activities. Without admitting liability, KinderCare agreed to pay damages and attorneyþs fees to the Orrs. B. Formal Settlement Agreements The Department sometimes resolves cases without filing a lawsuit by means of formal written settlement agreements. Title II Chicago, Illinois -- The Department reached a formal agreement with the City of Chicago ensuring direct access to 9-1-1 services for people who use TDDþs. The agreement resolved three complaints filed with the Justice Department alleging that in three separate incidents deaf people who use TDDþs were unable to get help by calling 9-1-1. In one case, a woman who had to wait for a cab to take her to the hospital was told by her physician that she could have died if she had arrived an hour later. In the other two cases, individuals who had been assaulted were able to reach the police only by calling intermediaries. Under the agreement, Chicago agreed to install TDDþs in its 9-1-1 emergency center, train dispatchers to handle TDD calls, and promote its new accessible 9-1-1 system. Rockland County, New York -- The Department concluded a settlement agreement with the Rockland County Board of Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling Examiners to resolve a complaint alleging that the Board violated title II by denying a plumber with dyslexia a reader or oral test as an accommodation on the written portion of the Countyþs master plumber licensing exam. The individual has been a plumber for 42 years, owned his own business until the County passed its licensing law in the late 1960þs, and received numerous recommendations from former employers attesting to his quality work performance and experience as a plumber and heating mechanic. Despite his qualifications, the Board denied his requests for the testing accommodation for the past 23 years. Under the agreement, the Board is required to provide the plumber with a reader or an oral test during the written portion of the Boardþs next licensing examination. The Board is also required to adopt a nondiscrimination policy on the basis of disability which is subject to Department of Justice approval. The settlement followed the issuance of a letter of findings holding that the Board had violated title II. Sioux Falls, South Dakota -- A complainant alleged that the programs and services of the Sioux Empire Fair operated by Minnehaha County, South Dakota, were inaccessible to individuals with mobility impairments. To resolve the complaint, the county agreed to provide accessible seating (with adjacent companion seats) and an accessible bathroom in the exposition hall, one of the largest west of the Mississippi River. The county also agreed to consider the accessibility of amusement rides as one factor when making its decision about selecting a carnival company for future fairs, and to include a clause in its contracts with fair vendors requiring them to make their goods and services accessible to patrons with mobility impairments. An earlier settlement agreement provided for increased access to parking, bathrooms, ticket counters, vending machines, and booths and for modifications in ticketing policy regarding companion seating. Title III Angelo Community Hospital, San Angelo, Texas -- A settlement agreement requires Angelo Community Hospital to revise its construction plans to conform with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and to pay $10,000 in civil penalties. This agreement resulted from a compliance review, a process by which the Department reviews selected architectural plans to determine if new construction projects will comply with the ADA Standards. Under the agreement, the hospital will make extensive design changes, including making doorways wide enough to accommodate people using wheelchairs, providing sufficient accessible parking, ensuring that bathrooms are accessible, and installing visual alarms and accessible drinking fountains. Safeway Settlement has Nationwide Impact -- The Department entered a major settlement agreement with Safeway Stores, Inc., affecting all 835 Safeway stores in the United States. The agreement requires Safeway to create at least one 32-inch opening between the security bollards or cart corrals used at the entrances to many of its stores so that customers who use wheelchairs can have greater access. Safeway will also launch a nationwide compliance plan where it will survey all of its 835 stores, determine the areas throughout the stores that do not meet ADA requirements, and take steps to ensure compliance. The agreement resolved a complaint filed with the Department regarding a Safeway store in Washington, D.C. Other parties to the agreement include two individuals with disabilities and the Disability Rights Council of Washington, D.C., which sued the chain under the ADA, as well as the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, which had received several complaints about Safewayþs California stores. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Hoffman Estates, Illinois -- A nationwide settlement agreement was reached with Sears, Roebuck and Company requiring Sears to make its "Modelþs Club Program" -- a four-session course in fashion modeling for children ages 8-17 -- more accessible to children with disabilities. The settlement resolves a complaint under the ADA against the Sears Modelþs Club Program by an 11-year-old girl with spina bifida who uses a wheelchair. According to the girlþs mother, a Sears Modelþs Club Program instructor at a Sears store in St. Petersburg, Florida, said the girl could not participate because the class used a runway that was one foot off the ground. Furthermore, the program instructor allegedly said she thought the girl would be out of place with the other children, and suggested that the mother consider a more personalized alternative that would rely upon individualized instruction and attention. The settlement agreement