Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund News

Fall 2001

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION & DEFENSE FUND (DREDF) IS THE NATION'S GUARDIAN OF CIVIL RIGHTS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Disability Rights News is available large print, audiocassette, computer disk, and is also available online at www.dredf.org. To be added to our mailing list, or to request this publication in alternative format, please contact DREDF at 2212 6th St. Berkeley, CA 94710; EMAIL: dredf@dredf.org; Phone (510) 644-2555 (Voice/TTY); FAX (510) 841-8645.

HIGLIGHTS IN THE NEWS:

[Alternative Format Note: The page numbers in the following "Highlights" and
Table of Contents" refer to page numbers of the hard copy newsletter, which are also referenced in the alternative format version below.]

PRESIDENT'S LETTER - Page 2
DC REPORTS - Page 3
LAGUNA HONDA - Page 3
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE - Page 5
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY - Page 5
GARRETT - Page 8

Table of Contents:

Page 1
DREDF Works to Preserve California Definition of Disability
Bill Clinton Presidential Citizens Medal to Pat Wright

Page 2
President's Letter
Vote for DREDF!
Staff Box

Page 3
Low Wages of Care Workers Linked to Institutionalization
The DREDF edge in Washington
Laguna Honda: Institutionalizing Oppression

Page 4
School District Held In Contempt

Page 5
P2P -- From Principles to Practice: DREDF Hosts Landmark International Disability Rights Symposium

Page 6
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY
Keeping Parents In The Loop: SB511 to Establish Family Empowerment Centers on Disability
DREDF Targets Failing Mental Health System
DREDF at TASH Conference
DREDF Parent Project

Page 7
Disability Rights History Pilot Project
Family Leadership and Training Project
DREDF ADA Materials Available

Page 8
Garrett Casts A Dark Cloud Over Civil Rights Advances
DREDF ACTIVE IN “FRIEND OF THE COURT” EFFORTS
Supreme Court Sidesteps Title II Constitutionality


(Page 1)
DREDF Works to Preserve California Definition of Disability

In the wake of recent chilling developments in the federal courts, disability rights advocates across the country are increasingly turning to state laws for protection. Recognizing the importance of maintaining the scope and strength of key state laws, DREDF has been working energetically to maintain the disability rights protections offered by California law.

In June 1999 the U.S. Supreme Court issued three critical decisions that significantly narrowed the scope of the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The trilogy of high court opinions in the Sutton, Murphy and Kirkingburg cases emphasized and heightened the requirement that an impairment must cause a "substantial" limitation of one or more major life activities. These cases also specified that the evaluation of limitation is based on how the individual functions in a "mitigated" state ( i.e., when benefiting from "mitigating measures" such as mobility aids, prosthetic devices, hearing aids, drugs or behavior modifications that serve to minimize the impact of limitation. (For more detailed information on these cases, see "Constitutional Challenges to the ADA: Will the Supreme Court roll back civil rights?" in the DREDF News, Summer 2000).

Even after these 1999 cases, many individuals with disabilities clearly remain protected by federal law, and others have compelling factual arguments as to why they still meet the definition. Nonetheless, as a result of these decisions many persons who experience disability discrimination are now being denied the protection of federal disability rights laws.


The Prudence K. Poppink Act (California Assembly Bill 2222)

DREDF actively participated, along with other important California disability and civil rights organizations, in an intensive advocacy effort that led to the recent enactment of legislation designed to preserve the broad scope of California disability rights laws. As a result, on September 30, 2000 California Governor Gray Davis signed into law the Prudence K. Poppink Act (AB 2222). The bill was named in honor of Pru Poppink, an advocate for California's fair employment and housing laws for more than 25 years. Less than two months after the Poppink Act was signed, Poppink died from complications of breast cancer.

California Law Reaffirmed

The Poppink Act reaffirms the scope and independence of California's disability discrimination laws (which predate the ADA, some by a decade or more), ensuring that they remain distinct and distinguishable from both the federal laws and the recent judicial interpretations that have narrowed the ADA. In particular, the Act highlights and emphasizes several significant aspects of California's definition of disability. For example, California law requires merely "limitation," not "substantial limitation." In further contrast to federal law, "limitation" is assessed without regard to the "mitigating measures."

Under California law, "major life activities" must be broadly construed to include physical, mental and social activities, and working. An individual is considered to be "limited" in the major life activity of working even if the limitation implicates only a particular job, rather than a class or broad range of jobs. Individuals subject to discrimination based on a risk of future disability are protected, and the medical condition of cancer is covered regardless of whether or not the individual has been rehabilitated or cured.

The Poppink Act also speaks to issues other than the definition of disability. It explicitly mandates that employers participate in a timely, good faith interactive process with employees to determine appropriate reasonable accommodations. In addition, it imposes strict limitations on an employer's right to conduct medical examinations and inquiries. Moreover, because virtually all of the Poppink Act clarifies, rather than changes, California law, it provides guidance to courts even in lawsuits filed before the law's technical effective date of January 1, 2001.

Swenson v. County of Los Angeles

As courts across the country began to react to changes in the federal definition of disability, it appeared that a case called Swenson v. County of Los Angeles would provide the California Supreme Court with its first opportunity to react to the Sutton trilogy in interpreting the California definition of disability. This lawsuit was filed by a physician with attention deficit disorder and other learning disabilities, who asserted that these conditions were "mental disabilities" within the meaning of California law. Dr. Swenson claimed that his employment with the Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center had been terminated based on his disabilities, and was therefore a violation of the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Prior to the Sutton trilogy, a trial court jury had awarded judgment to Dr. Swenson. A California court of appeal affirmed this judgment in October 1999, just a few months after the three federal rulings were issued. The County then sought review of this appellate decision, and in January 2000 the California Supreme Court agreed to hear Swenson.

Recognizing the significant impact that a California Supreme Court Swenson decision would have on the state's disability rights laws, in June 2000, DREDF joined a number of other civil rights and advocacy organizations in filing a "friend of the court" brief in the case. Briefing had been completed and the parties were awaiting a schedule for oral argument when the Poppink Act was signed into law in September 2000. Significantly, in January 2001, following the passage of the Poppink Act, the California Supreme Court issued an order stating that the petition for high court review had been improvidently granted. The Swenson case was sent back down to the lower courts. A likely reason for this action was the high court's desire to give lower California courts time to react to and analyze the Poppink Act. Regardless, it is clear that the forum for debate over the scope of California disability rights laws has, for the time being, shifted away from the California legislature and the California Supreme Court, and is now focused squarely on the California courts of appeal.


Christensen v. County of Los Angeles

DREDF is currently uniquely positioned to lead the fight in the California courts of appeal to preserve the state's broad disability rights protections. Along with co-counsel Larry A. Minsky of Lemaire, Faunce, Pingel & Singer, DREDF is representing Matthew A. Christensen in a lawsuit that involves the scope of the California definition of disability. Mr. Christensen has worn a left leg prosthesis for more than twenty years due to a congenital, below-the-knee amputation. In June 1997 he applied to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) to become a police officer. In conjunction with that application process, he passed LAPD's entrance requirements, including the physical abilities test (PAT), which the LAPD uses to ensure that each applicant has the necessary endurance, strength, agility and balance to become a police officer. Despite passing the PAT, Mr. Christensen was rejected for employment because he is an amputee.

Mr. Christensen filed suit in April 1999, arguing that LAPD's actions in denying him admission to the police academy violated California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In contesting Mr. Christensen's claims, the LAPD argued that he does not have a disability within the meaning of state law. Remarkably, in a decision issued in December 2000, the trial judge hearing the case agreed with LAPD, ruling that an individual who is a lower limb amputee is not an "individual with a disability." The decision is stunning in its implications. It endorses the idea that individuals with significant impairments like amputations (which by all logic and common sense are clearly disabilities ( should be denied the protections of disability rights laws because they have competently mitigated and overcome the effects of such impairments, and are therefore capable of achievement and success. In March 2001, DREDF and co-counsel appealed the trial court's Christensen decision to the California Courts of Appeal. The appellate briefs will be filed during the spring and summer of 2001.


