RSA-509 - Protection & Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Program Performance Report

Arizona (Arizona Center for Disability Law) - H240A130003 - FY2013

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameArizona Center for Disability Law
Address5025 E. Washington Street
Address Line 2Suite 202
CityPhoenix
StateArizona
Zip Code85034
E-mail Addresscenter@azdisabilitylaw.org
Website Addresshttp://www.azdisabilitylaw.org
Phone602-274-6287
TTY 602-274-6287
Toll-free Phone800-927-2260
Toll-free TTY800-927-2260
Fax602-274-6779
Name of P&A Executive DirectorPeri Jude Radecic
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorCathleen Dooley
Person to contact regarding reportCathleen Dooley
Contact Person phone800-922-1447
Ext.326

Part I. Non-Case Services

A. Individual Information and Referral Services (I&R)

Multiple responses are not permitted.

1. Individuals receiving I&R within PAIR priority areas40
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas333
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)373

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff34
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)1,141

1) 04-Dec-12. Presentation. “Overview of ACDL. Topics included ACDL’s services and programs. DIRECT Center for Independence, Tucson. 12 people attended. 2) 25-Jan-13. Training. “Liberating the LGBTQ Movement of Physical and Social Barriers for Persons with Disabilities.” Topics included healthcare, mental healthcare, employment, housing, reasonable accommodations, ADA, and ACDL’s services. Atlanta, GA, 17 people attended. 3) 08-Feb-13. Presentation. “Overview of the ACDL and Extern Program.” Topics included ACDL’s services and externships available. Phoenix School of Law. Five people attended. 4) 27-Feb-13. Presentation. “AHCCCS Appeals” (Continuing Education workshop). Topics included Medicaid/Medicare, healthcare, ACDL’s services. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. Five people attended. 5) 01-Mar-13. Training. “ADA and Employment.” Topics included ADA, employment, reasonable accommodations, ACDL’s services. 2nd Annual African American Conference on Disabilities, Phoenix. 26 people attended. 6) 01-Mar-13. Training. “From IDEA to ADA.” Topics included special education, IDEA, Section 504, ACDL’s programs. 2nd Annual African American Conference on Disabilities, Phoenix. 12 people attended. 7) 01-Mar-13. Training. “Legal Options to Guardianship.” Topics included guardianship, power of attorney, living wills, designated representatives for healthcare and mental healthcare. 2nd Annual African American Conference on Disabilities, Phoenix. 21 people attended. 8) 05-Mar-13. Training. “Legal Rights for People who are Deaf.” Topics included ADA, reasonable accommodations, ACDL’s services. Apache ASL Trails Apartments, Tempe. 40 people attended. 9) 08-Mar-13. Presentation. “Partners in Policymaking” State Agency Roundtable. Topics included ACDL’s programs and services. Arizona State Capitol, Phoenix. 30 people attended. 10) 02-Apr-13. Presentation. “Alternatives to Legal Options for Guardianship.” Topics included guardianship, power of attorney, living wills, designated representatives for healthcare and mental healthcare. Mountain View High School Transition Expo, Mesa. 20 people attended. 11) 09-Apr-13. Training. “The Americans with Disabilities Act Can Help You!” Topics included ADA and amendments. Eastern Arizona College, Thatcher. 13 people attended. 12) 13-Apr-13. Presentation. “Self Advocacy in Employment: Rights and Responsibilities.: Topics included employment rights under the ADA, Title I, II and III. Border Conference on Disabilities, Rio Rico. 100 people attended. 13) 19-Apr-13. Presentation. “Queering Disability or Cripping LGBTQIA.” Topics included labeling and passing, disability rights, ACDL’s programs. University of Arizona, Tucson. 60 people attended. 14) 26-Apr-13. Training. “Legal Options to Guardianship.” Topics included guardianship, power of attorney, living wills, designated representatives for healthcare and mental healthcare. Health and Wellness Fair, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. 25 people attended. 15) 27-Apr-13. Training. ACDL Services for the Deaf. Topics included ADA Title II and III. Arizona Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Offices, Phoenix. 15 people attended. 16) 04-May-13. Training. “Legal Options to Guardianship.” Topics included guardianship, power of attorney, living wills, designated representatives for healthcare and mental healthcare. Self Advocacy Conference, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. 13 people attended. 17) 04-May-13. Presentation. “Your Rights as a Vocational Rehabilitation Client.” Topics included CAP and VR services. Self Advocacy Conference, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. 20 people attended. 18) 04-May-13. “I’m Going to College, Now What are my Legal Rights?” Topics included ADA Title I. Self Advocacy Conference, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. 25 people attended. 19) 04-May-13. “Safety First: Being a Self-Advocate During Time of Emergency.” Topics included emergency management planning for self advocates. Self Advocacy Conference, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix., 10 people attended. 20) May 29, 2013. Presentation. Congressional Community Forum on Healthcare. Topics included pre-existing conditions and healthcare. El Pueblo Neighborhood Center, Tucson. 85 people attended. 21) 19-Jun-13. Presentation. “Accessibility in the 21st Century.” Topics included ADA Title I, II and III and Fair Housing Act. AZ State Bar Convention, Biltmore Hotel, Phoenix. 30 people attended. 22) 21-Jun-13. Training. “Powers of Attorney and Guardianship.” Topics included Topics included guardianship, power of attorney, living wills, designated representatives for healthcare and mental healthcare. AZ State Bar Convention, Biltmore Hotel, Phoenix. 63 people attended. 23) 16-Jul-13. Presentation. Topics included special education, IDEA, Section 504. Brain Injury Alliance of Arizona office. Phoenix. Six people attended. 24) 26-Jul-13. Presentation. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Topics included CRPD and ADA. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. 150 people attended. 25) 31-Jul-13. Presentation. “Priorities FY2014 Forum.” Topics included ACDL’s priorities and objectives for FY2014. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. 18 people attended. 26) 06-Aug-13. Presentation. “Priorities FY2014 Forum.” Topics included ACDL’s priorities and objectives for FY2014. Woods Memorial Library, Tucson. 20 people attended. 27) 11-Aug-13. Presentation. “Overview of ACDL.” Topics included ACDL’s programs. Presentation to monthly luncheon group of business women. Phoenix. 20 people attended. 28) 19-Aug-13. Presentation. “DDD Appeals.” Topics included DDD appeals and ABA therapy. Autism Society of Greater Tucson. Two people attended. 29) 22-Aug-13. Presentation. Priorities Forum FY2014. Topics included ACDL’s priorities and objectives for FY2014. Bluewater Resort and Casino, Parker. 26 people attended. 30) 22-Aug-13. Training. “Alternatives to Legal Options to Guardianship.” Topics 11-Aug-13. Presentation. “Overview of ACDL.” Topics included guardianship, power of attorney, living wills, designated representatives for healthcare and mental healthcare. Bluewater Resort and Casino, Parker. 24 people attended. 31) 16-Sep-13. Training. “ACDL and Reasonable Accommodations.” Topics included ADA and employment. La Frontera, Tucson. Eight people attended. 32) 18-Sep-13. Training. “Legal Options to Guardianship.” Topics included guardianship, power of attorney, living wills, designated representatives for healthcare and mental healthcare. Prescott Conference Center, Prescott. 10 people attended. 33) 18-Sep-13. Training. “Overview of Arizona Medicaid, Due Process Rights and AHCCCS.” Topics included AHCCCS and Medicaid. Prescott Conference Center, 10 people attended. 34) 19-Sep-13. Presentation. “Legal Options to Guardianship.” Topics included guardianship, power of attorney, living wills, designated representatives for healthcare and mental healthcare. AZ Assisted Living Federation of America Conference, Phoenix. 200 people attended.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff1
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles5
3. PSAs/videos aired0
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website135,539
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated8,867
6. Other (specify separately)22

