Attendance - CDAC Members: Ting Mintz, CDAC Chair; Federico Abreu, Jean Lin; Darrell Simmons; and Deb Smith. NCD Staff: Joan Durocher, Julie Carroll, Theda Zawaiza, (Independent Contractor) and Gerrie Hawkins (Designated Federal Official). Public: Judy Draper, volunteer for Congressman Lacy Gray; and Kristin Clausen, Affiliated Computer Services, Disability and Solutions Group (U.S. Department of Labor Contractor).

I. Call to order: Dr. Hawkins, the Designated Federal Official, called the meeting to order at 3:10 pm Eastern Standard Time and welcomed all participants to the meeting.

II. Roll Call: Ting Mintz, CDAC Chair also welcomed the group and asked members, staff and the public to identify themselves.

III. Reports:

Executive Committee. Mr. Mintz reported that two executive committee meetings had been held and resulted in a determination about the number and type of workgroups needed to carry out the next action steps, discuss a proposed need for a communications coordinator, and identify information about the committee and its work that needed to be sent to NCD's new CDAC liaison, Milton Aponte. Mr. Mintz has conversed with him and indicated that Mr. Aponte will be contacting individual members, as time and circumstances permit and hopes also to arrange an introductory call with the full group of CDAC members. Dr. Hawkins will assume responsibility for briefing Mr. Aponte prior to NCD's March 2003 quarterly meeting in the Washington, DC area.

Reauthorization Workgroup. Dr. Smith reported that ongoing work has included the monitoring of laws pertaining to people with disabilities such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Higher Education Act that are expected to be the subject of Congressional deliberations. However, at the time of this February public meeting there was little activity on Capitol Hill pertaining to the two laws.

Cultural Diversity Initiative (CDI) Workgroup. Dr. Zawaiza reported in Dr. Leung's absence stating that the workgroup was very active during the past month. They reviewed the CDI literature review and submitted written comments as well as gave timely and substantive input on the design of the CDI resource mapping tool. The tool will be used by the nine federal agencies included in the initiative to identify disability and diversity funding and programs. Next steps include assisting with the design and development of the CDI forum agenda.

Communications and Outreach Workgroup. Dr. Simmons reported that the CDAC fact sheet is nearing completion. Based on Dr. Zawaiza's outline and input from CDAC members, Dr. Hawkins drafted a preliminary document for feedback. Feedback from CDAC members led to the determination that several important pieces still need to be added and the issue of graphics and accessibility must be addressed. The workgroup considers the fact sheet to be a basic marketing and outreach tool that can be given wide dissemination. Next steps include review of a final draft, creating a dissemination plan and involvement in identifying potential forum participants and outreach.

IV. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Dialogue - In preparation for this segment of the meeting, CDAC members read background material compiled by discussion leaders Julie Carroll and Joan Durocher, NCD policy team attorney advisors. The disability community has identified several issues that raise concern about implications of cases decided by the Supreme Court under the ADA since 1990. Definitional, direct threat, and constitutional issues were selected for this teleconference.

Ms. Durocher recapped the definitional issue and how the court has limited who is protected under the ADA. Examples were the Sutton cases that held corrective and mitigating measures must be considered in determining one to be a person with a disability under the ADA. In one case the court decided an individual's high blood pressure was no longer a disability because medication corrected the condition. If a disability is corrected by medication or an assistive device, ADA protections are not available unless the condition still substantially limits or the person is substantially limited in a major life activity. For example, if an individual is regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, plaintiff must show that employer believed the limitation affected a range of jobs in various classes or a class of jobs, not just a single, particular job. This has the illogical result of permitting employers to terminate a person from a job because of a physical or mental condition and then to argue the condition is not serious enough to constitute a disability. This has been called the ADA Catch-22.

