Fall 2017 ADA National Conference The official e-Newsletter of the National Association of ADA Coordinators Serving the ADA Coordination and 504 Compliance Community Since 1992 (888) 679-7227 FAX (877) 480-7858 [email protected] WEB SITE: WWW.ADACoordinators.org Volume 25 - No. 5 Pages 29 September - October 2017 2017 Fall ADA Conference Celebrating the Association’s 25th Anniversary Co-host – City of San Diego, California “A Steady Hand in Uncertain Times” October 23-26, 2017 San Diego, California For 25 years the National Association of ADA Coordinators has brought ADA coordinators together, providing a forum for the most up-to-date information on ADA issues and enforcement. Through different administrations, Republican and Democratic, from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush to Barack Obama, NAADAC has been your guide to the ADA. Now, as it celebrates its silver anniversary, NAADAC continues its role. The Administration of Donald Trump is working to fill over 4,000 positions in the Federal government. So far rumors and uncertainty abound about how it will fulfill its ADA responsibilities. Will there be a new approach to ADA enforcement? Will there be new regulations or changes to existing rules? Amid the uncertainty and the tumult, you can turn to NAADAC and its faculty of nationally recognized experts for practical, understandable guidance. So, join us for our Fall Conference in San Diego in October, and you’ll find that NAADAC will be “A Steady Hand in Uncertain Times.” John Wodatch, Association President Current case law, best practices, policy examples, and reasonable solutions to trending and complex ADA situations. Updated Free ADA library on USB drive at conference. The Spring 2017 conference was rated outstanding by the participants’ on their evaluations. “NAADAC has provided the most comprehensive and informative sessions in my 25 years of professional development experiences. I will continue to attend . . . as well as refer NAADAC as the best resource for ADA training! +504 + 508 etc.” James W.; Major University, Texas “This is the gold standard for ADA Conferences.” Donna K.; Major University - Connecticut “This conference has the BEST presenters of all the conferences I attend regularly, really a dream team.” Marji M.; Major Airline - Houston, Texas Page 1 of 3 The Fall 2017 National Conference Scheduled Faculty includes: ADA attorneys, ADA architects, ADA Coordinators and Section 504 Compliance Officers, ADA Web Experts, and Medical Professionals Confirmed Conference Faculty for the tracks include: Keynotes Anne Raish, J.D., Acting Chief, Disability Rights Section, US DOJ Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel and ADA/GINA Policy Director, US EEOC Access, Services, and Design Track John Wodatch, J.D.; Jim Bostrom; Irene Bowen, J.D.; Joe Dolson (Web) Jim Esselman, J.D. (DOT); Dean Perkins, R.A.; Jim Terry, AIA; Rachel M. Weisberg, J.D. Employment Track Christopher Kuczynski, J.D., LL.M. (EEOC); Mary Jo O’Neill, J.D. (EEOC); Brian Nelson, J.D. Nicole St. Germain (EEOC); Rosa Viramontes (EEOC) Higher Education Track Paul Grossman, J.D.; Melissa Frost, J.D.; Howard Kallem, J.D., Jim Long, J.D. Other conference sessions planned on Law Enforcement, Transportation and Transit, Emergency Preparedness, and Web Site Accessibility/Design Issues See full conference agenda, and faculty bios on Association web site. Web Site - www.adacoordinators.org CONFERENCE EVENING EVENTS FOR YOUR FUN AND PLEASURE There is an Association President’s Reception on Tuesday evening with snacks and refreshments. This is an opportunity to meet the speakers and our Board of Directors, and to network with new ADA friends in a relaxed atmosphere. On Wednesday evening is our “Association’s Got Talent” event. Back by popular demand from the past eight conferences is the Karaoke Challenge. Come join the fun after an informative and busy day at the conference. Be entertained by our great singers. Donated cash prizes will be awarded to three individuals, duos, and/or groups. Free refreshments available - soft drinks, beer, and wine. Page 2 of 3 CONFERENCE LOCATION AND HOTEL The conference is being held at the Sheraton Mission Valley San Diego, 1433 Camino Del Rio South, San Diego, CA 92108. A complimentary shuttle provided from/to San Diego International Airport and within three miles of the hotel. Hotel day-time conference self-parking and guestroom Internet are complimentary. Participant is responsible for making own lodging reservation. Credit card guarantee is required. The Association has negotiated a special conference rate from three days before/after the conference at a per room rate of $158.00 per night, plus taxes (single/double) if reserved by 9/28/17, provided room block has not been sold out. To make lodging reservations call the hotel 619-260-0111 and mention you are attending the National Association of ADA Coordinators conference. The hotel is also within walking distance of two shopping malls and a station for the San Diego Trolley System. INFORMATION FOR NON-ASSOCIATES If you are not an Associate, now is the time to become an Individual, Professional (P.A.), or Organizational Associate. More detailed information is available on our web site at www.adacoordinators.org . If you join when registering for