California Center for Law & The Deaf
Annual Report
2004/2005 Fiscal Year
Advocacy/Litigation Highlights
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
The mission of CalCLAD is to protect and advance the legal rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing people to enable them to live independent, productive lives, with full access to the rights, privileges, entitlements, services, educational and employment opportunities available to others.
CalCLAD conducts systemic and impact advocacy in the courts, the state Legislature, and before governmental agencies and commissions to eliminate communication barriers and discrimination in private business and government. Priority services include health care, education (including special education), law enforcement and telecommunication. Other areas include employment, insurance, transportation and media.
The Center undertakes both community and professional education. Community education is directed primarily toward the deaf and hard-of-hearing population. Workshops are given and written materials distributed on such topics as discrimination and access rights and how to use our legal system. Professional education, presented through workshops and written materials, is directed primarily toward the legal, health care and social service professions.
Legal advice, consultation, and information are provided to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in issues involving deafness discrimination as well as other issues that are not deafness related, such as consumer or landlord-tenant disputes. When more extensive assistance or representation is needed, CalCLAD will refer individuals to other legal aid organizations, lawyer referral services or private lawyers. CalCLAD also provides information, consultation and technical assistance to private businesses and government agencies to assist them in meeting their access and nondiscrimination obligations and to public and private attorneys representing deaf or hard-of-hearing people.
Ken Kresse, Esq.
Executive Director
Jennifer Pesek, Esq.
Staff Attorney
Tony Papalia
Paralegal/Advocate
Barbara Raymond
Legal Assistant
Pam Snedigar
Chair
Ben Griebe, Esq.
Secretary/Treasurer
Lisa Rogers, Esq.
Joseph Faria, Esq.
Drago Renteria
Todd Higgins
During the 2004/2005 Fiscal Year the Law Center provided 504 advocacy and other legal services and 622 information and referral services (including distribution of brochures); opened 249 and closed 233 cases and matters, primarily related to disability rights but also various civil legal problem areas; and provided community legal education via three articles in newsletters and 11 community workshop presentations to 284 attendees and maintained a Website with 33,150 visits.
Advocacy/Litigation Highlights
Telecommunications
CalCLAD is awaiting a decision from the FCC on our petition, filed last year on behalf of the California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, to require that Video Relay Services (VRS) be made available nationwide. The FCC responded to our petition by opening a formal proceeding and seeking comments from all interested parties. Hundreds of deaf and hard of hearing consumers and many organizations filed comments in support of the petition. Currently, although the costs of providing VRS are reimbursed from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Fund, such services are not mandated as part of the ADA. As a result, VRS providers do not have to meet various service standards that would be imposed if the services were a mandatory component of relay services offered in the U.S. Spurred by the support shown our petition, in another positive development, the FCC recently proposed setting a minimum “speed of answer” requirement for VRS.
CalCLAD also awaiting a decision from the FCC on another petition filed this year, also on behalf of the Coalition, to require interoperability of VRS and related video equipment distributed by VRS providers who are reimbursed by the federal relay fund. One of the providers in particular has been distributing free video devices that will only work with its own relay service, enabling it to capture 70 percent of the VRS business. The FCC responded quickly to the petition by opening a formal proceeding and requesting comments from all those interested. Again, an overwhelming majority of consumers and others supported our petition.
CalCLAD advocated before the California Public Utilities Commission in its formal investigation into fostering broadband access in California. There exists a significant digital divide between non-disabled and deaf and disabled Californians, with the former having much greater access to the Internet. Among other points, we urged the Commission to expand its Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program to provide customer premises equipment (CPE) and subsidized broadband access to allow, for example, deaf consumers to afford high speed access needed to use sign language via video conferencing to communicate instead of typing text via TTYs. By the end of the year, the Commission issued a report recommending that the DDTP provide CPE for broadband access to those deaf and disabled consumers who need it.
