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

Arizona (Arizona Center for Disability Law) - H240A160003 - FY2016

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 DirectorJ.J. Rico
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorJessica Jansepar Ross
Person to contact regarding reportJ.J. Rico
Contact Person phone520-327-9547
Ext.331

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 areas63
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas116
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)179

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff22
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)531

1) 10/13/2016. Presentation. “ADA Title I”. Topics included employment provisions of the ADA. Tucson, AZ. 100 people attended.

2) 11/14/2015. Presentation. “Know Your Rights!” Topics included VRI in medical settings and employment discrimination. Phoenix, AZ. 50 people attended.

3) 11/19/2015. Presentation. “ASU Peer Career Advancement Academy, Workplace Protections and Reasonable Accommodations.” Topics included: ADA Title I employment protections, interviews and pre-employment strategies, disclosing disabilities and reasonable accommodations in employment. Phoenix, AZ. 18 people attended.

4) 1/12/2016. Presentation. “University of Arizona Neuroscience & Cognitive Diversity Panel on Disability & Race.” Tucson, AZ. 100 people attended.

5) 2/2/2016. Presentation. City of Scottsdale Youth & Family Services. Topics included ACDL programs, ASU/ACDL Special Education Project, and the African American Conference on Disabilities. Scottsdale, AZ. 13 people attended.

6) 2/4/2016. Presentation. “ADA and Auxiliary Aids & Services.” Topics included Titles I and III of the ADA. Tucson, AZ. 80 people attended.

7) 2/12/2016. Presentation. “Supported Decision Making - What is it? What does it mean for Lawyers?” Topics included supported decision making and legal options. Phoenix, AZ. 20 people attended.

8) 2/12/2016. Presentation. “5th Annual African American Conference on Disabilities.” Topics included how the ADA (Titles II & III) applies to persons with disabilities, law firms, state agencies, and the Courts. Phoenix, AZ. 30 people attended.

9) 2/12/2016. Presentation. “What’s Trending in Reasonable Accommodations?” Topics included reasonable accommodations in employment under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Phoenix, AZ. 40 people attended.

10) 2/12/2016. Presentation. “Representation of Individuals with Mental Illness and Intellectual Disabilities - Practical and Ethical Considerations.” Topics included the rules of ethics for communication with clients with limited capacity, how to approach representation of persons with disabilities, strategies for communication with clients with limited capacity. Phoenix, AZ. 55 people attended.

11) 5/19/2016. Teleconference. “Service Animals Definition Under the ADA.” Topics included laws that apply to service animals. 20 people participated.

12) 5/20/2016. Presentation. “ADA 101 - You Have Rights, Reasonable Accommodations in the Workplace.” Topics included ADA Title I, reasonable accommodations under the ADA, disability employment discrimination. Phoenix, AZ. 30 people attended.

13) 6/15/2016. Presentation. “ADA Employment Law Trends and Issues.” Topics included ADA Title I, disability employment discrimination, and reasonable accommodations. AZ State Bar Convention, Chandler, AZ. 20 people attended.

14) 6/19/2016. Teleconference. “Service Animal Definition Under the ADA.” Topics included laws that apply to service animals. 20 people participated.

15) 7/12/2016. Presentation. “Rev Up the Vote.” Topics included the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and voting machine demonstration. Phoenix, AZ. 13 people attended.

16) 7/19/2016. Presentation. “Disability Rights Training and Public Forum.” Topics included laws that apply to persons with disabilities and what ACDL can be doing to address barriers facing persons with disabilities. Phoenix, AZ. 11 people attended.

17) 7/21/2016. Presentation. “Disability Rights Training and Public Forum.” Topics included laws that apply to persons with disabilities and what ACDL can be doing to address barriers facing persons with disabilities. Tucson, AZ. 5 people attended.

18) 8/19/2016. Presentation. “Disability Rights Training and Public Forum.” Topics included laws that apply to persons with disabilities and what ACDL can be doing to address barriers facing persons with disabilities. Bullhead City, AZ. 6 people attended.

19) 8/26/2016. Presentation. “Presentation for Interns on Family Medicine.” Topics included how to write reasonable accommodation letters for pregnant patients with disabilities. Tucson, AZ. 15 people attended.

20) 8/26/2016. Presentation. “Disability Rights Training and Public Forum.” Topics included laws that apply to persons with disabilities and what ACDL can be doing to address barriers facing persons with disabilities. Flagstaff, AZ. 13 people attended.

21) 9/27/2016. Presentation. “ADA Rights.” Topics included the ADA, Title II and Title III. Tucson, AZ. 15 people attended.

22) 9/28/2016. Presentation. “Service Animals.” Topics included laws that apply to service animals. Peoria, AZ. 25 people attended.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff0
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles0
3. PSAs/videos aired0
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website118,125
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated3,411
6. Other (specify separately)19

Narrative

1)10/17/2015. Booth/Table. Sierra VisAbility Day, Sierra Vista, AZ. 25 people attended.

2) 10/26-27/2015. Booth/Table. Evidence Based Conference. Phoenix, AZ. 100 people attended.

3) 1/21/2016. Booth/Table. Vail Transition Open House. Vail, AZ. 35 people attended.

4) 2/10/2016. Booth/Table. Law School Public Interest Career Fair. Phoenix, AZ. 200 people attended.

5) 2/12/2016. Booth/Table. 5th Annual African American Conference on Disabilities. Phoenix, AZ. 100 people attended.

6) 3/17/2016. Booth/Table. Native American Disability Summit. Phoenix, AZ. 100 people attended.