Narrative

1) 03-Oct-12. General Outreach. AT Open House, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, 120 people attended. 2) 11-Oct-12. Booth/Table. Disability Resource Fair, Davis Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, 75 people attended. 3) 12-Oct-12. General Outreach. Luke Air Force Base Disability Awareness Seminar for Disabled Vets, Luke Air Force Base, Surprise, 10 people attended. 4) 15-Oct-12. Booth/Table. 12th Annual Transition Fair. Talking Stick Resort, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, Scottsdale, 850 people attended. 5) 07-Nov-12. Booth/Table. Pro Bono Fair. Phoenix School of Law., 75 people attended. 6) 30-Nov-12. Booth/Table. 16th Annual Vision Rehabilitation & Technology Expo, Shriner’s Auditorium, Phoenix, 200 people attended. 7) 11-Feb-13. Booth/Table. Public Interest Law Association Event, Phoenix School of Law, seven people attended. 8) 12-Feb-13. Booth/Table. Government/Public Interest Networking Fair, Arizona State University College of Law, 20 people attended. 9) 15-Feb-13. Booth/Table. 2nd Annual Exceptional Education Ping Pong Tournament, Cholla High School, Tucson, 150 people attended. 10) 01-Mar-13. Booth/Table. 2nd Annual African American Conference on Disabilities, Coast Hotel, Phoenix, 264 people attended. 11) 01-Mar-13. Booth/Table. Arizona Veterans Stand Down, Veterans Memorial Coliseum, Phoenix, 310 people attended. 12) 01-Apr-13. Booth/Table. 9th Annual American Indian Disability Summit, Embassy Suites Hotel, Phoenix, 100 people attended. 13) 20-Apr-13. Booth/Table. Connecting Tucson Resources & Transition Expo, Beacon Group, Tucson, 500 people attended. 14) 26-Apr-13. Booth/Table. Health & Wellness Fair, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 600 people attended. 15) 04-May-13. Booth/Table. Self-Advocacy Conference, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 70 people attended. 16) 15-May-13. Booth/Table. UCD Independent Living Fair, Apache Boulevard Living Center, Tempe, 80 people attended. 17) 18-May-13. Booth/Table. Arizona Autism United Spanish Conference, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 230 people attended. 18) 10-Jun-13. General Outreach. Institute for Health Development Conference, Flagstaff, 130 people attended. 19) 30-Jun-13. General Outreach. East Valley NAACP Meeting, Mesa, 21 people attended. 20) 26-Jul-13. Booth/Table. ADA Celebration. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 100 people attended. 21) 23-Aug-13. Booth/Table. Disability Conference. Talking Stick Resort, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, Scottsdale, 200 people attended. 22) 30-Sep-13. Booth/Table. 13th Annual AZ Department of Education Transition Conference, Talking Stick Resort, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, Scottsdale, 800 people attended.

Part II. Individuals Served

A. Individuals Served

Count individual once per FY. Multiple counts not permitted for lines A1 through A3.

1. Individuals still served as of October 1 (carryover from prior FY)21
2. Additional individuals served during the year494
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)515
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)24

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 16

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility15
2. Employment164
3. Program access34
4. Housing98
5. Government benefits/services9
6. Transportation17
7. Education25
8. Assistive technology4
9. Voting0
10. Health care91
11. Insurance0
12. Non-government services71
13. Privacy rights0
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse0
16. Neglect6
17. Other5

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor504
2. Other representation found2
3. Individual withdrew complaint2
4. Appeals unsuccessful3
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.1
6. PAIR withdrew from case0
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources6
8. Individual case lacks legal merit4
9. Other1

Please explain

Case was a non-priority issue for agency.

E. Intervention Strategies Used in Serving Individuals

List the highest level of intervention used by PAIR prior to closing each case file.