Transportation
CalCLAD currently serves as co-counsel in a federal court case against San Francisco International Airport (SFO), the major airport in the San Francisco Bay Area. The case was filed in 2002 and negotiations have been ongoing since that time. The case was filed on behalf of an individual deaf traveler and the Deaf, Counseling, Advocacy and Referral Agency (DCARA) and the California Association of the Deaf (CAD) was subsequently joined. Deaf travelers using SFO have faced several barriers to travel, including an unusable pager system (those “white courtesy telephones”), the lack of visual displays for announcements made over the PA system, and similar problems at airline gates. Plaintiffs also alleged that more TTYs were needed at SFO, including the hotel reservation kiosks. Additionally, improved access to sign language interpreters and relief areas for signal and other assistance dogs are needed.
Meanwhile, CalCLAD is informally advocating for similar improvements at Oakland International Airport and the Mineta San Jose International Airport, both of which will see significant expansion and modernization efforts over the next decade.
Along with two other law firms, we filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of the CAD and four deaf motorists against nine local agencies, called Service Authorities for Freeway Emergencies (SAFEs), along with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol. SAFEs install and maintain call boxes along California’s highways. The goal is to force the SAFEs to equip their call boxes with TTYs. Currently, on three of California’s 21 SAFEs have TTY-equipped call box systems. Previous to filing the lawsuit, seven SAFEs agreed to install TTYs over the next two years. By the end of June, four of the SAFEs named in the complaint had made the same commitment. This advocacy effort has been very successful so far!
CalCLAD submitted comments in response to proposed Air Carrier Access regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation. We argued that stronger requirements need to be adopted for airlines to provide the same information in a visual format that is provided orally at departure gates. Other issues involve service animals (signal dogs) and airline Websites and notices of ACAA compliance for airline routes to and from other countries.
Other Government Services
This year CalCLAD completed its efforts with the City and County of San Francisco to develop various policies and procedures to make its services and facilities more accessible to deaf people, including law enforcement, social and health services, City Hall, and public events. We previously worked with the San Francisco Port Authority regarding its services and facilities. As a result, new and improved policies and procedures are now in place or being adopted that will make San Francisco a model local government for deaf access.
Our advocacy for improved court procedures has borne fruit. Last year, we filed comments with the California Judicial Council urging that notices of accommodation be added to court forms either required or approved by the Council. By the end of the year, the Council responded by circulating forms with such notices. The forms included those used in workplace violence prevention, elder abuse and civil harassment. We were informed that the Council will include similar notices in future forms, such as those compelling a court appearance, in civil and small claims case including family, juvenile and mental health proceedings.
Discrimination and Access Standards and Enforcement
CalCLAD submitted comments with the U.S. Department of Justice in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking which would adopt as part of enforcement requirements, new ADA Access Guidelines adopted earlier by the U.S. Access Board. While the Guidelines would improve access for deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans, the Department is considering creating new exemptions for businesses that would not be beneficial for our constituents. Our comments particularly urged the Department not to adopt proposed exemptions involving assistance listening systems and visual alarms.
We successfully lobbied on behalf of the Coalition to amend an existing bill,AB 1707, to raise the minimum statutory damages awarded for violations of California’s access laws (Civil Code §§ 54 & 54.1) from $1,000 to $4,000. The bill passed the Legislature but unfortunately was vetoed by the Governor due to opposition from within his own party. Fortunately, minimum statutory damages awarded for violating similar disability access provisions of California’s Unruh Act (Civil Code § 51 and following) are already set at $4,000.
Other Legislation
CalCLAD actively lobbied the State Legislature on a number of other bills this year, including one that would have required sign language interpreters to be certified (opposed and the bill died) (AB 2912), a bill that would have broadened an ASL competency requirement for teachers of the deaf and raised salaries at CSD (died) (AB 2394), a bill that would have required the CPUC to distribute accessible mobile devices as part of the DDTP (died) (AB 1981), a bill that would require health plans to cover $1,000 for children’s hearing aids (vetoed) (SB 1158), a bill that would impose criminal penalties for interference or causing harm to signal dogs (signed into law) (AB 1801), a bill that would waive credential testing requirements for prelingually-deaf social workers providing services to deaf students (signed into law) (AB 2171), and a bill that would have required credentialed teachers of the deaf to provide services to deaf infants and toddlers who need educational services, but was amended to only require a study and report to the Legislature (signed into law)(AB 2909).
CalCLAD Funding Sources
Total Funding: $539,017
CalCLAD Expenditures
Total Expenses: $510,190