7) 3/31/2016. Booth/Table. Working with Students with Challenging Behaviors. Phoenix, AZ. 50 people attended.

8) 3/31/2016. Booth/Table. I Want to Vote. Phoenix, AZ. 34 people attended.

9) 4/24/2016. Booth/Table. Health & Wellness Fair. Phoenix, AZ. 66 people attended.

10) 4/30/2016. Booth/Table. Disability Resource & Transition Expo. Tucson, AZ. 200 people attended.

11) 5/3/2016. Booth/Table. Working with Students with Challenging Behaviors. Flagstaff, AZ. 72 people attended.

12) 5/13/2016. Booth/Table. Rays of Hope Conference. Phoenix, AZ. 300 people attended.

13) 6/3/2016. Booth/Table. Overview of the Arizona Center for Disability Law. Tempe, AZ. 30 people attended.

14) 7/7 - 9/2016. Booth/Table. 53rd Biennial National Association for the Deaf Conference. Phoenix, AZ 500 people attended.

15) 7/12/2016. Booth/Table. Rev Up the Vote! Phoenix, AZ. 13 people attended.

16) 7/27/2016. Booth/Table. All Votes Matter. Phoenix, AZ. 250 people attended.

17) 8/18 - 19/2016. Booth/Table. Wrightslaw Conference. Tucson, AZ. 150 people attended.

18) 9/26/2016. Booth/Table. Glendale Union High School - Next Step Program. Glendale, AZ. 75 people attended.

19) 9/28/2016. Booth/Table. City of Phoenix 50th Street Light Rail Station Announcement. Phoenix, AZ. 7 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)59
2. Additional individuals served during the year319
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)378
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)14

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 66

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility11
2. Employment145
3. Program access28
4. Housing85
5. Government benefits/services29
6. Transportation18
7. Education15
8. Assistive technology0
9. Voting0
10. Health care45
11. Insurance0
12. Non-government services12
13. Privacy rights0
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse0
16. Neglect5
17. Other0

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor297
2. Other representation found2
3. Individual withdrew complaint13
4. Appeals unsuccessful2
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.2
6. PAIR withdrew from case1
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources3
8. Individual case lacks legal merit5
9. Other0

Please explain

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-advocacy22
2. Short-term assistance279
3. Investigation/monitoring0
4. Negotiation11
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution7
6. Administrative hearings1
7. Litigation (including class actions)4
8. Systemic/policy activities1

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 - 223
3. 23 - 59251
4. 60 - 6461
5. 65 and over63

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females225
2. Males153

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race44
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native3
3. Asian5
4. Black or African American23
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander2
6. White290
7. Two or more races11
8. Race/ethnicity unknown0

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent344
2. Parental or other family home14
3. Community residential home6
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home1
6. Public institutional living arrangement0
7. Private institutional living arrangement0
8. Jail/prison/detention center9
9. Homeless4
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 impairment24
2. Deaf/hard of hearing47
3. Deaf-blind0
4. Orthopedic impairment92
5. Mental illness14
6. Substance abuse1
7. Mental retardation9
8. Learning disability7
9. Neurological impairment45
10. Respiratory impairment10
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment15
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment59
13. Speech impairment2
14. AIDS/HIV2
15. Traumatic brain injury0
16. Other disability51

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities13

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes39,385

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.

Section 8 Housing Program Access

On August 8, the City of Phoenix (the City) opened its Section 8 housing application, after an 11-year hiatus. The Center, the Southwest Fair Housing Council (SWFHC) and the Arizona Fair Housing Center (AFHC) started working with the City to improve the Section 8 application process in May of 2016 out of concern that their plan would be discriminatory against people with disabilities and low income families not proficient in English. These groups tried to impress upon the City the enormity of the situation and suggested alternatives, but when the City was unwilling to make any more necessary changes, the Center and the William E. Morris Institute for Justice filed emergency discrimination complaints with the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the U. S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD), responsible for enforcing fair housing laws about the discriminatory wait list process. HUD expedited this process and began settlement discussions to try and resolve the matter. On August 18, 2016, settlement was reached. Settlement included the City agreeing to change the application process from a first come first served basis to a lottery system. The City also agreed to:

• prominently display the notice about the availability of reasonable accommodations and language assistance on its webpage;

• provide necessary reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, such as providing an American Sign Language interpreter, taking applications via telephone, and accepting paper applications;

• greatly improve accessibility of its online form for screen reading software;

• expand the application period from 2days to 12 days; including a weekend;

• offer paper applications via email or at the City of Phoenix Office located at 380 E. Jefferson;

• offer Section 8 and Wait List information in four languages in addition to English, including Spanish, Chinese traditional, Vietnamese, and Arabic;

• post the online application in English and Spanish;

• provide language assistance for people who do not speak English well through a language assistance line;

• translate its Department of Housing website into Spanish within 6 months;

• provide its Limited English Proficiency Plan (LEP), vital documents, and data about most prevalent languages for HUD’s review;

• arrange annual training with HUD for the next three years on fair housing and other discrimination laws;

• send a public service announcement to a list of food banks, domestic violence shelters, homeless shelters, and churches providing outreach ministries and assistance to the community, disability groups, and groups and organizations providing services to people who are low income or LEP for Section 8 housing announcements for the next 2 years; and

• collaborate with the AFHC and SWFHC for outreach and activities for Fair Housing month in April.