Bill Clinton Presidential Citizens Medal to Pat Wright

[photo – Pat Wright & Bill Clinton are holding hands and looking at eachother / photo courtesy The White House]

"Widely regarded as 'the General' guiding the campaign to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act, Patrisha Wright has been a driving force in the battle against discrimination based on disability. Through her tireless efforts to forge relationships with the civil rights community, defend disability rights, and promote progressive legislation, she has helped break down barriers to equal opportunity, enabling people with disabilities to participate more fully in our society.”
--President Clinton's remarks during the award ceremony:

On January 8, 2001, President Bill Clinton awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal to Pat Wright, DREDF's Director of Governmental Affairs. Pat was among 28 noted Americans selected for this award. Other honorees included Reverend Fred L. Shuttlesworth, founder of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; sports legend Henry "Hank" Aaron, a staunch civil rights advocate who tore down racial barriers in baseball; Muhammad Ali, the most celebrated boxer in history and devoted social activist; Ronald H. Brown (posthumously), the first African American to become a partner in his law firm, chairman of a major political party, and Secretary of Commerce; Dr. I. King Jordan, the first deaf president of Gallaudet University; and screen legend Elizabeth Taylor, dedicated leader in the fight against AIDS.

Exemplary Deeds

Bestowed at the sole discretion of the President, the Presidential Citizens Medal is awarded to U.S. citizens who have performed exemplary deeds or service for their country or fellow citizens. Established in 1969, this medal is the second highest civilian honor granted by the President.

In addition to her work on the ADA, Pat played a central role in the legislative and grassroots campaigns to enact the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Civil Rights Restoration Act and the Handicapped Children's Protection Act. In a career spanning two decades, she has worked tirelessly to establish disability as a legitimate civil rights concern within the broader civil rights community. She has served as advisor to members of Congress and has been recognized and honored by several Administrations. In June 1990 she received the Award for Leadership on the ADA by the Dole Foundation. In 2000, she was presented with the George Bush Medal of Freedom Award. The award (named for former President George Bush) honored Pat for distinguished service to America for promoting the dignity, equality, and independence in employment of people with disabilities. Pat was the first person representing the disability community to receive the Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

(Page 2)

President's Letter

[photo – Adam Bertaina, photo by Ken Stein / National Civil Rights Museum. Photo shows a group of young children in wheelchairs on a disability civil rights day march; mothers are pushing the wheelchairs. There are balloons attached to some of the wheelchairs. There is a boy (Adam Bertaina) in a wheelchair in the foreground of the photo. The sign on the back of his wheelchair reads: Keep Our Kids OUT of State Hospitals / Support Community Services.]

Dear friends,

Back in 1977, when my son Adam was five years old I took him to the federal building in San Francisco to say hello to our friends who were embarking on what turned out to be the longest occupation of a federal building in United States history – the 504 demonstration. We ended up staying a week, and embarking on a career of activism on behalf of adults and children with disabilities, including Adam.

Adam had profound retardation, cerebral palsy, a severe seizure disorder, and didn't walk or talk. But when he died in 1992, he had participated fully in his life: lived in his home and community; attended integrated schools and many demonstrations; encountered people who learned to value him and who fought for him.

I go way back with DREDF. I met Diane Lipton and Pam Steneberg even before that historic 504 sit-in in 1977. Parents of children with disabilities themselves, they gave me excellent training on PL 94-142 (IDEA). At DREDF, I met real role models who showed me what my son could achieve. So many parents have low expectations for their children with disabilities, but meeting the capable, accomplished adults with disabilities at DREDF changed that for me. Twenty years ago there were few adults with disabilities leading lives we could imagine for our children. But now, in great measure because of the work of DREDF, there are possibilities and potentials we never dreamed of then.

I have played many roles at DREDF: client, parent advocate, paralegal, volunteer and board member. Now I am the chairperson of the board, and I'll tell you why I stick with DREDF and why I ask you to do so as well:

DREDF is the best at what we do. We've got the best advocates for parents and kids; we help write damn good laws and we're very successful at getting them passed and enforced. We stay in touch with our community around the country; we give high-quality technical assistance and nobody beats us for training on the ADA. We know who our friends are and we've made the kind of connections that count around the country, in Washington, and around the world. We've done it all on a shoestring, too.