1. Technical assistance in self-advocacy510
2. Short-term assistance6
3. Investigation/monitoring0
4. Negotiation1
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution6
6. Administrative hearings0
7. Litigation (including class actions)0
8. Systemic/policy activities0

Part III. Statistical Information on Individuals Served

A. Age of Individuals Served as of October 1

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. 0 - 40
2. 5 - 2215
3. 23 - 59390
4. 60 - 6449
5. 65 and over61

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females297
2. Males218

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race65
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native5
3. Asian3
4. Black or African American37
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander2
6. White396
7. Two or more races7
8. Race/ethnicity unknown0

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent445
2. Parental or other family home20
3. Community residential home13
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home2
6. Public institutional living arrangement0
7. Private institutional living arrangement0
8. Jail/prison/detention center32
9. Homeless3
10. Other living arrangements0
11. Living arrangements not known0

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

Identify the individual's primary disability, namely the one directly related to the issues/complaints

1. Blind/visual impairment29
2. Deaf/hard of hearing57
3. Deaf-blind1
4. Orthopedic impairment122
5. Mental illness29
6. Substance abuse2
7. Mental retardation6
8. Learning disability39
9. Neurological impairment59
10. Respiratory impairment12
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment10
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment76
13. Speech impairment0
14. AIDS/HIV5
15. Traumatic brain injury2
16. Other disability66

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities2

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes137,752

Describe your systemic activities. Be sure to include information about the policies that were changed and how these changes benefit individuals with disabilities. Include case examples of how your systemic activities impacted individuals served.

The Arizona Center for Disability Law (hereinafter “Center”) collaborated with Disability Rights Advocates to identify a significant problem in an Arizona city’s (hereinafter “the City”) emergency preparedness plan. The Center represented three individuals with disabilities who would be injured because the plan neglected to include emergency plans for how to address the needs of persons with disabilities working and living in the City in the event of an emergency. The Center and Disability Rights Advocates submitted a demand letter to the City to advise it of the deficiencies and its legal liability related to the deficiencies and suggested a structured settlement. The City has agreed to discuss a structured settlement and has already updated the plan and submitted a draft for the Center to review. The City has also created an advisory group made up of agencies that serve individuals with disabilities and is meeting with that group several times during the next few months.

The Center represented M.U., a man who is deaf. M.U. was denied any form of open-captioning on the University of Phoenix Stadium’s large video screens or ribbon boards during AZ Cardinals’ football games. Specifically, the Center represented M.U. during the administrative complaint process of the Arizona Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division (“ACRD”). The ACRD completed its investigation and issued a determination letter finding that the AZ Cardinals discriminated against M.U. and the class of similarly-situated persons who are deaf or hard of hearing by denying full and equal enjoyment of the University of Phoenix Stadium’s services. Specifically, the AZ Cardinals failed to offer any form of open-captioning on the University of Phoenix Stadium’s large video screens or ribbon boards during football games for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing and require real-time, textual representation for access to aurally communicated game information. AZ Cardinals also failed to provide other effective auxiliary aids and services in order to afford M.U. and similarly-situated individuals an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from the programs they offer. Instead, the AZ Cardinals provided hand-held captioning devices and proposed a separate seating section equipped with three television screens displaying captioning. The Center represented M.U. during two ACRD-sponsored conciliation meetings, which were unsuccessful in resolving M.U.’s complaint. However, though the parties could not reach a written agreement during conciliation, the AZ Cardinals did install and begin offering open captioning on a ribbon board during conciliation efforts. Ultimately, AZ Cardinals entered into a settlement agreement on June 28, 2013 that required them to provide open captioning at all Cardinals’ games and other sporting events. The settlement agreement also required the Cardinals to provide donations to five deaf organizations in the amount of $5000.00 each and 20 tickets for each organization. The Cardinals and the Stadium were also required to market the availability of captioning and include such information on their websites.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts39,319
2. Number of individuals named in class actions10

Describe your litigation/class action activities. Explain how individuals with disabilities benefited from your litigation activities. Be sure to include case examples that demonstrate the impact of your litigation.

Ball v. Rodgers

This federal class action lawsuit was filed in 2000 against the Arizona Medicaid program (AHCCCS) on behalf of individuals from around the state who receive home and community based services (HCBS), particularly attendant care, personal care and respite. HCBS is provided to plaintiffs under the Arizona Long Term Care Services (ALTCS) program as an alternative to institutionalization. The suit challenged the failure of AHCCCS to provide adequate attendant care workers to meet the needs of plaintiffs, as prescribed in their HCBS care plans.

Judgment was issued in favor of the plaintiffs on August 13, 2004 after a four-day trial. The judge found that the Arizona Medicaid program had failed to assure that recipients of HCBS receive their prescribed services and ordered the program to make extensive reforms to assure that it “provide[s] each individual who qualifies for its services with those services for which the individual qualifies without gaps in service” and to fill any gaps in services within two hours. Defendants appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In FY 07, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the “free choice” provisions of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396n(c) & (d), which provide beneficiaries with the right to choose to receive care in a nursing home or in the community, are privately enforceable by Medicaid beneficiaries under § 1983. This decision is the first appellate court decision in the country, post-Gonzaga, to rule that such provisions are privately enforceable.

The case was remanded to the District Court for determination of the following issues: (1) whether Arizona has waived its defense that the Freedom of Choice provisions do not apply to the Arizona Medicaid program; (2) if Arizona has not waived this defense, whether the Freedom of Choice provisions apply to the Arizona Medicaid program; (3) appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the Plaintiffs’ ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims; and (4) modification of the terms of the injunction pursuant to any statutory or regulatory violations found on remand.

The parties concluded fully briefing the remanded issue in February 2008 and obtained an order extending the injunction for six months pending the Court’s final ruling. In April 2009, the District Court again ruled in the Plaintiffs’ favor, finding that the Medicaid freedom of choice provisions apply to Arizona and that AHCCCS violated the freedom of choice provisions, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide all authorized attendant care services. The ruling also included an order for attorneys’ fees and costs. After filing multiple pleadings on issue of compliance, including numerous class member declarations and extensive analysis of the gap reports and AHCCCS policies, plaintiffs obtained a ruling that injunction is permanent. The Plaintiffs also secured an expert witness to write a report on compliance issues, which was submitted to the Court.