K.S., L.B., F.J., and K.W. v. Oro Valley Hospital and Northwest Hospital

The Arizona Center for Disability Law (Center) represents K.S. and L.B. K.S. is an individual with a mobility impairment and L.B. is an individual who is Deaf and whose primary language is American Sign Language (“ASL”). Both were denied equal access to medical services at Oro Valley Hospital. The Center’s investigation of these clients’ claims revealed that K.S. did not receive an accessible room, denying him access to restroom facilities and other amenities during his stay, and that L.B. did not receive effective communication during her stay. Therefore, Oro Valley Hospital denied them equal opportunity to benefit from the Hospital’s medical services and its facilities as required by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.201; and Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), 45 C.F.R. § 84.4. Since the Center’s initial investigation, the Center has identified two other individuals, F.J. and K.W., who are Deaf and whose primary language is ASL. Both have been denied effective communication during hospital stays. Because Northwest Hospital is owned by the same healthcare corporation as Oro Valley Hospital, the matter has been expanded to include this hospital.

The Center is co-counseling the legal matter with Andrés Gallegos of the firm Robbins, Salomon and Patt, Ltd. in Chicago, Illinois. The Center and co-counsel sent an initial letter and negotiated with the hospitals’ counsel to engage in a structured negotiation. The hospitals agreed to engage in structured negotiations and a structured negotiation agreement was signed by both parties. We are now engaged in the negotiation process and the review of documents necessary for settlement negotiations. This negotiation process includes reviewing hospital operating procedures and providing recommendations regarding physical access and effective communication requirements. Should structured negotiations fail, the parties will file a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

L.W. v. Valley Metro

The Center represents L.W., L.W. is an individual with blindness who uses the public transportation services provided by Valley Metro in the Phoenix area. L.W. encountered several accessibility problems while utilizing Valley Metro’s services and contacted the Center for assistance in addressing those problems. Valley Metro launched a mobile application called RideKick in early 2015, which provides real-time bus and light rail arrival/departure time and route planning information. However, Valley Metro did not design RideKick in a way that is compatible with the use of accessible assistive technology on mobile devices, making the mobile application inaccessible to customers such as L.W. who are living with blindness or low vision. Valley Metro also has a service called NextRide, which provides real-time bus and light rail arrival/departure time information via text or telephone call based on the Stop Identification Number entered by the customer. Stop Identification Numbers are posted in unraised print only at bus stops and light rail stations throughout Valley Metro’s system, making the Stop Identification Number information inaccessible to customers such as L.W. who are living with blindness or low vision.

Center Staff Attorney wrote a demand letter requesting that Valley Metro: 1) adopt, implement, and post online a policy that all Valley Metro’s web-based content shall be accessible and shall conform with the WCAG 2.0 guidelines for accessibility; 2) distribute the policy to all employees and contractors who design, develop, maintain, or otherwise have responsibility for Valley Metro’s web-based content, and periodically (at least annually) evaluate employees and contractors on compliance with the policy and accessible design standards; 3) establish an advisory board for accessibility issues related to the services provided by Valley Metro and initially and thereafter, periodically (at least annually) enlist people with disabilities to test web-based content and other services for ease of use; 4) update the RideKick mobile application to make it accessible to individuals with visual disabilities in accordance with the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; and 5) make Stop Identification Numbers posted at all Valley Metro bus stops and light rail stations accessible to individuals with visual disabilities, by posting such information in Braille in an obvious and accessible location, and providing such information through alternate technologies, such as audible signage.

The Center received a response to the demand letter indicating Valley Metro generally did not oppose the requests made, and requesting a meeting to discuss. On March 24, 2016, Staff Attorney presented a proposed settlement agreement to resolve the matter and represented L.W. in a settlement meeting with Valley Metro, and subsequently provided Valley Metro a draft proposed settlement agreement. After Valley Metro substantially failed to respond to the settlement agreement, the Center extended the scope of its engagement with L.W., and drafted an administrative complaint to file with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The complaint requests that DOJ conduct a compliance review and/or investigation into this matter, and direct Valley Metro to take the same steps requested in our demand letter. Valley Metro has again expressed interest in settlement negotiations. If these negotiations are unsuccessful, the Center will file the DOJ complaint on L.W.’s behalf.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts99,256
2. Number of individuals named in class actions6

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.

B.S., J.L., and D.P. v. TTI, Inc. (dba Discount Cab)

The Center was contacted by several clients with mobility impairments who utilize power wheelchairs and have incurred ten dollar surcharges per each trip when they request taxis from Discount Cab. When asked about the additional surcharge, they were told it was a “lift fee”. This fee is cost prohibitive for many individuals who require an accessible vehicle to take a taxi trip. The Center entered into a co-counseling agreement with Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), a leading national disability rights law firm, on this case. Together, the Center and DRA prepared and submitted a letter to Discount Taxi explaining the position that charging surcharges for disability access is discriminatory and asking that the company no longer charge these surcharges to individuals who need an accessible taxi because of their disability. Discount Cab responded that since it costs more to send an accessible taxi, which is a van, to pick up a disabled person, they are allowed to charge more. Additionally, Discount Cab argues that the fee is generally applicable to all individuals who request a van.

On November 19, 2015, the Center and DRA filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Discount Cab. The Center identified an organizational plaintiff to join the lawsuit and added the Arizona Chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans of America as a party to the lawsuit. Discount Cab filed a counterclaim, seeking declaratory judgment that its policy is not discriminatory. Additionally, if the policy is found to be discriminatory, it seeks the court’s guidance on how it may discontinue on demand van service, while still maintaining accessible vehicles for provision of other transportation services. The parties have exchanged discovery requests and responsive documents. Plaintiffs have noticed several depositions of Defendants’ representatives and discovery is ongoing.

