Similarly, as a result of the advocacy efforts of the Texas P&A, the City of Houston has agreed to significantly improve the way its municipal court system, police department, and jail communicate with people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Employment

For too long, people with disabilities -- particularly people with severe disabilities -- have been kept out of the workforce. But P&As are changing that. In a precedent setting case, the Wisconsin P&A represented an individual with severe cognitive dis-abilities who was fired from his job as a janitor because, according to the restaurant chain's regional manager, the chain did not employ "those kind of people." The jury returned its verdict on damages, awarding $10,000 in back pay, $70,000 in compensatory damages, and $13 million in punitive damages. The $13 million award (later capped because of statutory limits to $230,000) represents the largest monetary relief awarded by a jury in a case brought under the ADA. More significant is the landmark finding that a person with a disability in supported employment assisted by a job coach is a "qualified individual with a disability" as defined by the ADA. The New Hampshire P&A recently filed a similar case on behalf of a restaurant dishwasher with mental retardation. The lawsuit alleges that the employee was subjected to daily physical and verbal abuse - such as calling him offensive names, putting him in a headlock, and pulling down his pants in front of other workers -- and was ultimately fired because of his disability.

P&As often resolve discriminatory employment practices without having to resort to litigation. The New Jersey P&A collected over 100 employment applications from national food chains and retail establishments and examined each application for questions that impermissibly elicited information about an applicant's disability. Over 80% of the applications asked at least one impermissible question. The P&A successfully encouraged 24 of these employers to voluntarily change their applications, and has filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against employers who refused to do so. P&As in Arizona and Illinois implemented similar campaigns in the past.

The Arizona P&A has launched an ADA Employment hotline to better serve Arizonans with disabilities who have questions and concerns about their employment rights under the ADA and similar state and federal civil rights laws.

The hotline attorney provides information and advice, reviews documents, and writes letters on behalf of callers. Typical responses to hotline calls include advising people on how to file charges with the EEOC, the most effective way to collect and present information to the EEOC for consideration during the investigation, giving information about how to make a written request for accommodations, brainstorming about possible accommodations, making referrals to sources for assistance with accommodation development, and explaining an employee's or applicant's rights when he or she tests positive for a lawfully prescribed medication on a drug test. The hotline was recently expanded to answer questions from clients and applicants of the state vocational rehabilitation system and will soon also offer advice about Social Security work incentives and alternate service providers. Each hotline caller receives a letter summarizing the advice given by the hotline attorney, self-advocacy guides or other materials, and an invitation to attend one of the Center's training sessions.

Enforcing Olmstead

Since June 1999, a major focus of P&A work has been to ensure responsible enforcement of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. In Olmstead, the Supreme Court stated that it is discrimination under the ADA to unnecessarily institutionalize individuals with disabilities. Nationwide, P&As are taking a leadership role in educating disability advocates and policy members about systemic changes in long term care delivery that must occur in order for states to comply with the Olmstead decision.

When voluntary compliance appears unlikely, P&As have used the federal courts to demand Olmstead compliance. P&As in California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington, have filed ADA complaints on behalf of individuals in psychiatric hospitals, developmental disabilities centers and nursing facilities, who could receive the same or better services in their own communities, close to family and friends.

Olmstead enforcement not only requires moving people out of institutions and into the community, but also must include prevention of unnecessary institutionalization in the first place. Across the country P&As are representing individuals who, while not currently institutionalized, are struggling in the community without the Medicaid community supports they are eligible to receive, placing them at risk of unnecessary institutionalization. Within the past year, the Arizona, Native American, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania P&As have been involved in litigation alleging that it is a violation of the ADA to keep their Medicaid community-based programs so small and underfunded that people eligible for these services must wait unreasonable amounts of time before they can receive any services.

A recent settlement negotiated by the Oregon P&A is typical of what P&A litigation can accomplish on behalf of these individuals faced with no Medicaid services and long waits. The Oregon P&A represented individuals who were eligible for community-based supports under the State Medicaid Plan but were placed on a waiting list and not offered medically necessary care for up to six years. The P&A argued that it violates the ADA integration mandate for states to restrict access to services funded under the federal Medicaid program and/or to fail to provide such services in the most integrated setting consistent with the individual's needs. The lawsuit settled when the state signed an agreement to provide appropriate services with reasonable promptness to all individuals with developmental disabilities qualified to receive home and community-based services under the federal Medicaid program.

Termination of Parental Rights

Another important application of the ADA is to protect the custody rights of parents with disabilities. The ordeal faced by a mother named Cynthia illustrates how it could be a violation of the ADA to unnecessarily deny the right of a parent with a disability to raise her child. Cynthia has mild mental retardation and a seizure disorder. For years, Cynthia lived independently in the community and raised her children without the assistance of disability programs. However, recent variations in her level of medical needs and the breakup of her marriage created a need for such assistance. Unfortunately, the county that was charged with providing this type of assistance to parents failed to explore and secure legally mandated and available services and supports that would have allowed Cynthia to continue to live independently with her children. Instead, the county sought to terminate all Cynthia's parental rights. In response, the California P&A filed a brief with the court arguing that the county violated the ADA by failing to provide Cynthia with (1) equal access to reunification services, and (2) reasonable accommodations during the reunification planning process. In addition to legal support, the P&A is working with other disability groups in California to educate the public about the need for parental reunification services for parents with disabilities and Medicaid funding for necessary assistive technology to prevent the termination of parental rights for parents with disabilities.

Conclusion

In these and many other ways, the P&A system works toward a vision of society where people with disabilities have equal opportunity and can participate fully in the communities of which they are a part. In the 11 years since passage of the ADA, the P&As have helped bring down the barriers to participation. The work continues.

Despite the efforts of the P&As and other disability rights advocates, the Supreme Court ultimately found that Congress did not have the constitutional power to apply Title I of the ADA -the statute's employment provisions-to the states. P&As are now working vigorously to ensure that the impact of the decision is limited to Title I of the ADA and does not extend to Title II or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. In addition, P&As in Alabama and North Carolina are working to strengthen their state anti-discrimination laws, while P&As in California, Missouri, and Rhode Island are supporting state legislation that would waive their states' immunity from suit under the ADA. Other P&As are planning on initiating similar campaigns shortly.

P&As mentioned in this issue: