[blindlaw] Format Question

[Kathleen Hagen]

I think that the people who filed the suit are interested in getting the 
notices in any way that is accessible.  At this point the only concessions 
they make for getting material to a blind person is that it can be sent by 
registered mail, or, if you've gotten the notice, you can call and have 
someone read it to you.  This is outrageous!  Even if, as most of us do, we 
get our mail read, or scan it ourselves etc., as soon as it comes, it still 
goes beyond understanding that in this day and age SSA doesn't have the 
technology to send notices in alternative format.  SSA is moving toward 
electronic filing of records in a case.  Given how many problems I've had 
with electronic case management in federal court cases, I'm not looking 
forward to it.  The only thing that SSA seems to provide is public 
information, including what we refer to as the Redbook, updated annually. 
And, just to put the frosting on the cake, so to speak, EEOC has just been 
successful in getting a class action certified against SSA involving (I 
can't remember what they called it) but persons with visible 
disabilities-deaf, blind, people with partial or complete paralysis, etc. 
And why was it necessary to certify a class of persons with disabilities? 
Well, you see, while SSA does hire people with disabilities, they don't 
promote them into mid or upper management.  The class representative has 
worked for SSA for almost 30 years.  He is deaf and has been overlooked for 
promotion dozens of times.
Kathy Hagen
Kathy Hagen
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "McCarthy, Jim" <JMcCarthy at nfb.org>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Format Question