N.E. et. al. v. Arizona et. al. (“Text to 911 litigation”)

On February 11, 2016, Center Staff Attorney and Center Legal Director, counsel for the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), and Stein & Vargas filed a lawsuit on behalf of N.E, J.S., and T.G., and NAD against the State of Arizona and local agencies and its officials. N.E. and J.S. are people who were born deaf and communicate using American Sign Language (ASL), video relay, email or text message. T.G. is a person who is hard of hearing and communicates through lip reading, email, or text message. The lawsuit was filed because currently, emergency services through Arizona’s 911 system can only be obtained via a standard telephone call, a call through video relay, or a call via TTY. Persons who are deaf cannot rely on video relay to connect with 911 at all times because video relay depends on high-speed Internet, which is often unavailable in emergencies; and TTY is an obsolete technology that very few persons who are deaf still use. In addition, persons who are not deaf but have other communication disabilities cannot avail themselves of video relay to connect with 911. Furthermore, the failure to make direct and immediate access to 911 available via text message makes the 911 system inaccessible to Arizona residents who are deaf, hard of hearing, or unable to speak because of another disability. The lawsuit seeks an injunction that the 911 system be made available via text message throughout Arizona.

The Court issued an order requiring Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by June 10, 2016 and requiring that Defendants’ answers or responsive pleadings be filed by August 1, 2016.

Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an amended complaint on June 10, 2016. In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs’ counsel named the following defendants:

• State of Arizona

• ADOA

• Director of ADOA

• Arizona State Chief Information Officer

• Arizona State Budget Director

• Arizona State 911 Administrator

• Public Safety Answering Point Administrator for the Maricopa County Region

• Maricopa Association of Governments

• Maricopa County

• City of Surprise

• City of Tempe

• City of Phoenix

On July 29, 2016, City of Surprise filed a motion to dismiss, alleging Plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the lack of standing for declaratory and injunctive relief. On August 1, 2016, Defendants City of Tempe, Maricopa Association of Governments, Public Safety Answering Point Administrator for the Maricopa County Region, Maricopa County, and City of Phoenix filed joinders to join City of Surprise’s motion to dismiss. Also on August 1, 2016, the State of Arizona filed a motion to dismiss the individual State employees named defendants and ADOA, and the State filed a partial joinder in the City of Surprise motion to dismiss. The Center and co-counsel filed a brief in response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss on August 31, 2016.

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.

1. Ensure that places of public accommodation and public entities 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.

3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal:

a. Provide technical assistance or direct representation in at least four (4) negotiations and/or administrative complaints with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights and/or the U.S. Department of Justice to challenge discrimination by places of public accommodation and public entities that have refused to modify policies/procedures or refused to provide auxiliary aids or services.

b. Provide direct representation in settlement negotiations and/or litigation to ensure access to transportation services.

c. Advocate for reasonable accommodations and/or removal of physical and architectural barriers at medical treatment facilities, including doctor’s offices, hospitals, and behavioral health treatment centers.

d. Provide timely and accurate rights information to individuals.

4. Collaborative Effort: The Center currently collaborates with several law firms and non-profit organizations in its litigation efforts under this priority. Specifically, ACDL is currently co-counseling with Disability Rights Advocates (“DRA”) to represent clients in litigation against Discount Cab regarding its use of a $10 surcharge for use of an accessible taxi. The Center is also co-counseling with counsel for the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), and Stein & Vargas in current litigation regarding the failure of multiple state and governmental entities to make text to 911 services available to individuals with disabilities. Also, the Center is co-counseling the Oro Valley and Northwest Hospital structured negotiations with Andres Gallegos of the firm Robbins, Salomon, and Patt, Ltd. in Chicago, IL.

5. Center staff handled 113 cases under Priority No. 1.

6. The following (3) case summaries demonstrates the impact of this priority:

Center Staff Attorney represented G.O., a 77-year-old woman with severe arthritis who is a frequent citizen participant in County Board of Supervisors’ meetings. G.O. contacted the Center after a parking accommodation she had been receiving for years when she attended Board of Supervisors’ meetings was revoked, due to an allegation that the accommodation was improperly granted by a Supervisor as a political favor. The County revoked G.O.’s close parking space in a garage not otherwise open to the public, stating that an accommodation was not necessary due to the existence of handicapped-accessible parking in a garage that was considerably further away from the location of the meetings. Walking long distances is very difficult and painful for G.O. due to her disability. The Center prepared and sent a demand letter to the County noting that the existence of handicapped-accessible parking did not obviate the need for a reasonable modification, and requesting that it permit G.O. to park in the original parking location as a standing reasonable modification to its parking policies when G.O. attended County Board of Supervisors’ meetings. The County granted the standing reasonable modification, allowing G.O. to park in the closer garage for the cost of the parking fees she would otherwise incur parking in the further public access garage.

Center Staff Attorney represented D.F., a woman who is Deaf and whose primary language is American Sign Language (“ASL”). D.F. was offered an opportunity to participate in a court diversion program for an alleged misdemeanor offense if she did an intake and completed an 8-hour diversion class offered by Community Support Services (“CSS”). Local courts contract with CSS to offer these classes for court participants. When D.F. completed the intake, CSS provided a staff person who possessed inadequate sign language skills. Although D.F. completed the intake, she requested a qualified ASL interpreter for the full day class. CSS denied the request and stated the same person would translate at the class. Center Staff Attorney contacted CSS and requested an ASL interpreter and explained the ADA’s requirement for a qualified sign language interpreter. When CSS would not agree to the accommodation, Center Staff Attorney contacted the city attorney of the court offering the diversion program and requested that they ensure that their contract provider provide a qualified sign language interpreter. The city agreed to the reasonable accommodation request.