The state again appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 24, 2010. The state filed a Preliminary Injunction Appeal per Ninth Cir. Rule 3-3, rather than a regular appeal under FRAP 3 and 4. We filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal on May 30, 2009 because the injunction is not preliminary; this stayed the expedited briefing schedule. On September 17, 2009, the Ninth Circuit converted the appeal to a regular appeal and set the briefing schedule. The defendant’s Opening brief was filed on October 14; the plaintiff’s response brief was filed on November 20; and defendant’s reply brief was filed on December 12. On February 9, 2010, the 9th Circuit notified us that the original panel who heard the first appeal would hear this appeal as well. On December 10, 2010, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments. Following the oral argument, the parties were contacted by the 9th Circuit Mediation Department. All parties agreed to participate in mediation. On April 8, 2011, the parties exchanged initial settlement demands.

As of December 20, 2011, the parties had reached an agreement in principle. The parties reached a settlement agreement on March 30, 2012. The Parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the 9th Circuit Appeal without prejudice. On June 11, 2012, the Parties presented the settlement agreement to the Arizona District Court for its approval. On July 12, 2012, the Judge granted our Stipulation for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Approval of Proposed Notice to Class. The matter was set for a fairness hearing on Monday, October 22, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Cindy K. Jorgenson. On that day, Judge Jorgenson approved the settlement, and the order was filed on October 30, 2012.

State (Lindstrom) v. Harkins Administrative Services

On January 29, 2007, the Center filed a motion to intervene in State v. Harkins on behalf of its clients, L.W. and F.L., persons with visual or hearing impairments. State v. Harkins was a suit brought by the Attorney General’s office alleging violation of the Arizonans with Disabilities Act for failure to provide auxiliary aids and services to the blind, deaf and hard of hearing during movies screened by Harkins. When the Center intervened, it raised claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). On March 28, 2007, Harkins filed a Motion to Dismiss the State’s complaint.

On March 28, 2008, the Judge granted Harkins’s Motion to Dismiss. The Center filed its Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 28, 2008. The Center participated in a Settlement Conference on August 22, 2008, but was unable to reach an amicable solution. The Center filed its 9th Circuit Opening Brief on December 1, 2008. The Center filed its 9th Circuit Reply Brief on June 29, 2009. On January 13, 2010, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments about whether providing auxiliary aids or services in the context of a movie screened at a movie theater was required by the ADA. On April 30, 2010, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ADA requires movie theaters to show closed-captioned movies unless doing so would constitute an “undue burden.” The opinion further states that the ADA does require businesses to provide “auxiliary aids and services.” The case returned to the District Court. On September 20, 2010, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss or Stay. Defendant filed its most recent Motion to Dismiss under 12(b)(1) alleging that the primary jurisdiction doctrine applies. On February 8, 2011, the District Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The parties made initial disclosures, discovery requests, took depositions, and retained experts.

The parties entered into a Consent Decree resolving the case that was signed by Judge Silver on November 7, 2011. The Decree required Harkins to install and have in operation closed captioning and video description equipment in 50% of its auditoriums by June 15, 2012. By January 15, 2013, it was required to provide the equipment in the remaining auditoriums. The Decree also dictated the number of end-use devices required at each of Harkins’ Arizona movie theaters, provided for published instructions for use of the devices, training for employees on the devices and communication with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, improved website accessibility, marketing of the presence of the new equipment, and disbursement of nearly 300 free movie passes to organizations in Arizona that serve individuals with visual or hearing impairments. Harkins was also required to hold six promotional events to debut the installation of the auxiliary aids and services equipment in specific movie theaters throughout the state. The Consent Decree will expire on November 7, 2013.

Part V. PAIR'S Priorities and Objectives

A. Priorities and Objectives for the Fiscal Year Covered by this Report

For each of your PAIR program priorities for the fiscal year covered by this report, please:

  1. Identify and describe priority.
  2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.
  3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority.
  4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration.
  5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions.
  6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.

PRIORITY NO. 1: Increase access by persons with disabilities to services, programs and facilities open to the public. Participate in Arizona Emergency Planning and Preparedness activities that relate to issues involving persons with disabilities

1. Ensure that places of public accommodation, including state and local governmental entities, do not refuse services or treatment on the basis of disability, that auxiliary aids and services are provided when needed for effective communication, and remove physical barriers to accessibility and make reasonable modifications in policies to avoid discrimination. The focus for FY2013 was on Eastern Arizona. 2. The need addressed by this priority is to ensure that places of public accommodation, including state and local governmental entities, do not refuse access to programs or services on the basis of disability, that auxiliary aids and services are provided when needed, physical barriers to accessibility are removed and reasonable modifications in their policies are made to avoid discrimination. Furthermore, this priority will ensure that individuals with disabilities will have the necessary information and are involved with Arizona’s Emergency Planning and Preparedness activities. 3. Center staff used four indicators to judge the successful outcome of their activities in this priority area: a. File four (4) administrative complaints with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights and/or the U.S. Department of Justice/Secretary of State’s Office to challenge discrimination by places of public accommodations including state and local governmental entities, which refuse to modify its policies/procedures or refuse to provide auxiliary aids or services. b. Monitor and provide rights information on transportation issues for individuals with disabilities when applicable federal regulations apply. c. Develop and provide training on the Revised ADA Regulations implementing Title II and Title III of the ADA. 4. Collaborative Effort: In regards to the Emergency Planning and Preparedness activities, the Center collaborated with the Arizona Developmental Disabilities Planning Council and the Statewide Independent Living Council. In regard to a City Emergency Preparedness Plan, the Center collaborated with the Disability Rights Advocates (DRA). 5. Center staff handled 130 cases under Priority No. 1. 6. The following three (3) case summaries demonstrate the impact of this priority.