> Maybe someone is closer to the case than am I, but my understanding was
> that the ACB and others are concerned with paper notices an dnot with
> web access.  One can imagine a day when we can access social security
> notices from our personal accounts on the web but so far the agency has
> not moved to that sort of aproach.
> Jim McCarthy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf Of b75205 at gmail.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:26 PM
> To: Dennis Clark; blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Format Question
>
> Dennis:
>
> The ACB lawsuit is against Social Security and they are the ones doing
> the "hand holding" as they are concentrating on making everything turned
> into text but unformatted text or text made from PDF files is usually a
> mess, especially if it was created using a mac in InDesign and
> translated into a PDF file on a Windows based computer and then turned
> into a text file. You see this stuff all the time, and it looks like
> people just do not care but in reality they did not consider the
> transition from one format to the other.
>
> The NFB lawsuit is great, it finally breaches the gap from the public to
> the private sector. I tried to do this with the National Voter
> Registration form by showing that if the states were willing to deny the
> right to vote to people because they made their voter registration forms
> incaccessible then we could use the laws of the Voting Rights Act to
> force Integration under the Civil rights Act of 1964 which enables the
> 14th Amendment Section
> 2 to be imposed upon the states if they do not comply, and this would to
> everyone in the state, not just the public sector.
>
> Social Security was required to be accessible to the blind 35 years ago
> under the Rehabiliation Act of 1973. There is no excuse. They were
> required to do this in 1998 under Section 508 of the Rehabiliation Act
> and here is the law.
> http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=3
> What we need here is a review of accessibility law and make sure
> everyone understands that the federal government mandated accessibility
> years ago and nobody has complied.
>
> And they have not complied because IT people refuse to do it. It is that
> simple. Managers have been told that it is too expensive or that it is
> impossible. That's Bull. It can be done and it can be done when people
> make the documents, and the only thing preventing accessibility is the
> knowledge of how to do it and the pride of IT officials who do not know
> how to do it and refuse to budge and learn.
>
> The Target lawsuit is so out of whack I cannot beleive it. The problem
> with Target is that they probably are using an old database and so they
> would have to get a new one. Chances are they have not updated their
> software.
> That could be rather expensive but they will have to do it anyway, just
> for security issues alone. Target has always had a corporate mentality
> of being able to do anything they want and so when the federal
> government mandates things to them, they tend to consider it a nuisance
> and so they are not handling this well at all. You would think that
> given they just lost the case they would have fixed their site by now,
> but they haven't. And what is amazing is that it is so easy to do this.
> Accessibility is easy to those who know how to do it. This is what
> accessibility gets down to is using new software and having the right
> people who know how to write code properly create the websites with the
> idea that accessibility is the prime issue.
>
> Many people in IT think that if you make a website standards compliant
> that that makes it accessible, but you have to put accessibility
> features into the site.
> Of coure Targets site is not web standards compliant. No, Target needs
> to fire its IT People and hire people who will keep them out of
> lawsuits. The costs of the lawyers and the settlement could have been
> put into updating their database and hiring people to fix their site.
> Also if they fix their site they would be able to use it on Cell phones
> and Iphones. The transition to Web 2 is almost the same requirements to
> start a website to accessibility, so Target is still in the dark ages of
> web design.
>
> This is such a waste.
>
> The reality of Accessibility is that it shows that IT people have no
> clue what they are doing and they are getting caught. They are getting
> caught being unprofessional, they are getting caught writing code that
> is written badly, they are illiterate when it comes to writing computer
> code.
>
> They are leaving their corporations out to dry.
>
> James Pepper
> On Dec 9, 2008 9:25am, Dennis Clark <dennisgclark at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>>
>> Good to see you on the list. I lost track of you after law school, and
>
>> I
> am happy to see that the bar exam is behind you and that you are now in
> practice. In your message you referred to another "ACB, let's all hold
> blind folks hands, as they cannot help themselves lawsuit." I assume you
> are referring to the law suit against Target and that was actually
> launched with the support of the NFB and litigated by the Disability
> Rights Advocates in California. I am personally pleased that the NFB did
> this, but I will admit I am aggressive on this point, and I have no
> problem forcing even private entities such as Target to be fully
> accessible to the blind.
> The Target action can of course be argued as "hand holding," since there
> are alternatives for reading any website, such as using a reader, or the
> free market solution of simply shopping at a store which demonstrates
> that it wants the business of blind people by offering an accessible
> website, but I don't subscribe to that argument. After all, everything
> is accessible if we use sighted assistance, but the accessibility
> alternative needs to be practical, not just plausible.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Forcing the Social Security Administration to provide accessible
> communications is an even easier philosophical question for me, because
> unlike Target, the government is not a private entity. There are many
> shopping alternatives available to us other than Target, but we are
> forced to interact with the Social Security Administration.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, the Social Security Administration use to telephone blind
> recipients to tell them about any problems or written communications
> being mailed to them, so we are not asking them to do something new or
> unworkable. I know for a fact that this was true in 2004, because I
> represented someone before the Social Security Administration, and this
> procedure was already in place and was offered as part of the solution
> to my client's problem.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As a matter of law, and in addition to the 504 argument, I think a
>> strong
> constitutional argument can be made as a matter of due process if it is
> the case that there is a property interest in Social Security payments.
> It is likely that there is no property interest in SSI payments, but I
> am confident there is with SSDI and retirement payments since they
> result from money paid into Social Security by the recipient.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I look forward to hearing others thoughts on this matter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net>
>>
>>
>> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:22 PM
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Format Question
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I actually agree with you. I am more concerned about the lack of
>> activity
> regarding inaccessible web sites and the use of sucdh formats such as
> captia and flash formats where image text is presented not bering
> readable by screen readers.
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " joramsey at cox.net>
>>
>>
>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:09 AM
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Format Question
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Chuck,
>>
>>
>> I have no dispute that we should be able to receive communications in
>> an
>>
>>
>> accessible format, but I am just not ready for another ACB, let's all
>> hold
>>
>>
>> blind folks hands, as they cannot help themselves lawsuit.
>>
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gainesville, FL 32609
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Phone: (352) 505-6642
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>>
>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>
>> On
>>
>>
>> Behalf Of ckrugman at sbcglobal.net
>>
>>
>> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:41 AM
>>
>>
>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Format Question
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Its interesting because I recall many years ago that SSA used to say
>> that
>>
>>
>> materials were available in Braille and people could receive
> communications
>>
>>
>> from them in Braille. This was back in the 60's when I was growing up.
> I'm
>>
>>
>> not sure what the extent of this was or if or when it was
> discontinued.
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathleen Hagen" khagen12 at q.com>
>>
>>
>> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 1:24 PM
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Format Question
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John, There is a certified class for blind social security recipients
>>
>>
>> in
>>
>>
>> which they are suing the SSA for accessible documents. That does not
> mean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> that SSA is providing alternative formats for consumer's materials
> yet.
>>
>>
>> And they probably won't for some time while they spend the taxpayers'
>>
>>
>> money figuring out how to avoid it. They do hire blind people and they
>>
>>
>> provide general materials in braille at least. But your friend
> shouldn't
>>
>>
>> expect to see her consumer-related material in alternative format any
> time
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> soon.
>>
>>
>> Kathy Hagen
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " joramsey at cox.net>
>>
>>
>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 11:09 AM
>>
>>
>> Subject: [blindlaw] Format Question
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>>
>> i am on another NFB list and an individual seems to be under the
>>
>>
>> impression
>>
>>
>> that the Social Security Administration is violating her rights
> because
>>
>>
>> she
>>
>>
>> received the cost of living increase letter in the same format that
>>
>>
>> everyone
>>
>>
>> else receives the notice. Apparently this is just a standard letter in
> a
>>
>>
>> standard envelope. I am personally not aware of any law that requires
> an
>>
>>
>> entity to send "accessible" letters to everyone that might have a
> visual
>>
>>
>> disability. If this is the law, can someone point me to the section of
>>
>>
>> the
>>
>>
>> CFR that contains such a requirement?
>>
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gainesville, FL 32609
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Phone: (352) 505-6642
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> blindlaw mailing list
>>
>>
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>
>>
>> blindlaw:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/khagen12%40q.c
> om
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> blindlaw mailing list
>>
>>
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>
>>
>> blindlaw:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbc
> glob
>>
>>
>> al.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> blindlaw mailing list
>>
>>
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>
>>
>> blindlaw:
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox
> .net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> blindlaw mailing list
>>
>>
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>
> blindlaw:
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbc
> global.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> blindlaw mailing list
>>
>>
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>
> blindlaw:
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dennisgclark%4
> 0sbcglobal.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> blindlaw mailing list
>>
>>
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>
> blindlaw:
>>
>>
>>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b75205%40gmail
> .com
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jmccarthy%40nf
> b.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> blindlaw:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/khagen12%40q.com
>