this conference you can register at Associate registration rate on the conference registration form. Associates received an additional email discount offer, worth at least $250, off this 2017 Fall Conference Associate registration rate. The Associates’ Version of this Newsletter contains an additional 19 emailed pages on ADA case law and other information. UPDATE OF OUR PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATES (P.A.) PROGRAM We recognized 4 new P.A.s at the Spring 2017 conference and another 6 completed their P.A. requirements at the Spring conference. There are over 155 Associates in various phases of completing the PA program. See our website at: www.adacoordinators.org for more information on the Association’s Professional Associate program. Registration closes 10/6/2017 Fall 2017 ADA National conference October 23-26, 2017San Diego, CA Page 3 of 3 ADA ARTICLES OF INTEREST (Articles for information purposes only and are not to be considered as legal advice) Fall ADA Conference, October 23-26, 2017, to cover these and other ADA important ADA issues. COURT RULES FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT TRUMP EMPLOYEE PROTECTIONS UNDER STATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW If drug and alcohol-testing policies take a zero tolerance approach to medical marijuana because the use, distribution, or possession of marijuana is unlawful under federal law, a recent federal court decision interpreting state law could be the wave of the future. In August, a Connecticut federal district court held that various federal laws prohibiting use and sale of marijuana do not preempt the State of Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA), which protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on medical marijuana use permitted under state law. The essence of the decision is that federal law does not prohibit employment of illegal drug users. The plaintiff claimed she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and that as a result, her doctors recommended she use medical marijuana. She registered with the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, and following registration, began using Marinol, a synthetic form of marijuana. The defendant (employer) recruited the plaintiff in 2016, extending an employment offer contingent on plaintiff's passing the pre-employment drug test. The plaintiff notified the employer that she was a registered medical marijuana user who took Marinol, but only at night before bed so she would not be impaired at work. The plaintiff then took the pre-employment drug test. The day before the plaintiff was scheduled to start work, the drug-testing company informed the parties that the plaintiff had tested positive for marijuana. The same day, the defendant rescinded the plaintiff’s job offer because of the failed drug test. The plaintiff sued, alleging the defendant violated Connecticut PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision. The defendant moved to dismiss, primarily asserting plaintiff’s PUMA claim was preempted by three federal statutes: Controlled Substances Act (CSA), ADA, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The court found no federal preemption of PUMA. The court first analyzed the CSA, the federal statute criminalizing marijuana use. While the court recognized that PUMA affirmatively authorizes the very conduct the CSA expressly prohibits this conflict was not enough to support a conclusion that PUMA is an obstacle to CSA's goals. While the court recognized that the CSA prohibits marijuana use, the court noted that the CSA does not prohibit employing marijuana users, nor does it seek to regulate employment practices. Therefore, the court concluded that the CSA did not prevent the plaintiff from making a claim based on PUMA’s prohibition on “an employer . . . taking adverse action against an employee on the basis of the employee’s otherwise state-authorized medicinal use of marijuana.” The court reached the same conclusion under the ADA. The court stressed that the ADA’s primary purpose is to protect employees from discrimination, a purpose shared under PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision. ADA Articles 1 The court then explained that while the ADA explicitly allows employers to prohibit illegal drug use at the workplace, it does not authorize employers to take adverse employment action based on illegal drug use outside of the workplace. The court found that the ADA does not preempt PUMA’s medical marijuana anti-discrimination provision. The court also specifically rejected the argument that employers can universally use a negative drug-test result as a qualification standard for employment. The court concluded the FDCA did not preempt PUMA. The court did recognize that Connecticut’s PUMA permits drug use that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved. The court once again adopted the view of the federal law, finding the FDCA does not regulate employment. Therefore, PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision did not conflict with or pose an obstacle to FDCA goals. The court then held, on an issue of first impression, that an implied private right of action exists under the PUMA’s anti-discrimination prohibition (PUMA does not contain an explicit