The Center represented three individuals with disabilities who would be injured because an Arizona city’s (hereinafter “the City”) emergency preparedness plan neglected to include emergency plans for how to address the needs, during an emergency, of persons with disabilities working and living in the City. The Center collaborated with Disability Rights Advocates to inform the City of the deficiencies and legal liability related to the deficiencies and suggested a structured settlement. The City has agreed to discuss a structured settlement and has already updated the plan and submitted a draft for the Center to review. The City has also created an advisory group made up of agencies that serve individuals with disabilities and is meeting with that group several times during the next few months.

S.D. is a nursing student at Pima Medical Institute (PMI). In her fall semester, S.D. needed reasonable accommodations for her practicum course due to her disability. S.D. had been identified as a student with a disability, but her accommodation plan and letter were misinterpreted by PMI. PMI initially stated that they could not accommodate S.D. and that she may not be qualified for the nursing program due to her disability. Furthermore, one of S.D.’s professors would not honor her accommodation plan and failed to provide accommodations. The Center attended a meeting with S.D. and PMI and was able to resolve S.D.’s complaint. S.D. received the necessary assistance and accommodations from PMI and her professor in order for S.D. to complete the nursing practicum requirements.

M.T. is a realtor and a person with a disability — deafness. The Center assisted M.T., who was seeking a remedy against the Phoenix Association of Realtors (PAR) because it failed to provide an auxiliary aid or service (ASL interpreter) for his required realtor’s course. The PAR asserted that the ADA Title III did not apply to them and that even if it did, providing an ASL interpreter would be an undue burden. The Center discussed the legal issues with caller and researched information on the ADA Title III’s auxiliary aids and services requirement. The Center helped M.T. draft a letter to PAR identifying the relevant portions of the ADA Title III and to request an ASL interpreter. The PAR continued to refuse to provide an ASL interpreter. The Center assisted M.T. in filing a complaint of discrimination with the Arizona Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division, which is now investigating the complaint.

PRIORITY NO. 2: Ensure access to comprehensive and medically necessary healthcare

1. Ensure comprehensive and medically necessary health care services for individuals with disabilities who are beneficiaries of Medicaid and/or Medicare. 2. The need addressed by this priority is to ensure that individuals with disabilities who are beneficiaries of Medicaid and/or Medicare have access to appropriate healthcare services which is often the key to living independently at home and in their communities. Individuals with disabilities are often denied critical health care services that allow them to be as healthy and independent as possible. Given the state budget crisis, priority will be given to the restoration or maintenance of critical health care services, including challenging restrictions to AHCCCS/ALTCS. 3. Center staff used four indicators to judge the successful outcome of their activities in this priority area: a. Conduct litigation that promotes systemic change aimed at increasing access to medically necessary services and/or challenging restrictions to AHCCCS/ALTCS. b. Conduct four (4) outreach events and four (4) trainings of individuals with disabilities and advocates in the various steps involved in accessing publicly funded health care services, including how to initiate requests for medically necessary services and how to challenge denials of requested services. Two (2) of the trainings and two (2) of the outreach events must occur in Eastern Arizona per ACDL’s strategic plan. c. Provide direct representation in four (4) administrative appeals and/or judicial review actions in state court of AHCCCS denials, terminations, or reductions in services. d. Provide timely and accurate rights information to individuals and their guardians on AHCCCS/ALTCS/DDD. 4. Collaborative effort — Pursuing this priority did not involve collaboration with other entities. 5. Center staff handled 91 cases under Priority No. 2. 6. The following two (2) case summaries demonstrate the impact of this priority.

J.B. is a woman who relies on attendant care for activities of daily living. A Center advocate provided technical assistance to her when her provider cut her attendant care hours by over 25% based on personal observations of her case manager. She contacted the Center, and an advocate explained the appeal process to her, explained how she could utilize a letter of necessity from her doctor, and how to file a grievance against her case manager. Client was able to successfully advocate on her own after receiving information and assistance from the Center.

M.F. is an adult male who was denied dental care services. M.F. received an organ transplant several years ago, and proper dental care is imperative for transplant patients due to risks of infection. Infection could cause rejection of the transplant and death of the patient. Dental care had been approved prior to the transplant, but the state Medicaid program (AHCCCS) was now denying the care. A Center attorney represented M.F. in a grievance filed on his behalf and successfully argued that despite the broad exclusion of dental care from AHCCCS coverage, where there had been an approval for the care prior to the transplant, that approval should continue after the transplant.

PRIORITY NO. 3: Promote equal employment opportunities

1. People with disabilities continue to face barriers to employment, including but not limited to, physical obstacles in the workplace, communication barriers, discriminatory policies and procedures and attitudinal barriers based on stereotypes, misconceptions and fears. This objective addresses the discrimination caused by these barriers by providing advocacy and legal services in order to promote: (1) the provision of reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants, and (2) the prevention and redress of unlawful harassment, retaliation, intimidation and termination. 2. This priority addresses employment discrimination by providing advocacy and legal services in order to promote: (1) the provision of reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants, and (2) the prevention and redress of unlawful harassment, retaliation, intimidation and termination. 3. Center staff used four indicators to judge the successful outcome of their activities in this priority area: a. Provide representation at mediation or conciliation with the EEOC or Arizona Attorney General’s Office for cases that have a systemic impact toward the prevention and redress of failure to accommodate, unlawful harassment, retaliation, intimidation and/or termination. b. Monitor the cases accepted for representation under Indicator 1 of this Priority and other service requests for potential litigation that presents systemic issues and where litigation will be far-reaching and have high impact. c. Provide two (2) outreach and two (2) training activities to persons with disabilities about employment rights protected under federal and state law. One (1) of the trainings and one (1) of the outreach events must occur in Eastern Arizona per ACDL’s strategic plan. d. Provide timely and accurate rights information. 4. Pursuing this priority did not involve collaborative efforts with other entities. 5. Center staff handled 164 cases under Priority No. 3. 6. The following two (2) case summaries demonstrate the impact of this priority.