Ms. Carroll indicated that direct threat was at the heart of the Chevron v. Echazabal case. The court held that the EEOC regulation allowing employers to refuse to hire applicants because their performance on the job would endanger their own health due to a disability is permissible under the ADA. A result was the dismissal of a person from employment based on the company's determination that the individual's disability was a threat to himself. Discussion included concerns as follows: (1) People without disabilities have demonstrated tendency to think that people with disabilities are a threat just by their very being; (2) Combination of direct threat and definition court decisions now pose the potential for employers to discriminate broadly on the basis of a person having a disability; (3) Result s may be detrimental to independent living and choice for people with disabilities; (4) The negative impact on people with mental disabilities may be disproportionate; and (5) There have already been lower court cases ruling that an individual with hearing loss, who uses a hearing aid, might be a direct threat to himself on the job, but is not protected from disability discrimination because of the hearing aids.

A constitutionality issue before the court seeks to limit Congress' right to pass laws that affect states and limit citizen's ability to sue states for monetary damages. In the case of Board of Regents of the University of Alabama v. Garrett a state employee sued her employer for discrimination based on disability. However, the Supreme Court decided that Title I of the ADA was unconstitutional and in effect, state employees can no longer sue states for monetary damages; in some cases individuals can still sue for injunctive relief [court can tell the employer to stop the discriminatory actions that the employee alleged]. Another case is on the docket for June 2003 that will determine whether Title II of the ADA is unconstitutional. After a brief discussion and an exchange of questions and answers, several concerns were identified, including that:

(1) People with disabilities from diverse cultures who have only in recent years begun to gain better awareness of protections and rights under federal laws such as the ADA may feel they have lost ground, depending on how the court rules;

(2) Some of the decisions may already be confusing to people from diverse cultures in disproportionate numbers when compared with the general population, particularly people who have language barriers, whose cultural traditions have different notions of disability as a concept than the larger American society, and with whom advocates working within diverse communities have spent recent years building a level of trust that might be diminished through what can seem to be contradictory messages-one from the advocates and proponents of ADA, another message coming from some of the court decisions;

(3) A wide range of programs and services that states define as state entities, such as schools, universities, hospitals, government, and others to which Title II guarantees access may be adversely impacted; (2) if the court finds in favor of states and against people with disabilities a result could be that state governments subsequently show very little compliance with the ADA and there would seem to be virtually no ramifications in the absence of citizens' being able to sue the state; and (3) several states are organizing to get signatures of their attorney generals for briefs before the Supreme Court, arguing that Title II is constitutional.

V. New Business:

• Dr. Hawkins reported that the CDAC charter was renewed in January for two years.

A discussion ensued about the feasibility of two kinds of a listservs being made available for broad participation and diverse representation. The purpose would be to provide a vehicle for interested parties to stay abreast and involved with disability issues that impact people from diverse cultures. Further discussion about procedures for carrying out this type of listserv would be considered by the Communications and Outreach workgroup. There was agreement that a CDAC member listserv could be used as a pipeline for a free-flowing exchange of ideas and issues among CDAC members, also.

VI. Announcements

• Participants were apprised of a summit on Medicaid in Educational Settings. Hosts are the Southeast Regional Resource Center and Great Lakes Regional Resource Center for the conference to be held at the Westin Hotel Airport Atlanta, GA, May 12 - 14, 2003 [http://edla.aum.edu/serrc/medicaidflyer.html]
• The upcoming National Association of Multicultural Rehabilitation Concerns (NAMRC) July 24-27, 2003 Training Conference is in New Orleans, Louisiana. NAMRC's mission is "to advocate the rehabilitation needs of multicultural persons with disabilities to ensure the provision of quality and equitable services and to enhance the development of multicultural rehabilitation professionals." CDAC members expressed encouragement to Dr. Leung who will participate in the NAMRC conference in the capacity of president-elect. For additional information access: http://www.rcepv.siu.edu/namrc/conf-info-03.htm
• Mr. Mintz said he was exploring potential funding sources for independent attendance at the NAMRC conference. His funding search is an initiative independent of NCD.
• Ms. Lin shared an example of an effective local and state level outreach activity she has led in the California area that served as an opportunity for non-traditional partnerships. The participants have been people who are traditionally unserved and/or underserved member of diverse communities
• Dates for upcoming public meetings will be made known to committee members via e-mail. The public will be informed via the required 30-day Federal Register notice.

VI. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 pm Eastern Standard Time.