Center Legal Director represented J.B., an individual with a form of dwarfism who sought to attend regular driving school with the use of pedal extenders and a seat cushion, rather than be required to attend a costlier specialized evaluation and driver’s training program. When the Center’s Legal Director notified the driving school that its blanket policy of requiring individuals in need of adaptive equipment to enroll in specialized programs was likely discriminatory, the driving school responded that the requirement was part of its contract with the Arizona Department of Transportation—Motor Vehicle Division (“ADOT”). The Center wrote an ADA Title II internal complaint letter to the ADOT in care of the Attorney General's Office. The Title II internal complaint alleged that it was a violation to require all individuals with disabilities requiring adaptive equipment to enroll in the more expensive specialized evaluation and training program without an individualized determination and that individuals with pedal extenders and seat cushions would not generally warrant specialized evaluation and training. The Center then negotiated with the driving school and the ADOT regarding denial of program participation and reasonable modifications. As a result of the Center’s intervention, ADOT instructed the driving school to provide driving instruction to J.B. because a ADOT Compliance Officer had misinterpreted the scope of the service agreements with the driving schools. ADOT provided their Compliance Officer and supervisors with the correct information. ADOT further agreed that decisions regarding whether an individual with a disability needs specialized instruction and evaluation will be made on an individualized basis and that ADOT’s ADA liaison will be involved in the process. ADOT prominently placed information regarding the ADA liaison’s contact information and complaint procedures on the first page of its website. Additionally, the driving school agreed to provide J.B. with driving instruction with the use of pedal extenders and a seat cushion. J.B. enrolled in the classes and had no difficulties with the instruction and successfully completed the classes.

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. Provide technical assistance or direct representation in negotiations and/or administrative appeals and/or judicial review/actions in state court of AHCCCS denials, terminations, or reductions in services, including, but not limited to, access to medically necessary services and/or challenging restrictions to AHCCCS/ALTCS.

b. Provide timely and accurate rights information to individuals and their guardians on AHCCCS/ALTCS/DDD.

4. Pursuing this priority did not involve collaborative efforts with other entities.

5. Center staff handled 50 cases under Priority No. 2.

6. The following (2) case summaries demonstrates the impact of this priority:

Center Staff Attorney assisted O.J., an individual with Ehlers Danlose disorder and multiple chemical sensitivities. O.J. contacted the Center because she wanted a fragrance-free Personal Care Attendant to assist her with her Home Health Agency services. O.J. sent the Center documents, which a Center Staff Attorney reviewed, including letters of medical necessity, drafted by treating medical professionals. Staff Attorney edited these letters and provided comments in order to improve the letters and increase success of the request made. The Center reviewed a final letter of medical necessity from O.J.’s doctor and indicated it was sufficient for submission to her case worker with the Arizona Long Term Care System .

Center staff assisted S.W., an individual with a circulatory condition that, according to his doctor, required immediate attention. S.W. contacted the Center because he was having difficulty getting services from Cenpatico, the Regional Behavioral Health Authority, after requesting an MRI and to continue seeing his neurologist. The purpose of the MRI would be to monitor for blood clots and possible mini-strokes which were common in his medical history. However, Cenpatico wanted to remove the neurologist from S.W.’s case because Cenpatico had not yet established contracts for the healthcare portion of their integrated services. Center Short-Term Assistance Team (STAT) advocate, under supervision of an attorney, provided caller with information on requesting to "opt out" for medical coverage through Cenpatico. Caller then sought to “opt out,” which was approved by the Department of Health Services.

PRIORITY NO. 3: To reduce the discriminatory barriers which prevent qualified people with disabilities from obtaining/maintaining employment, obtaining reasonable accommodations, and working in a workplace free of unlawful harassment, retaliation, and intimidation.

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 at least two (2) representations at mediation or conciliation with the EEOC or Arizona Attorney General’s Office for cases concerning discriminatory hiring and/or employee promotion practices and failure to accommodate.

b. Provide technical assistance or direct representation in negotiations or mediation involving any private entity that offers examinations or courses related to applications, licensing, certification, or credentialing for secondary or postsecondary education, professional, or trade purposes to ensure non-discriminatory treatment.

c. Provide one (1) outreach and one (1) training event regarding discriminatory hiring practices and unlawful medical evaluations.

d. Provide timely and accurate rights information.

4. Pursuing this priority did not involve collaborative efforts with other entities.

5. Center staff handled 145 cases under Priority No. 3.

6. The following (3) case summaries demonstrates the impact of this priority:

Center Staff Attorney represented R.B., a 59-year-old woman with legal blindness who contacted the Center after she was terminated from her long-term employment with the County Department of Transportation (CDOT). R.B. had worked for CDOT very successfully for almost 17 years when, within a month of getting a new manager, and after only one in-person meeting with her new manager, RB was terminated from her position. When the job information for R.B.’s former position was posted, CDOT had revised the job description and posted announcement to require as a working condition that prospective applicants “be able to see.” Prior to contacting the Center, R.B. had filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Center assisted R.B. by preparing a rebuttal statement to support her case before the EEOC, in addition to preparing and sending a letter to CDOT alleging wrongful termination on the basis of R.B.’s disability. CDOT responded to the letter and agreed to attend private mediation. Center Staff Attorney and Legal Director represented R.B. at the mediation, which was successful in resolving the dispute. The settlement agreement required that CDOT: 1) pay $100,000 ($92,000 to R.B. for back pay, front pay, reimbursement for insurance costs, and compensatory damages, and $8,000 to the Center for attorneys’ fees); 2) change R.B.’s termination to a voluntary resignation, and remove all references to her termination from her personnel file; and 3) remove the requirement that an applicant “be able to see” from the job description for any public information officer or communications positions in the County.