It's your turn now to preserve DREDF's accomplishments and to advance them. Some of you younger parents and adults with disabilities may think that inclusive special education was always here ... that discrimination is a thing of the past. But I remember the Reagan days and know how easily it could all be lost. Just read all the pieces in this newsletter and you'll see what I mean, and you'll see how important it is to keep DREDF on the job.

DREDF gets more done for people with disabilities, of all ages, than anybody. In speaking of DREDF, the May 2001 issue of WeMedia Magazine noted: “If there is an NAACP for people with disabilities, this is it.”

Please make a donation right now, while the newsletter is in your hands. Use the enclosed envelope, or go to DREDF's website at www.dredf.org.

Thank you,

Beverly Bertaina, Chairperson
Board of Directors


Vote for DREDF!

Working Assets has several million dollars to give to progressive causes and DREDF is one of them. Every time customers of Working Assets make a long distance call, use their Working Assets credit card, or make a purchase at ShopForChange, they're helping 55 outstanding organizations to carry out much-needed work.

DREDF was nominated for and has been selected to appear on the Working Assets 2001 Donations Ballot. If you are a Working Assets long distance, wireless, credit card, Internet access, ShopForChange or GiveForChange customer your vote will help Working Assets distribute its 2001 donor funds. Please take a moment and cast your vote for DREDF at www.workingforchange.com/voting. The more votes DREDF receives, the larger DREDF's share of the donation pool. If you would like to make a direct contribution to DREDF, you can donate online through GiveForChange.com. Donating online will also make you eligible to vote. Voting ends on December 31, 2001.

Thanks For Your Support



STAFF BOX

Board of Directors

Beverly Bertaina
President and Chair

Kim Connor
Margaret Jakobsen, Esq.
Jenny Kern, Esq.
Pamela Steneberg
Patrisha Wright


Development Partnership

Ed D. Cooke Jr., Esq.
Margaret Jakobson, Esq.
Linda D Kilb, Esq.
Marianne McGettigan, Esq.
Ralph Neas
Ellin Nolan, Esq.
Andrew E. Weis, Esq.
Dr. Stanley Yarnell
Jane West, Ph.D.
Mo West
Patrisha A. Wright

Of Counsel
Lainey Feingold

Staff

Patrisha Wright
Director, Government Affairs

Arlene B. Mayerson, Esq.
Directing Attorney

Diane Lipton, Esq.
Director, Children's Advocacy Program

Mary Lou Breslin
Senior Policy Advisor

Linda Kilb, Esq.
Director, Legal Services Trust Fund Program

Larisa Cummings, Esq.
Attorney

Susan Henderson
Director of Administration

Marilyn Golden
Policy Analyst

Kurt Baldwin
ADA Technical Specialist

Wendy Byrnes
Parent Advocate

Mary Cazden
Parent Advocate

Beverly Cherner
Legal Administrative Asst.

Deborah Doctor
Research Associate

Ayesha El'Amin
Receptionist

Susan Hauser
Accounting Manager

Rachel Krokus
Parent Advocate Assistant

Cheri Lorenz
Receptionist

Sherri Rita
Legal Fellow

Ken Stein
Manager, ADA Technical Assistance Unit

Silma Smith
Development Assistant

Sylvia Yee
Research Associate

Interns, Summer 2001

Angelique Aitken
Legal Intern

Laura Welp
Legal Intern

Laura Vichinsky
Summer Intern


DREDF Offices

Main Office
2212 Sixth St., Berkeley, CA 94710
Voice / TTY: 510 644-2555
Facsimile: 510.841.8645
Email: dredf@dredf.org
ADA Hotline: 800.466.4232
Website: www.dredf.org

Government Affairs Office
1629 “K” Street N.W., Suite 802
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: 202.986.0375
Facsimile: 202.775.7465

(Page 3)

Low Wages of Care Workers Linked to Institutionalization

In May 2000, DREDF and co-counsel (the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia and the law firm of Newman, Aaronson & Vanaman) filed a class action lawsuit against the State of California to ensure the rights of persons with developmental disabilities to be free from discrimination in the form of unnecessary institutionalization and confinement.

