[blindlaw] Home-grown judicial information system possible barrier to judgeship pro tem

[James T. Fetter]

Elizabeth,

First of all, let me express my outrage at how you were treated. I 
suppose the particularly outrageous part is the nonchalant manner in 
which one of the panelists discussed how blind employees at a hospital 
"had to be let go," when the hospital CHOSE to install an inaccessible 
system. No, they did not *have* to be let go; the hospital had to--or 
should have had to--procure an accessible system. That attitude speaks 
volumes.

Something very similar happened to me at a firm that I will not name on 
a list. The firm came up with other reasons, but it was painfully 
obvious that the inaccessibility of their document management system, 
and unwillingness to spend any money to fix it, were the real reasons. 
At least I suppose you have the benefit of knowing that you are being 
eliminated, because they do not want to lift a finger to make their 
system accessible or think outside the box about how to make things work.

Are judges in your state elected? Maybe you should run and unseat one of 
these clowns who are now evaluating you. They couldn't very well refuse 
to accommodate you at that point.

Yours in solidarity,

James


On 6/18/2019 10:27 PM, Elizabeth Rene via BlindLaw wrote:
> Hi folks,
> What do you think of this?
> I interviewed May 24 for the position of Judge pro tempore in the Seattle Municipal Court. I came as prepared as I could be to discuss how I might interact with the existing judicial information system as an intermittent, on-call presider, realizing the potential accommodation issues, should they arise, would be different were I to have been elected as a sitting judge.
> I came with excellent references and a solid resume, and the interview went as I expected it would in all other respects. The panel was forthright in asking me questions about how I would interact with their in-house-designed judicial information system, which every judge used in all proceedings. I mentioned that I had access to blind judges across the country, and that I would have contacted them but for intensive litigation I was involved in earlier in the month. They responded that the construction of their system was proprietary information and that those judges wouldn’t have been able to anticipate that anyway. One judge, a former hospital administrator, spoke of how her hospital had installed a new medical information system that could not be used by their blind employees, and that these employees had had to be let go. When asked how I thought I might use their system, I suggested that my iPad had everything I would need for accessibility if I could use it to tap into their system for purposes of presiding. They told me that their IT specialist would contact me to discuss whether this was feasible.
> In my thank you letter to the panel, I let them know that Apple’s accessibility team had expressed a commitment to help sync my iPad to the SMC network, and that they had prior experience of working with blind people and secure information systems. I offered to speak with any IT specialist they had to see what the possibilities might be. A human resources officer replied to my email saying that my suggestion was premature and that I would be contacted, after all reference and background checks had been made, if I were deemed qualified for the spot. I haven’t heard anything since from the SMC, though my references have written to me to say they had sent in their comments. All of these lawyers, and a former SMC judge I’d regularly prosecuted before, gave me glowing reviews.
> This is not a request for legal advice. But I wonder what you all think about the idea of tackling a potential technological barrier to performance in the initial interview. Wouldn’t that have been more appropriate once an initial decision had been made that I was otherwise qualified and should be considered for an offer? My concern is that until the accessibility issue is decided, no blind jurist can sit on the Seattle Municipal Court bench regardless of merit. Right now I don’t know whether they found a better lawyer to hire or whether I have been eliminated because of the accessibility issue.
> Thoughts? I’m going to ask my references what they think too.
> Thanks,
> Elizabeth
>
>
> Elizabeth M René
> Attorney at Law
> WSBA #10710
> KCBA #21824
> rene0373 at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jtfetter%40yahoo.com