C.W. is a person with a visual impairment. C.W. is employed by a State agency and has been so employed for almost 18 years. When the employer moved into new office space, the State did not move C.W.’s accessible work station. In addition, the agency updated its computer system but did not update C.W.’s assistive technology so that it would be compatible with the new system. As a result of the lack of reasonable accommodations, C.W. began to have difficulty keeping up with her workload. C.W.’s employer failed to respond to her efforts to request reasonable accommodations. The Center represented C.W. during mediation through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the parties reached an agreement that required the State to provide reasonable accommodations, training for C.W. on the new software and computer system, and ADA training for the agency’s staff.

J.L. is a person with a hearing impairment and mental health impairments. She worked for approximately 18 years as a pharmacist for a retail pharmacy. J.L. experienced an in-store robbery, which exacerbated the symptoms of her mental illness. Her employer began disciplining her more often, and she believed it was in retaliation for her requests for accommodation, including a period of leave, related to her mental impairments. Her employment was then terminated. J.L. was extremely agitated as a result of the termination and was not capable of filing a discrimination complaint on her own. The Center worked with her to help her file a complaint of discrimination against her employer for failure to accommodate and retaliation.

PRIORITY NO. 4: Promote equal housing under the Fair Housing Act

1. People with disabilities continue to face barriers to equal opportunity in housing. Housing providers discriminate against people with disabilities by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and physically accessible housing and by failing to reasonably modify discriminatory policies and practices. Housing providers also discriminate by including discriminatory terms and conditions in housing agreements. 2. This priority addresses the discriminatory housing practices which: (1) affect the amount of available and accessible housing for people with disabilities, and (2) ensure that these individuals and their housing providers are aware and trained on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act as it applies to people with disabilities. 3. Center staff used one indicator to judge the successful outcome of their activities in this priority area: a. Provide timely and accurate rights information to individuals about their rights under the FHA. 4. Pursuing this priority did not involve collaborative efforts with other entities. 5. Center staff handled 98 cases under this Priority. 6. The following two (2) case summaries demonstrate the impact of this priority.

D.G. is a person with mobility impairments who relies on a service animal to provide support while walking and to help her with tasks when she is utilizing her wheelchair. D.G. and her partner were downsizing from a home with a large yard to a mobile home. They identified a mobile home that was within their price range, ground set, and met all of D.G.’s mobility needs. The sale was complete pending approval by the mobile home park’s management company, which reserved the right to approve new residents. The management company became aware that D.G. had a service animal that exceeded the park’s pet weight limit policy. The park refused to make a reasonable accommodation in that policy for D.G.’s service animal, did not approve D.G. as a resident, and as a result, the family lost the opportunity to purchase the home of their choice. They had to purchase a less desirable mobile home. After filing a charge with the Arizona Civil Rights Division and receiving a reasonable cause finding, the Center began representing D.G. and her partner for the purposes of conciliation. The Center prepared to file litigation on D.G.’s behalf, but the parties were able to reach an agreement that included a cash payment of $20,000 for D.G.

E.L. is an individual with multiple sclerosis and ALS. She has mobility and breathing limitations related to the impairments. E.L. has an emotional support animal to help with her anxiety and depression related to her physical impairments. The animal has since been trained to perform certain functions, such as retrieving items, for E.L. E.L. lives in an upscale, high rise condominium building that requires pets to be taken in and out of the building on the service elevator. Because of E.L.’s breathing difficulties, using the service elevator, which is dusty and not kept as clean as the residents’ elevator, is not an option for her. The building’s management sought to force E.L. to use the service elevator with her assistance animal and restricted the animal from other public spaces in the building, such as the outdoor BBQ area and exercise room. The Center wrote a letter providing the housing provider with information regarding assistance animals and fair housing law, and management agreed to allow the assistance animal to accompany E.L. anywhere she went in the building.

B. Priorities and Objectives for the Current Fiscal Year

Please include a statement of priorities and objectives for the current fiscal year (the fiscal year succeeding that covered by this report), which should contain the following information:

  1. a statement of each prioirty;
  2. the need addressed by each priority; and;
  3. a description of the activities to be carried out under each priority.

PRIORITY NO. 1: Increase access by persons with disabilities to services, programs and facilities open to the public. Participate in Arizona Emergency Planning and Preparedness activities that relate to issues involving persons with disabilities.

1. Ensure that places of public accommodation and public entities, including state and local government, do not refuse services or engage in discriminatory treatment on the basis of disability, provide auxiliary aids and services when needed for effective communication, and remove physical barriers to accessibility and make reasonable modifications in policies to avoid discrimination. 2. The need addressed by this priority is to ensure that places of public accommodation, including state and local governmental entities, do not refuse access to programs or services on the basis of disability, that auxiliary aids and services are provided when needed, and governmental entities and public accommodations remove physical barriers to accessibility and make reasonable modifications in their policies to avoid discrimination. Furthermore, this priority will ensure that individuals with disabilities will have the necessary information and are involved with Arizona’s Emergency Planning and Preparedness activities. 3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal: a. Provide technical assistance or direct representation in four (4) administrative complaints with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights and/or the U.S. Department of Justice/Secretary of State’s Office to challenge discrimination by places of public accommodations and public entities, including state and local governments, that have refused to modify policies/procedures or refused to provide auxiliary aids or services. b. Monitor and provide rights information on transportation issues for individuals with disabilities when applicable federal regulations apply. c. Develop and provide one (1) training on the public accommodations laws related to service animals. d. Advocate for adequate emergency preparedness for persons with disabilities through litigation and/or mediation strategies with municipalities and/or other local bodies.

PRIORITY NO. 2: Ensure comprehensive and medically necessary health care services for individuals with disabilities who are beneficiaries of Medicaid and/or Medicare.

