WWW.USDOJ.GOV

"We appreciate the work of the National Council on Disability and will closely review its report on the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"As the National Council on Disability recognized, this Administration has consistently asserted its strong support for the civil rights of people with disabilities. We, at the Department of Justice, have conducted a strong, vigorous, and effective ADA program. But we realize there is more work to do.

"Since the law took effect we have reached hundreds of settlements improving access across the country and have engaged in an extensive effort to educate the public about the law. But, we recognize that many people with disabilities continue to face barriers in their daily lives. And we regret we do not have sufficient resources to address every ADA violation that is brought to our attention.

"Since the start of this Administration, the Justice Department's ADA enforcement budget has more than doubled. And in FY 2000, the Administration requested nearly 30 new positions. Although the Council's report recognizes the progress we have made, we agree that an even greater amount of resources will enable us to process more complaints and collect more data.

"Over the past 10 years, we have worked closely with the Department of Transportation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, all of which have the most extensive obligations under the ADA. We have coordinated our efforts to insure that all ADA policies and enforcement positions are developed and implemented comprehensively and consistently. While we do not agree with the Council's report on this issue, we will certainly see what additional steps we can take.

"Our ADA enforcement program is national in scope and focuses on the fundamental issues affecting persons with disabilities. Our priority has been to develop the law expansively. We have sought every opportunity to educate courts on the ADA's requirements. As the Report recognizes, the Justice Department has taken strong and appropriate policy positions on various issues in cases it has litigated."

In courts across the country we have argued that:

• The ADA's definition of disability is comprehensive - covering individuals without regard to whether their condition is mitigated by medication, devices or appliances as well as covering people who live with HIV.

• The ADA applies to each and every activity of State and local government, including prisons, arrest procedures, zoning, and residential and nursing home facilities.

• The ADA covers the terms and conditions of insurance policies.

"In carrying out our enforcement program, we have used our limited resources strategically - industry by industry - to maximize compliance nationally. We often have used complaints from individuals with disabilities as the catalyst for seeking nationwide compliance. For example:

Ensuring new construction is accessible and usable

The ADA's new construction requirements are far reaching, and if implemented correctly, will ensure access for generations of people with disabilities to come. Soon after the law took effect, we found that buildings were not being designed correctly. In deciding how to proceed, we studied the building industry to determine what types of facilities were being built over the last decade.

• Establishing architect liability: We have insured that designers of new buildings are responsible for insuring they comply with the ADA. (United States v. Ellerbe Becket)

• Establishing franchiser liability for new hotel construction: Through extensive litigation, we established the principle that franchisers who are involved in the design and construction of new hotels are responsible for complying with the ADA. (United States v. Days Inns of America). We pursued this case vigorously because we understood the significant amount of new construction occurring in the hotel industry in the last decade and we recognized that approximately 25% of the complaints we received involved hotels.

• Establishing the principle of "line of sight over standing spectators": We have revolutionized stadium design throughout the industry. In new stadiums, wheelchair users can now see the playing field along with everyone else. We focused on stadium design because there has been a significant increase in construction of new sports stadia across the country in the past decade. (United States v. Ellerbe Becket, 1996 agreement with the Atlanta Committee on the Olympic Games)

• Establishing the principle of "comparable sight lines" in stadium-style movie theaters: Stadium-style seating is the wave of the future in movie theater design -- thousands are being built across the country. In many theaters, wheelchair users are now relegated to the front row. We have attacked this problem by suing two of the largest chains in the industry. (United States v. AMC Entertainment, Inc.; United States v. Cinemark USA, Inc.). We also opened several investigations of other national chains.

Focusing on fundamental barriers to effective communication

• Insuring that 9-1-1 emergency centers are accessible: Access to 9-1-1 can be a matter of life or death. People who are deaf, hard-of hearing or who have speech impairments have the right to depend on quick and effective 9-1-1 service. Our litigation established that direct access to 9-1-1 requires every call taking position to have a telecommunication device for deaf persons (TDD/TTY). (Miller v. District of Columbia) We surveyed more than 500 9-1-1 centers across the country to ensure that direct, effective access is provided.

• Establishing the principle that professional courses must provide sign-language interpreters: In our first ADA lawsuit, we sued a national company that prepares over 10,000 students annually to take the certified public accounting exam, challenging its auxiliary aid policies. (United States v. Becker C.P.A. Review); (United States v. Harcourt Brace Legal and Professional Publications, Inc. consent decree)

Providing Freedom from Unnecessary Isolation in Institutions
and Prohibiting Unnecessary Inquiries into Disability

• Establishing that unjustified isolation of people with disabilities in institutions is discrimination under the ADA: Our ADA regulation covering state and local government requires placement in "the most integrated setting appropriate" for an individual. In 1994, we argued that this regulation requires states to make reasonable modifications to policies or procedures when individuals with disabilities are inappropriately placed in public nursing homes or institutions. In 1999 the Supreme Court endorsed this position in Olmstead v. L.C.

• Establishing the principle that overly broad questions about an individual's mental health history violate the ADA: By challenging overly broad inquiries by State licensing officials of applicants for professional licenses (law and medicine), we spurred reform efforts nationwide. We argued, in Florida, New Jersey and Virginia cases that broad questions about an individual's history of treatment or counseling for mental, emotional and nervous conditions that do not focus on an applicant's current fitness to practice in a given profession violate the ADA.

"We are proud of our efforts to enforce the ADA over the past 10 years. Our record reflects a comprehensive, coordinated and aggressive strategy to achieve access for all Americans with disabilities."

00-369