Seven individuals with developmental disabilities and six organizations of persons with developmental disabilities filed the lawsuit to challenge the state's paying low wages and benefits for workers in integrated community services. Significantly higher wages and benefits are paid to workers in the state's developmental centers and other residential care facilities.

Systematic Underfunding

The lawsuit alleges that as a consequence of the state's systematic under-funding of community services, low wages and benefits are paid to community workers, such that adequate community-based services are in short supply or unavailable, thereby forcing institutionalization upon people who would be otherwise capable of living in the community. Plaintiffs are seeking relief that will require the state to set payments for community services so that direct care staff will earn a competitive wage substantially equal to the wages of their counterparts in state institutions.

In March and again in May, the parties participated in settlement discussions before a federal district court magistrate. Unfortunately, no further settlement conferences have been scheduled, as the state Defendants have refused to engage in any additional settlement discussions. In August, United States District Judge Claudia Wilken granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. As a result of this ruling, DREDF and co-counsel now represent a class of persons with developmental disabilities in the state of California ?who are now or in the future will be capable of handling and benefiting from community settings,? but who are unnecessarily institutionalized or at risk of institutionalization because the wages and benefits of community-based direct care workers are insufficient to support or make available sufficient quality community-based services. The parties are proceeding with pre-trial preparations.

The DREDF edge in Washington

The recent, unsuccessful battle to stop passage of the so-called ?discipline? amendments to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which recently passed the House and Senate and are now in conference committee, pitted disability advocates against the education lobby. DREDF worked closely with Congressional staff to prevent the amendments from reaching the floor. Despite these efforts and numerous action alerts which fired up parents and other advocates to pepper their congressmembers with calls and e-mails, the rights of students with disabilities were run over by the juggernaut of ?law and order?.

As explained by DREDF Directing Attorney Arlene Mayerson, the amendments, if made final, could put students with disabilities back two and a half decades, to a time before they had legal protection, and could be deprived of ALL educational services if expelled from school.

IDEA Threatened

These amendments will essentially repeal the following vital
provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA):

ß Free, Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
ß Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
ß Individual Education Program (IEP) parent/educator partnership
ß Due process protections/safeguards

The Sessions (R-Ala.) amendment, in the Senate version, would allow school authorities to stop educational services or segregate students for violations of the school code of conduct. For example, a child with Down Syndrome could be removed from the regular class for hugging a teacher or other student if a school code prohibits unwanted touching. The House bill contains the Norwood (R-Ga.) amendment that allows for the cessation of educational services if a student with a disability violates the school code regarding use and possession of a weapon, illegal drugs or commits "aggravated assault and battery", which states would define.

Nobody in the disability community supports violence and weapons in school, by anybody, but the effect of expelling children with disabilities goes far beyond removing their “bad” behavior from the classroom. Rather than concentrating on needed services, the amendments take a punitive approach which undermines any prospect for improved behavior.

Presidential Appointments

President Bush was sweeping in his promise of an administration reflecting America, but so far it does not include hiring people with disabilities or filling government positionsaffecting people with disabilities. There are a number of well-qualified people with disabilities who are Republican but no signs that they are being considered for administration jobs.

The Power Swing

When Senator Jeffords switched sides and unsettled the balance of political power, he also created hope for getting disability issues on the table in Democratic-controlled committees.

Pat Wright in delegation to World Conference on Racism

Pat Wright traveled to Durban, South Africa in August for the first-ever, UN-sponsored World Conference on Racism (WCAR). She was part of the delegation of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) on whose board she sits. "This World Conference has the potential to be among the most significant gatherings at the start of this century," the Secretary-General of the Conference and High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, states. "It can be more: it can shape and embody the spirit of the new century, based on the shared conviction that we are all members of one human family." Planning for this event started in 1997. For information about the conference, see http://www.un.org/WCAR/

Laguna Honda: Institutionalizing Oppression

San Francisco likes to think of itself as a city with proud traditions: fog, tolerance, and sourdough bread. Laguna Honda, a huge nursing home where almost everybody lives in 30-bed open wards, is part of San Francisco's tradition, but is not, in the view of DREDF and many others in the disability community, a source of pride. The City and County of San Francisco spends about 70% of its long-term care dollars on the 1,200 beds at Laguna Honda, leaving the leftovers for the 10,000 residents who need long-term care at home. The city is now proceeding with plans to spend over four hundred million dollars to replace the 1,200 beds at a new, seismically safe and still segregated Laguna Honda. San Francisco has become the poster city for the medical model of disability.

Unnecessary Segregation

DREDF, with co-counsel, is challenging San Francisco's plan to rebuild Laguna Hondaæchallenging the policy of unnecessarily segregating people with disabilities in a huge institution. The objective is to compel the City and County of San Francisco to provide its long-term care services in a legal, humane and cost-effective way. At least three government investigationsætwo federal and one stateæhave found patterns of serious violations of patient safety. They have also found that Laguna Honda is not the ?least restrictive environment? for some of its residents. In addition, they found that insufficient efforts are made to move people into less restrictive environments, as is required by law. Lack of affordable alternative accessible housing and adequate community-based long-term services are clearly the barriers keeping people in Laguna Honda, and lined up for admission.

Co-counsel in the case are Protection and Advocacy, Inc. in Oakland, California; National Senior Citizens Law Center, in Los Angeles, California; the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, in Washington, D.C. and the Law Offices of Andrew Thomas Sinclair in Oakland, California. In a heartening coalition with the disability community, the national AARP Foundation Litigation has joined as co-counsel as well.

Motion To Dismiss / Refusal To Engage

The city's response to the lawsuit was a motion to dismiss and a refusal to engage in any meaningful discussion. Plaintiffs and counsel are awaiting the judge's response to dismiss. In contrast, the State of California, also a defendant, has initiated settlement talks with the plaintiffs.

In fact, the city's position flies in the face of the Olmstead Decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled (in June 1999) that it is a violation of the ADA for states to discriminate against people with disabilities by providing services in institutions when the individual could be served more appropriately in a community-based setting. In June of this year, President Bush signed an Executive Order requiring the full implementation of the Supreme Court's Olmstead Decision.

The plaintiffs and co-counsel remain convinced that if San Francisco's arrogant, wasteful and unlawful policy is not derailed, the consequences will affect not only the 1,200 current residents of Laguna Honda, but also those in danger of placement there in the future. The new facility will need nourishment from a funding stream guaranteed only by occupied bedsæand, without a doubt, that funding stream will be diverted from other more humane, community-based long-term care options.

(Page 4)

School District Held In Contempt

On August 22, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson found the Ravenswood City School District in East Palo Alto in contempt of court for their failure to comply with a consent decree and corrective action plan designed to enforce the education rights of children with disabilities. In responding to a contempt motion filed by DREDF and co-counsel in March, 2001, the judge stated that the school district has done ?virtually nothing? in the nearly two years since the order was signed. A decision on whether to order a state takeover of the elementary and middle school district or other penalty is expected in the fall.

The Court had preliminarily approved the agreement in March, 1999 with final approval of the decree and plan in January, 2000. Responding to DREDF's contempt motion, the judge had ordered Ravenswood Superintendent Charlie M. Knight and the California Department of Education (CDE) representatives to personally appear monthly to testify under oath as to their efforts to bring the district into compliance. Nevertheless, as Judge Henderson noted in his ruling, ?There's appallingly little to show for it by way of concrete education for the kids.?

Grossly Out of Compliance

The original lawsuit was filed in November, 1996 by DREDF, the East Palo Alto Community Law Project, and Sagy Law Associates. It alleged that the school district was grossly out of compliance with federal and state laws ensuring children with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. It also alleged that the CDE failed to monitor the district's compliance with those laws. The consent decree and Ravenswood Corrective Action Plan (RCAP), to which the district and the CDE agreed, were intended to correct the longstanding noncompliance.

The CDE directed the district to start implementing the RCAP in September, 1998. As of January 31, 2001, Ravenswood had completed only 32% of the corrective activities which they had agreed to complete by that date. Now, almost five years since the suit was filed, the district is requesting additional time to implement even the most elementary and fundamental aspects of this corrective action plan.