Center Staff Attorney represented M.L., a person with epilepsy, which is aggravated by stress and sleep deprivation. When his employer changed the shift requirements for his position from 8 hour shifts to 12 hour shifts, M.L. asked to be returned to 8 hour shifts as a reasonable accommodation. M.L.’s employer denied this request, and notified M.L. that if he was not re-assigned to a new position within a specified timeline, he would be terminated. Soon after, M.L.’s employer posted a job opening that met his needs, but once he expressed his interest, the job opening was rescinded. Center Staff Attorney provided M.L. with guidance on his legal rights, and M.L. filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Center Staff Attorney also drafted a letter to M.L.’s employer requesting that he be re-assigned to the open position as a reasonable accommodation, and the request was granted. As a result of the Center’s intervention, M.L. was able to maintain his employment with a schedule that meets his disability-related needs.

Center Staff Attorney represented J.B., an individual who was hired as a temporary employee by Integrated Staffing Services (ISS), a staffing agency providing staffing for Amazon. J.B. is Deaf and uses a service dog who alerts him to sounds. When J.B. brought his service animal to work, he was denied access and placed on indefinite, unpaid leave while ISS engaged in the interactive process to determine if he could have his service animal at work. After providing the information that the company requested about his disability-related accommodation needs, the company still did not allow J.B. to return to work. Center Staff Attorney wrote a settlement demand letter requesting that ISS rescind the unpaid leave and allow J.B. to return to his work in the warehouse with the reasonable accommodation of his service dog. In response, ISS agreed to allow J.B. to return to work and arranged an interactive accommodation meeting to determine the details of his accommodation. Center Staff Attorney also represented J.B. at the interactive accommodation meeting at the workplace and developed a reasonable accommodation plan that included assignment to the same workstation that would keep his service dog out of heavy traffic of carts and signage that it was a working dog to be left alone. J.B. returned to work on the same day as the interactive accommodation meeting.

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 federal and state Fair Housing Act.

b. Provide technical assistance or direct representation in negotiations, 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 a least one (1) training on fair housing, Section 8, and reasonable accommodations.

4. The Center collaborated with the Southwest Fair Housing Council (SWFHC), the Arizona Fair Housing Center (AFHC), and the William E. Morris Institute for Justice on advocacy regarding access for individuals with disabilities to the City of Phoenix Section 8 Housing Program.

5. Center staff handled 85 cases under this Priority.

6. The following (2) case summaries demonstrates the impact of this priority:

Center Legal Director represented K.W., an individual with a disability who utilizes a colostomy bag. When K.W.’s colostomy bag broke in his apartment, he faced eviction as he was unable to pay more than $2,000 dollars in bio-hazardous abatement costs and to replace the bedding in his furnished apartment. K.W. contacted the Center for assistance in an upcoming eviction hearing. The Center’s Legal Director sent a request for reasonable accommodation to K.W.’s housing provider. As a result of the reasonable accommodation request, the housing providers agreed to waive the $2,000 bio-hazardous abatement services and provide a repayment plan of six monthly payments of $50 for the replacement cost of new bedding. The $50 payment was acceptable to K.W. and he could repay that amount. Because the payment plan was established and the other costs were resolved, the housing provider did not proceed with K.W.’s eviction.

Center Legal Director represented J.D., a person with a disability who lives in senior housing. J.D. has a respiratory condition that requires her to use a wheelchair, at times. When she is not using a wheelchair, she needs to use a walker and can only walk a short distance. Parking for residents in this senior housing community is available on a first come, first served basis. As a result, she must often park a far distance from the entrance to the building where her apartment is located. At times, she cannot find any parking, except on the street. Although J.D. had provided medical documentation of the need for a reasonable accommodation of a designated, accessible parking space, the manager had not approved the accommodation. Center Legal Director wrote a letter requesting that the housing program make the accommodation and reviewed updated medical information that was to be submitted to support the request. The housing provider agreed to provide a reserved parking space.

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.

1. Ensure that places of public accommodation and public entities 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 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 are made in their policies to avoid discrimination.

3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal:

a. Provide technical assistance or direct representation to challenge discrimination by places of public accommodation and public entities that have refused to modify policies/procedures or refused to provide auxiliary aids or services.

b. Provide direct representation in settlement negotiations and/or litigation to ensure access to transportation services.

c. Provide direct representation in settlement negotiations and/or litigation to remove physical barriers to accessibility.

d. Provide timely and accurate rights information.

PRIORITY NO. 2: Ensure comprehensive and appropriate healthcare care services for persons with disabilities and increase access by persons with disabilities to medical services, programs, and facilities.

1. Ensure comprehensive and appropriate healthcare care services for persons with disabilities and increase access by persons with disabilities to medical services, programs, and facilities.

2. The need addressed by this priority is to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to appropriate healthcare services which is often the key to living independently at home and in their communities.

3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal:

a. Provide technical assistance and/or direct representation for reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids and services, and/or removal of physical and architectural barriers at medical treatment facilities, including doctor’s offices, hospitals, and health treatment centers.

b. Provide timely and accurate rights information.

PRIORITY NO. 3: Reduce the discriminatory barriers which prevent qualified persons with disabilities from obtaining/maintaining employment and obtaining reasonable accommodations.

1. Persons 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 non-discriminatory hiring procedures and the provision of reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants.