1. Ensure comprehensive and medically necessary health care services for individuals with disabilities who are beneficiaries of Medicaid and/or Medicare. 2. The need addressed by this priority is to ensure that individuals with disabilities who are beneficiaries of Medicaid and/or Medicare have access to appropriate healthcare services which is often the key to living independently at home and in their communities. Priority will be given to the restoration or maintenance of critical health care services, including challenging restrictions to AHCCCS/ALTCS. 3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal: a. Conduct litigation that promotes systemic change aimed at increasing access to medically necessary services and/or challenging restrictions to AHCCCS/ALTCS. b. Provide technical assistance or direct representation in administrative appeals and/or judicial review actions in state court of AHCCCS denials, terminations, or reductions in services. c. Provide timely and accurate rights information to individuals and their guardians on AHCCCS/ALTCS/DDD.

PRIORITY NO. 3: Promote equal employment opportunities.

1. People with disabilities continue to face barriers to employment including, but not limited to, physical obstacles in the workplace, communication barriers, discriminatory policies and procedures and attitudinal barriers based on stereotypes, misconceptions and fears. 2. This priority addresses employment discrimination by providing advocacy and legal services in order to promote: (1) non-discriminatory hiring procedures; (2) the provision of reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants; (3) non-discriminatory policies and procedures; and (4) the prevention and redress of unlawful harassment, retaliation, intimidation and termination. 3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal: a. Provide representation at mediation or conciliation with the EEOC or Arizona Attorney General’s Office for cases that will have a systemic impact toward the prevention and redress of failure to accommodate, unlawful harassment, retaliation, intimidation and/or termination. b. Monitor the cases accepted for representation under activity “a” above and other service requests for potential litigation that presents systemic issues and where litigation will be far-reaching and have high impact. c. Provide timely and accurate rights information.

PRIORITY NO. 4: Promote equal opportunity to housing under the Fair Housing Act for people with disabilities.

1. People with disabilities continue to face barriers to equal opportunity in housing. Housing providers discriminate against people with disabilities by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and physically accessible housing, by failing to reasonably modify discriminatory policies and practices, and by including discriminatory terms and conditions in housing agreements. 2. This priority addresses the discriminatory housing practices which: (1) affect the amount of available and accessible housing for people with disabilities, and (2) ensure that these individuals and their housing providers are aware and trained on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act as it applies to people with disabilities. 3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal: a. Provide timely and accurate rights information to individuals about their rights under the FHA. b. Provide technical assistance or direct representation in administrative complaints, mediations, or litigation where a person with a disability has been denied fair housing due to a housing provider’s intentional discrimination or failure to provide reasonable accommodations or reasonable modifications. c. Develop and provide training materials on fair housing law related to service animals.

Part VI. Narrative

At a minimum, you must include all of the information requested. You may include any other information, not otherwise collected on this reporting form that would be helpful in describing the extent of PAIR activities during the prior fiscal year. Please limit the narrative portion of this report, including attachments, to 20 pages or less.

The narrative should contain the following information. The instructions for this form outline the information that should be contained in each section.

  1. Sources of funds received and expended
  2. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report
  3. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years)
  4. Involvement with advisory boards (if any)
  5. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure
  6. Coordination with the Client Assistance Program (CAP) and the State long-term care program, if these programs are not part of the P&A agency

A. Sources of funds received and expended

Federal Funds Received: $248,385 Funds Spent: $248,385 Interest Income Funds Received: $61 Funds Spent: $61 Program Income Funds Received: $164,246 Funds Spent: $164,246 (Attorney Fees) B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report

Income

Federal Grant Income: $248,385 Interest Income: $ 61 Attorney Fees: $164,096 Other: $ 150 Total Income: $412,692

Expenses

Computer Consulting $1,933 Accounting/Legal Fees $3,953 Advertising $89 Bank Charges $0 Board, Staff & Other Meetings $985 Copying/Printing $196 Office Supplies $3,543 Postage $1,814 Reference Materials $5,315 Payroll Processing Fees $1,246 Equipment Rental $1,802 Equipment Maintenance/Rental $1,166 Equipment Purchase $1,417 Rent/Parking $28,006 Telephone $4,899 Insurance — General Liability $1,299 Insurance — Professional Liability $3,489 Litigation $4,240 Professional Develop./Seminars $1,217 Professional Dues $1,539 Travel — In-State $2,382 Travel — Out-of-State $1,534 Salaries $263,614 LRAP Expenses $1,471 Consultant/Interpreting Fees $2,575 Accommodations $1,581 Temporary Staff $1,627 FICA — Employer $19,359 Health Insurance $39,600 State Unemployment $503 Workers Compensation Ins. $563 Long-Term Disability Insurance $1,896 Property Tax $30 NDRN Database $1,009 Trainings — Facilities/Supplies $2,355 Pension Plan Expense $4,445 Total $412,692

C. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years)

Description of Pair Staff Person Years Total Hours Percentage

Attorneys Alewelt 0.02 35.31 1.70% Dooley 0.12 256.9 12.35% Kader 0.34 702.46 33.79% Myers 0.17 344.78 16.58% Radecic 0.14 301.13 14.48% Rico 0.75 1561.05 75.08% Total Attorneys 1.54 3201.63 1.54% Advocates Dumouchel 0.09 187.16 12.00% Fischer 0.02 33.97 1.82% Goldsand 0.23 474.43 22.64% Haas 0.34 712.68 34.21% Leon 0.06 121.92 5.86% Powers 0.45 930.75 44.77% Roberts 0.32 662.47 27.30% Total Advocates 1.51 3123.38 1.51%

Clerical Davis 0.17 363.99 17.50% Dedrick 0.17 353.67 17.00% Freyer 0.16 327.71 15.76% Goyette 0.23 488.78 23.50% Lauritzen 0.11 228.74 11.00% Starling 0.14 282.39 13.58% Stocking 0.14 301.22 14.48% Timmins 0.18 377.75 18.16% Van Horne 0.22 462.20 22.22% Vasquez 0.19 392.29 18.86% Total Clerical 1.71 3578.74 1.71% Total Hours for PAIR Staff 4.76 9903.75 4.76%

Description of PAIR Staff

Attorneys

ACDL attorneys provided direct representation, technical assistance, and short-term assistance to PAIR clients in fiscal year ended 2013. Two of the attorneys working in the program, Peri Jude Radecic and Edward Myers III, are key managers of the organization and provided project supervision for the PAIR program and assigned program staff. Peri Jude Radecic serves as the Executive Director, and Edward Myers III serves as the Deputy Executive Director. J.J. Rico serves as Managing Attorney, and Cathleen Dooley serves as the PAIR Program Coordinator. The attorneys working in the PAIR program are responsible for providing legal services and determining eligibility for ACDL client services within the agency policies and priorities. The duties may include interviewing clients, reviewing records, conducting legal research, negotiating outcomes, and representing clients in administrative hearings and in state and federal judicial proceedings.