private cause of action) for an employer’s adverse employment actions taken based on rights protected by PUMA. The court reasoned that without a private cause of action, PUMA, “would have no practical effect, because the law does not provide for any other enforcement mechanism.” The court’s decision was somewhat odd because Marinol is lawful under the CSA. It is a - CSA Schedule III - drug that can be prescribed and used without violating the CSA. Therefore, the very conduct forming the basis for plaintiff’s state-law discrimination claim was potentially also actionable under the ADA, but neither the parties nor the court addressed this issue. For this reason alone the decision may be of limited value in future cases where an applicant or employee’s drug use is in fact prohibited by federal law. This case is significant because it is the first decision to conclude that marijuana’s unlawful status under federal law does not bar a discrimination claim based on conduct protected by state medical marijuana laws. The decision concerns Connecticut’s PUMA, its decision may have far-reaching consequences that can significantly change the human resources arena for many employers. This includes employers that operate in the growing number of states that provide affirmative employment protections for medical marijuana users. (Many years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that both medical marijuana growers and users could be prosecuted under the CSA. Additionally, seven years ago, the Oregon Supreme Court expressly held that the CSA preempts the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act.) The court’s decision is not binding on other courts, but an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is likely. It bears emphasis that the Connecticut case is the second important decision to assess the employment impact of a state law permitting the use of medical marijuana. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined that an employer has obligations to accommodate lawful medical marijuana users under Massachusetts disability discrimination laws. (Barbuto v. Advantage Sales & Marketing, LLC, SJC-12226). 7TH CIRCUIT REVERSES JUDGMENT FOR DEAF LITIGANT A federal court ruling in favor of a deaf litigant who was denied a court-provided sign language interpreter for mediation in his child custody case was reversed on appeal recently. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and award of $10,380 in damages in favor of Plaintiff. The panel remanded his federal civil rights case brought under the ADA with instructions to dismiss the suit, though Plaintiff may file an action in state court. (Dustin King v. Marion Circuit Court, 16-3726) ADA Articles 2 “The district court held that Indiana does not enjoy sovereign immunity because this case falls within the abrogation of (state sovereign) immunity sustained in [U. S, Supreme Court case] Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004). We disagree with that conclusion,” the Circuit Judge wrote for the panel. In Lane, a litigant who used a wheelchair couldn’t reach a second-floor courtroom, which the court held violated his right to fundamental access to the court. The Circuit Judge wrote that no such violation occurred in this Plaintiff case, when he requested and was denied a court-appointed American Sign Language interpreter in Marion County’s Modest Means Mediation Program. The Plaintiff ultimately participated in mediation with the interpretative assistance of a relative and received a satisfactory outcome. Further, the Circuit Judge wrote that local court rules provide Marion Superior judges the discretion to determine when mediation is appropriate. “[Plaintiff] does not contend that the Marion Circuit Court treats deaf litigants unfairly or that deaf litigants encounter any barrier to litigation on a par with litigants who can hear. The Circuit Court’s invitation to litigate therefore afforded [Plaintiff] full access to court,” the Circuit Judge wrote. The District Judge had ruled in Plaintiff’s favor in May 2016, holding that the denial of a court-appointed interpreter for Plaintiff was discrimination under Title II of the ADA. This Plaintiff suit was joined by the U.S. Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. The federal government argued in a brief that the Marion Superior Courts were deliberately indifferent to King’s disability. The 7th Circuit saw otherwise. “The United States has not explained how awarding damages to [Plaintiff] could ward off future unconstitutional conduct. As far as we know (and as far as Plaintiff), the Circuit Court does not wield its power to order mediation as part of a scheme to bar the disabled from obtaining legal redress. It does not routinely demand mediation as a prerequisite to adjudication, knowing that the parties’ disabilities will block mediation and so block litigation too,” the Circuit Judge wrote. “Nor does Plaintiff contend that the Circuit Court plans to implement such a strategy in the future. What happened to him points to just the opposite conclusion. Our sample of one indicates that, when a disabled person might have trouble mediating, the Marion Circuit Court immediately offers full adjudication. We do not have any reason to believe that a single disabled person in Marion