3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal:

a. Provide technical assistance and/or direct representation with alternative dispute resolution for cases concerning discriminatory hiring, termination or failure to accommodate.

b. Provide timely and accurate rights information.

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

1. Persons with disabilities continue to face barriers to equal opportunity in housing. Housing providers discriminate against persons with disabilities by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to existing policies and practices, failing to design physically accessible housing, denying reasonable accommodations to dwellings, and 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 persons with disabilities.

3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal:

a. Provide technical assistance or direct representation in matters involving the failure to provide reasonable accommodations or reasonable modifications in housing.

b. Provide timely and accurate rights information to individuals about their rights under the FHA.

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

Part VI. Narrative

A. Sources of funds received and expended

Federal Funds Received: $420,730 Funds Spent: $420,730

Interest Income Funds Received: $0 Funds Spent: $0

Program Income Funds Received: $14,031 Funds Spent: $14,031

Total $434,761 $434,761

B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report

Income

Federal Grant Income: $327,707

Interest Income: $0

Program Income: $20,000

Other: $0

Total Income: $347,707

Prior Fiscal Year Current Fiscal Year

Expenses Expenses Expenses

Wages/salaries $264,376 $204,445

Fringe benefits (FICA, unemployment, etc.) $87,919 $69,443

Materials/supplies $13,469 $ 9,019

Postage $1,654 $1,562

Telephone $4,562 $3,828

Rent/Parking $27,722 $20,110

Travel $6,917 $5,515

Copying $201 $95

Bonding/insurance $5,794 $4,426

Equipment (rental/purchase) $2,724 $2,395

Legal Services $0 $0

Indirect costs $0 $0

Miscellaneous $22,955 $26,869

Total $438,293 $347,707

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

Type of Position FTE % of year filled Person Years

Professional

Full-time 4.21 100% 4.21

Part-time 0.00 0% 0.00

Vacant 0.00 0% 0.00

Total Professional 4.21 100% 4.21

Clerical

Full-time 0.82 100% 0.82

Part-time 0.00 0% 0

Vacant 0.00 0% 0

Total Clerical 0.82 100% 0.82

Total - Professional & Clerical 5.03 100% 5.03

Description of Professional Staff

Attorneys

Arizona Center for Disability Law (ACDL) attorneys provided direct representation, technical assistance and short-term assistance to PAIR clients during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016. Attorney Jessica Jansepar Ross served as the PAIR program coordinator. The attorneys allocating time to the PAIR program were responsible for determining eligibility for ACDL client services based on the agency’s policies and PAIR priorities. After determining eligibility, the attorneys provided appropriate services including: interviewed clients, reviewed records, conducted legal research, and represented clients at administrative hearings/mediations and in state and federal legal procedures.

Advocates

ACDL advocates/STAT (short-term assistance team) handle intake of new cases in PAIR priority areas, provided information and referral, 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 which may include providing self-advocacy materials.

Other

The financial staff, Grants Manager, Director of Information & Referral, Executive Director, Legal Director, and Office Manager provided support to the PAIR program during FY2016. The financial staff’s responsibilities included: budget preparation, day-to-day accounting duties, and the financial reporting requirements for the PAIR program. During FY2016, the Grants Manager developed data systems necessary to complete reports for the PAIR program, tracked the PAIR program’s activities, and compiled responses from the Consumer Satisfaction Surveys. The Grants Manager also supervised the preparation of the annual PAIR program Performance Report (PPR). The Director of Information and Referral’s responsibilities included verifying program eligibility and providing leadership and direction to the STAT. ACDL’s Phoenix office manager facilitated the distribution of support services and served as a liaison coordinating the workload between attorneys/advocates and support staff. During FY2016, Executive Director J.J. Rico and Legal Director Rose Daly-Rooney provided direct supervision for the attorneys and other staff with time allocated to the PAIR program.

Support Staff

Support staff provided clerical support to the PAIR program STAT advocates, attorneys and other PAIR program staff.

D. Involvement with Advisory Boards (if any).

The PAIR Program is not involved with any advisory boards.

E. Grievances __11___

Client: F.A.

Primary Disability: Lupus

Funding Source: PAIR

Issue: Individual requested the Center’s assistance in obtaining treatment for Lupus.

Service Provided: The Center provided assistance by sending a letter with information on filing an internal grievance, other complaint options, and referrals. Follow-up letter explained that the Center could not assist due to limited resources and provided referral list.

Grievance Filed with Legal Director: Grievance was denied due to limited resources. Contact information was provided for ACLU/National Prison Project and the Prison Law Office.

Client: A.B.

Primary Disability: Physical/Orthopedic Impairments

Funding Source: PAIR

Issue: Individual requested representation for his pending civil actions in both Federal and State Courts and copies of specific documents.

Service Provided: The Center sent a letter regarding the scope of Center services provided and inability to assist due to the lack of resources to gather and send materials. A.B. was also provided information that could help allow him to gain access to legal materials as an inmate. In a second letter, A.B. was provided contact information for National ACLU, ACLU in Arizona and the Prison Law Office.

Grievance Filed with Executive Director: Grievance denied because the Americans with Disabilities Act claims were dismissed from the lawsuit in which A.B. desired representation and due to the Center’s limited resources.

Client: A.C.

Primary Disability: Hard of Hearing/Hearing Impaired

Funding Source: PAIR

Issue: Individual felt she had been discriminated against by the AZ Board of Nursing and is requesting legal assistance to file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against the Board of Nursing and its staff member for making accusations about A.C. having a mental illness, being a drug addict and being “very” hard of hearing. A.C. believes the false information given to employers about her has caused her employment to be terminated on two occasions.