provides for the girl to attend a four-session course at a Sears store location of her choosing, tuition-free. Sears will also pay the girl $3500 in compensatory damages. The agreement also has provisions extending nationwide requiring Sears to provide training materials to all program instructors about ADA requirements, ensure that all ramps and runways used by the program comply with the ADA, distribute a policy statement confirming that Sears will not discriminate against children with disabilities who want to participate in the Modelþs Club Program, and ensure that all informational materials state that the program is open to all interested children ages 8 through 17, including those with disabilities. Raindancer Restaurant, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida -- Raindancer Restaurant, a steak restaurant in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida has built a ramp and made its restrooms accessible under a settlement agreement with the Department. In addition, the two complainants each received $900 worth of gift certificates for meals at the restaurant. Subway, Chandler, Arizona -- The owners of a Subway store in Chandler, Arizona, located near Phoenix, signed a settlement agreement in which they will pay $500 to a customer who was asked to leave the store because of the presence of his hearing assistance dog. The owners also agreed to develop and post a written policy of nondiscrimination against persons with disabilities, including those accompanied by service animals, and train present and future staff to ensure that persons with disabilities are treated in a nondiscriminatory manner. The complaint arose when other customers of the Subway store complained to the manager about the dogþs presence. The manager believed that, after speaking with a representative of the county health department, he was only required to admit þseeing eyeþ dogs into the restaurant. C. Other settlements The Department resolves numerous cases without litigation or a formal settlement agreement. In some instances, the public accommodation, commercial facility, or State or local government promptly agrees to take the necessary actions to achieve compliance. In others, extensive negotiations are required. Following are some examples of what has been accomplished through informal settlements. Title II Access to facilities A New Jersey fire district will now ensure that all polling places are accessible to individuals with disabilities, including those with mobility impairments. A southwest municipality agreed to remove barriers to access in its waterfront district by widening a sidewalk, removing steps at several locations, providing appropriate signage, taking steps to provide access to tourist vessels, and abandoning plans to construct an inaccessible bridge. A small Pennsylvania town agreed to install accessible parking at its municipal and sewer authority buildings. An Indiana town constructed a concrete entrance ramp to its city hall, installed a new elevator to provide access to the second floor, built an accessible restroom, installed appropriate signage, and added a cup dispenser in a location near a drinking fountain. Effective communication A Maryland municipal police department has now adopted a written policy for ensuring effective communication, including the provision of qualified interpreters when appropriate, in all of its dealings with the public. Under this policy, family members, other law enforcement personnel, or witnesses may not be called upon to act as interpreters during questioning, except in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to protect the health and safety of the individual or the public. A western State county correctional facility agreed to make TDD service available to inmates and to post the phone numbers for the State telephone relay service. Policies and procedures A west coast State board of behavioral science examiners agreed to provide a reader for an individual who is blind who wishes to take the licensing examination for marriage, family, and child counselors. A western city agreed to improve access to arena seating by reforming ticketing policies that apply to currently accessible seating and by adding ten wheelchair-seating locations with companion seating. Title III Access to facilities A Vermont pizzeria agreed to install a ramp at the restaurantþs entrance and to designate the appropriate number of accessible parking spaces. The physician-owners of a medical office building in Albany, New York, agreed to construct a ramp at one of the buildingþs entrances, designate accessible parking spaces, relocate one examining room to the lower level of the building near the accessible entrance, and help patients with disabilities onto examining tables when needed. A cinema in a Minnesota mall agreed to make appropriate alterations to provide wheelchair and companion seating and to provide a unisex restroom. A professional office in a Michigan suburb agreed to install two accessible unisex restrooms. A Pennsylvania mall restaurant provided an enlarged accessible unisex restroom. A Texas dentist created an accessible parking space and widened the doorways of his office. Two downtown Baltimore parking garages have modified their facilities to add five and 13 accessible spaces, respectively. A Brunswick, New Jersey, tavern agreed to provide an accessible entrance to the facility. Effective Communication A western Maryland motel purchased eight additional TDDþs and three additional closed captioning decoders. A Virginia financial planning association agreed to provide an interpreter for a deaf student at one of its seminars. A Maryland art school agreed to provide an interpreter for a deaf student. Policies and procedures A small-town Ohio bank will now allow individuals with developmental disabilities to open an account without a co-signor or co-owner. Nine North Carolina service stations will take steps to ensure that persons with disabilities who use service animals are allowed to use all areas of the stations open to the public while accompanied by their animals. A nationwide discount brokerage firm will now allow persons who are physically unable to sign their name to make transactions through a general power of attorney. Until now persons seeking to open brokerage accounts were required to sign the application personally. An Illinois recreation center agreed to permit a child with Downþs Syndrome to play in its hockey league. II. Certification of State and Local Building Codes The law requires that newly constructed or altered facilities comply with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The ADA authorizes the Justice Department to certify building codes that meet the ADAþs standards. In litigation, an entity that complies with a certified code can use it as rebuttable evidence of compliance with the law. Codes from seven jurisdictions codes are currently undergoing or awaiting certification review by the Department -- New Mexico, Utah, Florida, Texas, Maine, Minnesota, and the Village of Oak Park, Illinois. The Department also reviews model building standards and proposed building codes prior to their adoption by States and localities. This review allows jurisdictions to assess the equivalence of proposed or model standards and to make appropriate modifications before the standards are formally adopted. The Department provided technical assistance to the State of Maine regarding proposed amendments to the Maine Human Rights Act. The assistance included an analysis of the amendmentsþ equivalence to the ADA. The Department also completed its review of the Recommended Standards for Accessibility of Parking Facilities submitted by the National Parking Association. III. Technical Assistance The ADA requires the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance to entities and individuals with rights and responsibilities under the law. The Department encourages voluntary compliance by providing education and technical assistance to businesses, governments, and members of the general public through a variety of means. Our activities include providing direct technical assistance and guidance to the public through our ADA Information Line, developing and disseminating technical assistance materials to the public, undertaking outreach initiatives, operating an ADA technical assistance grant program, and coordinating ADA technical assistance government-wide. Fiscal Year 1995 Grants Awarded to Promote The Americans with Disabilities Act Organizations in 16 States across the country were awarded grants worth over $1.6 million to help teach local businesses and governments about how to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The grants will fund organizations to operate State outreach programs and to arrange conferences on the ADA. Organizations in Alaska, California, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Texas will conduct statewide projects to educate small businesses both about the variety of ADA resources available locally, regionally, and from the Federal government, as well as about the basic requirements of title III of the ADA, which applies to public accommodations and commercial facilities. These small business education grants were awarded to: - Access Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska; - Americaþs Womanþs Economic Development Corporation of California, Long Beach, California; - Center for Independent Living of Central Nebraska, Inc., Grand Island, Nebraska; - Cornell University, Ithaca, New York; - Governorþs Committee on the Employment of People with Disabilities, Reno, Nevada; - The Institute for Rehabilitation & Research/Independent Living Rehabilitation Utilization, Houston, Texas; - Jefferson Parish, Harahan, Louisiana; - Michigan Retailers Association, Lansing, Michigan; - Pennsylvania Small Business Development Center/University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; - South Dakota Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, Pierre, South Dakota. Six additional organizations received funding to conduct statewide ADA information-sharing conferences for local and State government officials. These conferences will educate government officials about the resources available on the ADA and about the requirements of title II of the law, which applies to activities, programs and services of State and local governments. Organizations awarded these statewide information-sharing grants were: - Arizona Office for Americans with Disabilities, Phoenix, Arizona; - Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, New Haven, Connecticut; - Granite State Independent Living Foundation, Concord, New Hampshire; - Futures Unlimited, Inc./Kansas Commission on Disability Concerns, Wellington, Kansas; - Massachusetts Office on Disability, Boston, Massachusetts; - National Association of ADA Coordinators, Long Beach, California - to hold a conference for North Carolina. ADA Information Line The Department of Justice operates a toll-free ADA Information Line to provide information and publications to the public about the requirements of the ADA. Automated service, which allows callers to listen to recorded information and to order publications, is available 24-hours a day, seven days a week. ADA specialists are available on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. and on Thursday from 1:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). Spanish language service is also available. To obtain general ADA information, get answers to technical questions, order free ADA materials, or ask about filing a complaint, call: 800-514-0301 (voice - English/Spanish) 833-610-1264 (TDD - English/Spanish) ADA Materials Available Free From The Department of Justice ADA Legal Documents Public Law 101-336, text of