County will ever be denied access to court because of the limits on the subsidies provided by the (Modest Means Mediation) Plan, or because of the mediation process as a whole. And in the absence of any other evidence, we cannot say that allowing [Plaintiff’s] damages action would plausibly function as a prophylactic against future constitutional violations.” ADA AND TELECOMMUTING -- HOT TOPIC In July, EEOC filed suit against a home healthcare company to “correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability.” In the complaint, the EEOC alleges that employer refused to provide employee, a “qualified individual with a disability,” with a reasonable accommodation, and discharged her in violation of the ADA. (EEOC v. Advanced Home Care, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00646 (M.D.N.C. July 12, 2017) According to the EEOC, employee was a case manager for patients requiring home services. As a case manager, the employee was required to spend part of her day on telephone calls. In 2015, employee began to experience frequent asthma attacks and flare-ups of bronchitis. After collapsing at work after a heavy bout of coughing, she was hospitalized where she was diagnosed with chronic bronchitis and COPD. The complaint alleges that as a “consequence of asthma, bronchitis, and COPD, employee experiences wheezing, severe bouts of coughing, and asthma attacks,” and that employee’s physical impairments “substantially limit her in the major life activity of breathing. . . and constitute a disability under the ADA.” ADA Articles 3 The EEOC alleges that scents and odors aggravate employee’s COPD and asthma, that she worked in a cubicle in close proximity to hundreds of other employees, and that she was therefore subjected to these types of irritants, including the smell of smoke on other employees’ clothes. The EEOC claims that employee’s supervisor “ignored [employee’s] repeated requests to telework” and that teleworking would have allowed employee to be away from actual and potential respiratory irritants. The EEOC also claims that employee’s supervisor told her she would be terminated if she could not return to work without restrictions. The EEOC complaint alleges that employee could have performed the essential functions of her position with the reasonable accommodation of telework. The EEOC also claims that as a consequence of employee’s disability, employee had difficulty talking continuously for extended periods of time, and if employee had been allowed to telework, employee would not have been required to take inbound calls, and, therefore, would have spent less time on the phone. Employers should note that this situation is somewhat unusual but that telecommuting has been an issue on the EEOC’s radar for the last several months (i.e., is working from home a reasonable accommodation?). The important issue is the proper handling and response to employee accommodation requests. Company policies and procedures as well as internal manager training for these sorts of requests and responses should be well set out and diligently followed. Person Gets 60 Years for Extorting Businesses In August, a person who extorted money from Riverside County, California, businesses by threatening to sue them for violating the ADA was sentenced. Prosecutors say the person approached as many as 1,000 businesses, posed as an advocate for the disabled and threatened to sue over minor violations of federal and state disabled access laws unless he was paid off. Authorities say he collected about $140,000. The person pleaded guilty last fall to 143 counts of extortion, attempted extortion and grand theft, and was sentenced to 20 years in jail. He also was given 40 years of mandatory supervision and was ordered to pay $58,000 in restitution. Employee Cannot Bypass Title VII, ADA Regulatory Scheme Plaintiff-employees cannot pursue a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983) for rights created under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal appeals court in Philadelphia has held in a case of first impression for the Third Circuit. The Court joins seven other circuits to have considered the issue and came to the same conclusion. (Williams v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, et al., No. 16-4383 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2017). (42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights - Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was ADA Articles 4 unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. (R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309©, Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.) After exhausting her administrative remedies, the plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC), alleging discrimination on the basis of her race and disability. Because no individual liability exists under Title VII or the ADA, Plaintiff relied on Section 1983 to bring claims against her two supervisors in their individual capacities as “state actors.” The Western District of Pennsylvania granted the PHRC’s motion for summary judgment, finding Title VII and the ADA do not create individually enforceable rights under Section 1983. Plaintiff appealed to the Third Circuit and the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Title