[nfbmi-talk] Fw: what more needs to be said

[joe harcz Comcast]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Kisiel, Lisa (LARA) 
To: MCB2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV 
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: what more needs to be said


May I please ask that when referring to persons with a disability that we first remember the person meaning "a person who is blind, or a person who is deaf".  I am very offended at being referred to as "the blind".  The last I knew I was not a window shade, but rather a person who is vision impaired.  

 

Thanks so much.  I do appreciate it and as we are all reminded so often of being sensitive to rights of others and our responsibilities.  This person first language should be automatic.

 

Have a great weekend all. 

 

Lisa Kisiel

Assistant Regional Manager

Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor

Michigan Commission for the Blind

420 E Alcott

Kalamazoo, MI.  49001

269-337-3238-253

Fax 269-382-6836

Main office # 269-337-3875-254

PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO ME AND THIS EMAIL IS NOT ANSWERED WITHIN 24 HOURS PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL MY OFFICE.  I AM ON THE ROAD AND OFTEN DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO MY EMAIL.  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michigan Comm for the Blind Vision 20/20 List [mailto:MCB2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV] On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 1:01 PM
To: MCB2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV
Subject: Fw: what more needs to be said

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: joe harcz Comcast 

To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org 

Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 12:59 PM

Subject: what more needs to be said

 

Now here we have a deaf worker who wins a land mark Title I case related to effective communications. Yet, the blind in this state even from the very commission for the Blind do not get timely delivery of accessable printed information coverred by the very same effective communications requirements of the ADA and indeed, Section 504.

 

Clients don't get it. Employees who are blind don't get this information in a timely and most accessible manner. Nor, do employees who are blind.

 

And supplying one thing or even a number of items after continued requests just isn't good enough. It is a continuing obligation and we should not have to fight for every scrap of paper over and over again.

 

Lord even blind commmissioners don't get timely and accessible information upon request.

 

And again for the record no financial data whatsoever has been forthcoming from MCB since June. None, nada, nothing.

 

Yet they, MCB wishes to have blind customers, operators, and all to remit this or that form or this or that item in time or they arbitrarily sanction like say pulling a license of a BEP operator.

 

IAgain neither MCB nor its nominal parents in LARA provide any information in a timely and accessable manner. It is a maddening paper chase.

 

What is more maddening is that the first place to be fully accessible is the federally funded state agency funded and designed for this very purpose, namely MCB and all other VR entities. Yet, this case was against a private company. What in the world is wrong with our government entities in not following these decades long civil rights laws? And why in the Sam Hill aren't heads rolling and people and institutions being sued?

 

Joe

The following press release is forwarded to you by the Great Lakes ADA Center (
www.adagreatlakes.org)
for your information:

 

PRESS RELEASE
12-14-11

 

UPS Unit to Pay $95,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

 

Deaf Worker Was Denied Sign Language Interpreter

 

LOS ANGELES - UPS Supply Chain Solutions (UPS SCS) will pay $95,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that UPS SCS, a business unit of the United Parcel Service, the world's largest package
delivery company, unlawfully denied a reasonable accommodation to a deaf employee.

 

According to the EEOC's suit, from 2001 to 2009, Mauricio Centeno worked at the UPS SCS facility in Gardena, Calif., as a junior clerk in the accounting
department. Deaf since birth, Centeno's primary language is American Sign Language (ASL), and he struggles to understand written English. Although aware
of his impairment, UPS SCS supervisors continuously denied Centeno his requested reasonable accommodation of a sign language interpreter for training,
departmental staff meetings and other work-related sessions. Instead, supervisors required that he attend the meetings and counseled him about his performance
without such an interpreter. According to the EEOC, UPS SCS sometimes provided written notes and summaries, but this did not adequately accommodate him
due to his lack of proficiency in written English.

 

The EEOC filed suit in September 2006 [EEOC v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Case No. CV 06-06210 ABC (Ex)], arguing that UPS SCS failed to reasonably accommodate
Centeno, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA prohibits discrimination in employment due to one's disability and
requires that employers provide an employee or job applicant with a reasonable accommodation that is actually effective, unless doing so would cause significant
difficulty or expense for the employer. In this case, UPS SCS did not cite cost as a factor in the decision to deny consistent use of a sign language interpreter.

 

In November 2008, the EEOC appealed a decision by the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, to grant UPS SPS motion for summary judgment
to dismiss the EEOC's suit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals not only reversed the lower court's ruling, but also held that employers must provide reasonable
accommodations to employees with disabilities even if the accommodations are for benefits and privileges (such as staff meetings) that are not essential
functions of the job.

 

Aside from the monetary relief, the three-year consent decree settling the suit requires UPS SCS to adhere to the following provisions for its operations
in California:

 

·         Designate an ADA Coordinator to review and revise policies with respect to reasonable accommodations;

 

·         Ensure that deaf or hard-of-hearing employees understand their right to receive effective accommodations and do receive them;

 

·         Engage in the interactive process with employees who request accommodations, including face-to-face meetings to discuss potential accommodations;

 

·         Provide prompt and thorough investigation of complaints of disability discrimination and/or retaliation;

 

·         Conduct live sensitivity training on how to accommodate deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals for all supervisors and managers, with enhanced training
for those in the human resources and occupational health departments;

 

·         Create and maintain an accommodation log to track the handling of accommodation requests; and

 

·         Post a notice of the consent decree at each facility.

 

"For years, Maurice Centeno sat in silence during meetings while his supervisors ignored his requests for a sign language interpreter," said Anna Park,
regional attorney for the EEOC's Los Angeles District Office. "We commend UPS SCS for recognizing that workers with disabilities have the right to the
same benefits and privileges of employment enjoyed by those without disabilities, and for working to provide effective accommodations in the future."

 

Olophius E. Perry, district director for the EEOC's Los Angeles District Office, added, "It is critical that employers engage in the interactive process,
an extended dialogue about how to best provide an accommodation. It is during this crucial process that employers will learn the most effective method
to accommodate employees with disabilities."

 

The EEOC is the federal agency that enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the
agency's website at
www.eeoc.gov.