Advocates

ACDL advocates provided information and referral, intake of new cases in PAIR priority areas, and technical assistance and short-term advocacy service to PAIR callers. The PAIR advocates are under the direct supervision of an attorney. Advocacy services include information and referral and direct advocacy services on behalf of the client.

Support and Administrative Staff

The support staff listed provided clerical assistance to the attorneys and advocates assigned to the PAIR program. Additionally, the financial staff is responsible for budgeting, accounting, securing and working with auditors, cash management, financial reporting, grant and tax accounting, and ensuring compliance with all ACDL financial policies, state and federal reporting requirements and ACDL’s funding sources. Administrative staff also included the Information Systems and Grants Manager charged with managing ACDL’s information and data systems, including computer software. This position monitors contract and grant compliance and ensures that ACDL’s computer systems are maintained in good working order and that the data and reporting functions comply with federal and other grants, as well as internal reporting needs.

D. Involvement with advisory boards (if any)

The PAIR program is not involved with any advisory boards.

E. Grievances 6

Caller: R.D. Primary Disability: Respiratory Disorders Issue: R.D., who is a prisoner in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Tucson, Arizona, contacted ACDL on May 1, 2013 regarding representation for access to medical treatment in prison. Grievance Filed with Deputy Executive Director: ACDL’s Deputy Executive Director sent R.D. a letter on May 1, 2013 stating that representation was denied due to the ACDL’s involvement on a class action lawsuit. As noted in the letter, ACDL along with the Arizona Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Prison Law Office, and the law firms of Jones Day and Perkins Coie, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against the Arizona Department of Corrections. ACDL only raised claims regarding mental health issues and isolation and does not represent any one plaintiff individually in the case. The service request was closed on July 2, 2013 as R.D. decided not to pursue the grievance further.

Caller: T.D. Primary Disability: Physical/orthopedic impairments Issue: T.D., who is a prisoner in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona, contacted ACDL in December 2012 and February 2013 seeking representation for access to medical treatment in prison. Both times, ACDL staff sent him information on how to access medical treatment while in prison. In February 2013, T.D. filed a grievance due to denial of legal representation. Grievance Filed with Deputy Executive Director: In February and March 2013, ACDL’s Deputy Executive Director and Executive Director sent letters to T.D. explaining that ACDL was not representing individual cases for medical treatment as part of the ACLU lawsuit. Because the 15-day appeal period had expired in March 2013, T.D.’s client grievance was closed.

Caller: R.F. Primary Disability: Physical/orthopedic impairments Issue: R.F., who is a prisoner in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Tucson, sent a letter in October 2012 seeking ACDL’s assistance to file a lawsuit against the Arizona Department of Corrections regarding lack of medical treatment. ACDL staff sent him resources to advocate for himself. Grievance Filed with Deputy Executive Director: On October 29, 2012, R.F. filed a grievance with ACDL for not agreeing to represent him in his lawsuit. In November 2012, the Executive Director upheld the decision to not provide legal representation and sent a letter to R.F. explaining that he had 15 days to appeal the decision. Because the appeal time period had expired, the grievance case was closed.

Caller: S.H. Primary Disability: Physical/orthopedic impairments Issue: S.H., who is a prisoner in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Tucson, contacted ACDL in May 2013 regarding a medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor who provides medical care in the prison. ACDL staff sent him resources and a list of attorneys to contact in order to advocate for himself. In June 2013, he filed a grievance with ACDL because we were not able to represent him in his lawsuit, since we do not file individual lawsuits for individuals in prison. Even after he received the letter in July stating our policy, he continued to write to ACDL for other issues relating to his confinement in prison. Grievance Filed with Deputy Executive Director: Since S.H. has not contacted the Deputy Executive Director since August 2013, his grievance has been closed.

Caller: V.S. Primary Disability: Auto-immune disease Issue: V.S. contacted the ACDL to seek legal representation for her mother for gaps in medical services as part of the Ball v. Betlach class action settlement. ACDL refused representation for several reasons, mainly because there was no denial of services. V.S.’s mother was receiving home and community based services, and she was no longer represented as part of the class action settlement. Grievance Filed with Deputy Executive Director: On April 4, 2013, ACDL’s Executive Director sent a letter to V.S. explaining ACDL’s decision to not represent V.S.’s mother. Because V.S. did not file an appeal within the 15-day period after receiving the letter, the grievance case was closed.

Caller: S.U. Primary Disability: Physical/orthopedic impairments Issue: S.U. contacted the ACDL in March 2013 regarding reasonable accommodations from her employer due to carpal tunnel. ACDL staff provided S.U. with resources and advice on the ADA and reasonable accommodations and EEOC mediation. Grievance Filed with Deputy Executive Director: In April 2013, S.U. filed a grievance with the Deputy Executive Director because we had closed her service request due to lack of resources for legal representation. On April 8, 2013, the Deputy Executive Director sent S.U. a letter upholding our original decision to not provide further representation. Since we have had no further contact from S.U., ACDL closed the grievance case.

F. Not applicable. The programs are part of the P&A agency.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByPeri Jude Radecic
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date11/20/2013