VII and the ADA have comprehensive regulatory schemes that include pre-lawsuit requirements, discreet filing deadlines, and limited liability for individual actors, the Third Circuit explained. Section 1983 contains no such administrative scheme. Instead, Section 1983 allows plaintiffs to proceed directly in court. The court found that allowing Title VII or ADA claims to be brought as Section 1983 claims would “thwart Congress’s carefully crafted administrative scheme by throwing open a back door to the federal courthouse when the front door is purposefully fortified.” Thus, plaintiffs seeking to recover for workplace discrimination must use the administrative process outlined in the antidiscrimination statutes and cannot bypass those requirements through Section 1983. AN ADA COMPLIANCE CHALLENGE Plaintiff joined the employer, a city, in 2001 as a Heavy Equipment Operator in the Street Department. An on-the-job injury that same year left him disabled, and he could no longer perform the duties of his position. The Street Department superintendent initially accommodated Plaintiff by letting him do office work. In 2005, Plaintiff and the superintendent reached a written agreement, under which Plaintiff would perform the duties of the Street Department Foreman for two years, This would be at his prior Heavy Equipment Operator pay rate. During this time, the actual Foreman voluntarily worked as a mechanic but retained his Foreman title and pay. This arrangement continued unchanged until June 2012. The superintendent retired. The new superintendent removed Plaintiff from the Foreman position and assigned him to work inventory. The Plaintiff indicated that the physical demands of the inventory job made it difficult for him to work. When Plaintiff asked to be returned to the Foreman position, the superintendent insisted that since the original Foreman retained the Foreman title and pay, he, not Plaintiff, should perform the duties of the job. Plaintiff took disability retirement. He then filed suit, claiming that the employer had violated the Rehabilitation Act because the superintendent’s refusal to return him to the Foreman position denied him a reasonable accommodation. The district court had granted summary judgment for the employer. The appellate court affirmed. It held that Plaintiff had failed to identify any reasonable accommodation the employer could have provided. The Rehabilitation Act, similar to the ADA, does not require an employer to create a new position for a disabled employee or to reassign the employee to another job if no vacant position is available. The Plaintiff presented no evidence that the Foreman position was ever vacant during the time he performed Foreman duties. The employer was not obligated to create a second Foreman position. The employer did it have any responsibility to “bump” the actual Foreman from the job to generate a vacancy for Plaintiff, or to promote Plaintiff as an accommodation for his disability. ADA Articles 5 The fact that the City had accommodated Plaintiff for years by allowing him to perform Foreman duties did not, in the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion, mean his removal from those duties was a failure to accommodate. Since this accommodation was not required by law, removing it would not violate the Rehab Act’s accommodation requirements. This recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals supports the impression that employers should not be penalized for going beyond their lawful obligations. SERVICE AND ASSISTANCE ANIMALS Universities, colleges, and schools receive requests from students to bring “service animals” and “assistance animals” on campus as an accommodation. Under the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehab Act, and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), institutions are required to accommodate students with disabilities by allowing service animals on the campus - public spaces, academic buildings, residential units, and other facilities. By contrast, under these federal laws, institutions are only required to allow assistance animals in campus dwelling units and in the employment context (although state or local laws may impose additional requirements). There is a difference between a service animal and an assistance animals. Under Title III of the ADA, a service animal is “any dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including any physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.” Service animals include seeing-eye dogs trained to guide the blind; dogs trained to detect the onset of an epileptic seizure; and dogs trained to remind a person with depression to take medication. On the other hand, an assistance animal (sometimes referred to as an “emotional support animal”) can be a cat, dog, or other type of companion animal. While Emotional Support Animals or Comfort Animals are often used as part of a medical treatment plan as therapy animals, they are not considered service animals under the ADA. These support animals provide companionship, relieve loneliness, and sometimes help with depression, anxiety, and certain phobias, but do not have special training to perform tasks that assist people with disabilities. Even though some states have laws defining therapy animals, these