the Americans with Disabilities Act as enacted on July 26, 1990. Title II Regulation as printed in the Federal Register (7/26/91). Title III Regulation as printed in the Code of Federal Regulations (7/1/94). ADA Technical Assistance Publications Title II Technical Assistance Manual (1993) and 1994 Supplement. Title III Technical Assistance Manual (1993) and 1994 Supplement. Title II Highlights. An eight-page outline of the key requirements of the ADA for State and local governments. Title III Highlights. A 12-page outline of the key requirements of the ADA for businesses and private, non-profit agencies. Commonly Asked Questions About Title II of the ADA. A six-page fact sheet explaining the requirements of the ADA for State and local governments. Commonly Asked Questions Regarding Telephone Emergency Services. A three-page fact sheet explaining the requirements of the ADA for ensuring that "9-1-1" and other telephone emergency services are available to people who use TDDþs. General ADA Information ADA Questions and Answers (English and Spanish editions). A 32-page booklet giving an overview of the ADAþs requirements. Myths and Facts. A three-page fact sheet dispelling some common misconceptions about the ADAþs requirements and implementation. ADA Telephone Information Services. A two-page list with the telephone numbers of Federal agencies and other organizations that provide information and technical assistance to the public about the ADA. Title II Complaint Form. Standard form for filing a complaint under title II of the ADA or section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. How to File a Title III Complaint. This document details the procedure for filing a complaint under title III of the ADA. Publications and Documents Copies of the Departmentþs ADA regulations and publications, and information about the Departmentþs technical assistance grant program, can be obtained by calling the ADA Information Line or writing to the address listed below. All materials are available in standard print as well as large print, Braille, audiotape, or computer disk for persons with disabilities. Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P. O. Box 66738 Washington, D.C. 20035-6738 Subscriptions for the Departmentþs Technical Assistance Manuals for titles II and III and yearly updates can be obtained from the Government Printing Office. The subscription fee for the Title II Manual, which includes annual supplements through 1996, is $24. The subscription fee for the Title III Manual with supplements through 1996 is $25. Call the ADA Information Line to obtain an order form. Copies of the legal documents and settlement agreements mentioned in this publication can be obtained by writing to: Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Branch Administrative Management Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 65310 Washington, D.C. 20035-5310 Fax: 202-514-6195 ADA regulations and technical assistance materials can also be downloaded from the Departmentþs ADA Bulletin Board System (ADA-BBS) or the Internet. The ADA-BBS, which includes selected ADA documents from other agencies, can be reached by computer modem by dialing 202-514-6193 or accessed on the Internet through telnet fedworld.gov Gateway D. The Departmentþs regulations and technical assistance materials, as well as press releases on ADA cases and other issues, are available on the Internet at gopher.usdoj.gov or http://www.usdoj.gov. IV. Other Sources of ADA Information The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers technical assistance to the public concerning title I of the ADA. For ordering documents 800-669-3362 (voice) 800-800-3302 (TDD) For questions 800-669-4000 (voice) 800-669-6820 (TDD) The Federal Communications Commission offers technical assistance to the public concerning title IV of the ADA. ADA documents and general questions 202-418-0190 (voice) 202-418-2555 (TDD) ADA legal questions 202-418-2357 (voice) 202-418-0484 (TDD) The U.S. Department of Transportation offers technical assistance to the public concerning the public transportation provisions of title II and title III of the ADA. ADA documents and general questions 202-366-1656 (voice) 202-366-4567 (TDD) ADA legal questions 202-366-1936 (voice/relay) Complaints and enforcement 202-366-2285 (voice) 202-366-0153 (TDD) Project ACTION 800-659-6428 (voice/relay) 202-347-3066 (voice) 202-347-7385 (TDD) The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the U.S. Department of Education has funded centers in ten regions of the country to provide technical assistance to the public on the ADA. ADA technical assistance nationwide 800-949-4232 (voice & TDD) The U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, or Access Board, offers technical assistance to the public on the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. ADA documents and questions 800-872-2253 (voice) 800-993-2822 (TDD) 202-272-5434 (voice) 202-272-5449 (TDD) The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is a free telephone consulting service funded by the Presidentþs Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities. It provides information and advice to employers and people with disabilities on reasonable accommodation in the workplace. Information on workplace accommodation 800-526-7234 (voice & TDD) V. How to File Complaints Title I Complaints about violations of title I (employment) by units of State and local government or by private employers should be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Call 800-669-4000 (voice) or 800-669-6820 (TDD) to reach the field office in your area. Titles II and III Complaints about violations of title II by units of State and local government or violations of title III by public accommodations and commercial facilities should be filed with - Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 66738 Washington, D.C. 20035-6738