Service Provided: Director of I&R sent a letter to A.C. explaining Center’s inability to help with an EEOC Complaint due to limited resources. The Center provided attorney referral information.

Grievance Filed with Executive Director: Grievance denied due to limited resources. Unrelated, but at the request of the caller, the Center provided instructions for filing a complaint with the Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights.

Client: M.D.

Primary Disability: Deafness

Funding Source: PAIR

Issue: Individual was arrested on two separate occasions but was not provided an interpreter either time. M.D. called for information regarding rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Service Provided: Center Advocate discussed M.D.’s right to file federal ADA Title II and Section 504 Complaints through the Department of Justice and provided the DOJ telephone information, including TTY. M.D. indicated she had no address to send mail and no phone. A letter was also emailed to the caller explaining the Center’s priorities and that we could not assist with filing a complaint due to limited resources. The letter included information to assist the caller in filing the complaint personally as well as contact information for lawyer referral services.

Grievance Filed with Legal Director: Grievance denied because the statute of limitations to file an ADA lawsuit had passed.

Client: M.G.

Primary Disability: Deafness

Funding: PAIR

Issue: Individual was seeking assistance first, with an upcoming deadline for submission of documents to the Department of Health and Human Services and second, an EEOC mediation.

Service Provided: M.G. was provided with Federal Employee EEO Complaint Procedures and reasonable accommodation information and an attorney referral list. The Center sent a follow-up letter explaining the Center could not assist in filing a complaint due to limited resources. The Center’s Legal Director spoke with M.G. regarding his dissatisfaction with the Center’s unavailability to assist and sent a follow-up letter confirming that his requests were denied based on the Center’s limited resources and not because of former federal employee status or because the matter was determined to lack merit.

Grievance Filed with Executive Director: Grievance denied due to limited resources.

Grievance Filed with Board of Directors: No. M.G. filed a Discrimination Charge against the Center with an administrative agency. His charge is pending.

Client: G.L.

Primary Disability: Muscular/Skeletal Impairment

Funding: PAIR

Issue: Individual requested that the Center interview all students living in University Housing in 2010 with medical documentation to determine if he was discriminated against.

Services Provided: G.L. was provided the Center’s priorities and Advocate explained that because of limited resources, the Center would be unable to conduct such interviews. The caller was encouraged to reach out to the Center if he believes he has been discriminated against in the future. A follow-up letter was sent reiterating that the Center was unable to pursue G.L.’s claim due to limited resources as it would take significant research to determine whether Title III of the ADA and Section 504 would apply.

Grievance Filed with Legal Director: Grievance denied due to limited resources.

Client: P.M.

Primary Disability: Mental Illness and Hepatitis C

Funding: PAIR

Issue: Individual sent a letter to the Center requesting assistance in getting medical treatment for Hepatitis C to prevent cirrhosis of the liver.

Service Provided: Center Staff Attorney sent P.M. a letter updating him on status of Parsons v. Ryan lawsuit and communicated that ACDL was unable to provide individual legal representation to inmates due to limited resources. P.M. was provided with Arizona Department of Corrections grievance procedure as well as contact information for ACLU and the Prison Law Office.

Grievance Filed with Legal Director: Grievance upheld because the Center does not represent Parsons’ class members.

Client: A.M.

Primary Disability: Diabetes

Funding: PAIR

Issue: Caller was seeking assistance with filing a medical malpractice suit.

Service Provided: Advocate explained the Center’s priorities and that the Center does not provide legal services in medical malpractice claims and the Director of I&R referred her to the legal aid organization

Grievance Filed with Legal Director: Grievance denied due to the caller’s case lacking legal merit.

Client: C.R.

Primary Disability: Neurological Disorder/Impairment/Dementia

Funding: PAIR

Issue: Caller requested legal representation at a Fair Hearing.

Service Provided: Center Director of I&R explained to the caller that due to the Center’s limited resources, an attorney would not be able to attend a hearing. Client’s spouse (spouse stated he was legal guardian) was sent a letter reiterating the reason for denial along with resources to assist him in advocating on behalf of his wife.

Grievance Filed with Legal Director: Grievance denied due to lack of resources.

Client: L.S.

Primary Disability: Orthopedic/Physical Impairments

Funding: PAIR

Issue: L.S. contacted the Center seeking assistance in requesting a wheelchair, an accessible cell/bunk and wheelchair accessible transportation for appointments away from the Saguaro Correctional Center (SCC).

Service Provided: Center Staff Attorney reviewed the client’s medical records received from the law firm that represents SCC, and determined that there was not enough medical evidence to support his need for a wheelchair and therefore closed L.S.’s service request.

Grievance Filed with Legal Director: Based on second review of medical records, the Center agreed to engage in limited advocacy efforts on client’s behalf and grievance was dropped.

Client: J.S.

Primary Disability: Unknown

Funding: PAIR

Issue: J.S. sought assistance with a civil lawsuit that had been filed because medical needs were unaddressed.

Service Provided: Center Staff Attorney sent a letter to J.S. with an explanation that her issue did not fall under the Center’s adopted priorities and a Center brochure was enclosed outlining our priorities. The status of Parsons v. Ryan was also forwarded to J.S. along with contact information for the ACLU and the Prison Law Office, since this individual had issues regarding adequate healthcare in prison. Later, J.S. was given contact information for organizations that might assist with other hurdles that are faced, per J.S.’s request.

Grievance Filed with Legal Director: Grievance was denied due to lack of merit.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByJ.J. Rico
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date11/17/2016