animals are not limited to working with people with disabilities and are not covered by federal laws protecting the use of service animals. Therapy animals provide people with therapeutic contact, usually in a clinical setting, to improve their physical, social, emotional, and/or cognitive functioning. For a quick review: Title II of the ADA applies to public educational institutions. Title III applies to private entities that are “places of public accommodation,” including private K-12, undergraduate and postgraduate schools, and other places of education. Section 504 applies to any institution receiving federal financial assistance, which covers public and private colleges, and universities. The FHA could pertains to campus housing such as residence halls and dormitories (although courts have not explicitly settled the matter). Each of these statutes imposes various obligations upon educational institutions to accommodate students’ service or assistance animals. Remember, many states and localities have adopted further anti-discrimination statutes requiring accommodation of a broad range of service and assistance animals. Each federal statute has circumstances under which it mandates institutions to consider and enlist the interactive process. The ADA, requires that any public entity or place of public accommodation “modify its policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.” When a student requests permission to bring a service animal into the classroom as an auxiliary aid because of a disability, you may not make inquiries if it is readily apparent the animal is trained to do work or ADA Articles 6 perform tasks for an individual with a disability. If a visually impaired student requests to bring a seeing-eye dog into the classroom, you may not make inquiries about the dog. However, in situations where it is not obvious the dog is a service animal, you may ask two specific questions: (1) whether the dog is required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task the dog has been trained to perform. Therefore, if a student requests to use a service dog to alert him when his blood sugar reaches dangerous levels, you are not allowed to request documentation for the animal (such as proof that the dog has been trained), require that the dog demonstrate its task, inquire about the nature of the student’s disability, or require medical documentation. Under Section 504, when a student requests permission to bring a service animal into the classroom as an auxiliary aid, at least where the disability and the function of the service animal are not obvious, you may initiate the Section 504 interactive process. This permits you to ask the student for documentation to confirm the disability, the need for the services requested, documentation of the dog’s training, and how you can best accommodate the student and the dog. The FHA regulations permit a much broader scope of animals in residential dwellings, including assistance animals. This statute further permits you to verify the existence of the disability and the need for the accommodation by requiring the student to provide documentation from a physician, psychiatrist, social worker, or other mental health professional that the animal serves to alleviate at least one of the identified symptoms or effects of the existing disability. The result is an interplay between the ADA, Section 504, and the FHA. When it comes to inquiries and accommodations, one needs to begin the interactive process with individual students on a case-by-case basis. Train disability services professional and include residence hall staff. There exists on occasion a stigma or skepticism associated with students whose disabilities are not apparent, or with animals not fitting the mold of the traditional seeing-eye dog. it is imperative that faculty and staff understand the antidiscrimination laws and your institution’s policies and legal obligations regarding service and assistance animals. The federal laws provide a floor, not a ceiling;. In this somewhat complicated arena, when in doubt, it is advisable to consult a legal professional who is well-versed in these areas before making any final decisions. NEW FLORIDA LAW AIMS TO PUT BRAKES ON ADA LAWSUITS Florida has adopted what appears to be the first law in the country attempting to provide some defense to harassed businesses, reacting to the numerous lawsuits alleging that places of public accommodations create “barriers to access” to people with disabilities. The law authorizes qualified experts to inspect places of public accommodation for ADA compliance purposes. The expert then issues a “certificate of conformity” and/or develop a plan for the owners to remedy the situation. The business/property owners would then file the “certificate” or “plan” with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. This would serve as notice to the public of compliance with the ADA. Title III of the American with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in places of public accommodation and commercial facilities. Practically all types of businesses that serve the public are covered by Title III. These include theaters, convention centers, doctors’ offices, , museums, libraries, private schools, health spas, and day care centers. ADA Articles 7