Attorney Bill Koski of the East Palo Alto Law Project commented, ?Not only has the district failed to comply with Judge Henderson's court order and ignored the Court's opinion that the Defendants' non-compliance record is ‘disastrously high,' but in some instances, conditions have actually worsened. Rather than decreasing the number of Ravenswood students segregated in ‘handicapped-only' classrooms as required by law and the RCAP, the number of students segregated from their non-disabled peers and placed in county run programs, regardless of their educational needs, has steadily increased each year for the past four years.?

DREDF attorney Diane Lipton says, “This has dragged on so long that many children have left the district, not receiving any of the benefits promised to them. This is a small district (with only about 500 special education students) and they were supposed to have a plan for staff training a year and half ago – they haven't even started. These laws have been in place for 25 years. The district and the state have had more than ample time to give the children what they need and what the laws guarantee to them. Now the district wants an additional two years to get their act together!”

The Tragic Cost

Lipton adds, ?This is one of the worst examples of poor compliance and enforcement DREDF has seen in many years. The district has failed to provide even the rudiments of a decent education. Instead, they give these children only a totally inadequate curriculum and uncertified and unqualified staff. The district has shown an appalling disrespect for parents of this minority community, and has unnecessarily segregated children with disabilities from their non-disabled peers. The loss of educational opportunity to disabled children is tragic and, for many children, irreparable. The State too has failed these children and has shown little backbone and inclination to enforce the law. So now we are looking to the Court for further intervention.?

(Page 5)

P2P -- From Principles to Practice
DREDF Hosts Landmark International Disability Rights Symposium

[Three photos by Tom Olin accompany article. The first two photos are accompanied by a drop quote. Photo 1 - Photo shows two men sitting opposite each other at a table. The man on the left is motioning with his hands and speaking to the man on the right. “Thanks so very very much for such a great conference and for including me. It was great and you all did a fantastic job. Your impact will echo around the world for a long, long time!” - M. David Lepofsky, Canada
Caption: Conference participant M. David Lepofsky (left) with John Wodatch, U.S. Dept. of Justice Disability Rights Section Chief.

Photo 2 – A man sitting at a table with a woman; the man is speaking to the woman and gesturing with his hands. ?It was a good experience for me and I really learnt a lot and I'm thinking of provoking the disability movement to seriously consider and reorganize and get busy with advocacy and make sure enforcing mechanisms are put in place and utilized. Thanks.? - David Mukwasa, Zambia. Photo caption: David Mukwasa, Zambia [Zambia].

Photo 3 – A woman with no arms, standing up, smiling, lifting up a bouquet of flowers with her bare foot. Caption: Symposium consultant and presenter Theresia Degener, Germany.

In October 2000, DREDF, in partnership with the U.S. Social Security Administration and seven other federal agencies, convened From Principles to Practice, a landmark international disability rights law and policy symposium. More than forty nations have enacted some form of disability anti-discrimination legislation in the past decade, yet law and policy experts and advocates internationally have had few opportunities to come together to discuss legal theories, implementation issues, and strategies for future reform. The symposium provided such an opportunity.

The broad goals of the four-day symposium were to:

'ë launch an international disability rights working group of attorneys, policy and legislative experts, and people with disabilities;
'ë share ideas about laws and policies, enforcement mechanisms, and strategies for reforms;
'ë discuss basic legal principles;
?ë identify specific strategies and tactics that will advance legal reforms; and
?ë encourage communication among lawyers and advocates.

Approximately one hundred and fifty invited participants from fifty-seven countries including sponsor-observers joined DREDF in Washington, DC to participate in the symposium. Commissioned papers by disability rights law and policy experts from abroad and the U.S. set the stage for the plenary sessions.

Susan Daniels, then the Deputy Commissioner, Office of Disability and Income Security Programs for the U.S. Social Security Administration, welcomed the participants. Greetings were also extended by Justin Dart, Jr., co-founder of Justice for All; Jonathan Young, then Associate Director for Disability for The White House who welcomed the participants on behalf of Bill Clinton; and Pat Wright, DREDF's Governmental Affairs Director. The opening plenary session æsimultaneously translated into four languages as was the entire symposiumæset the stage for the days to follow with a presentation and discussion of the nature of prejudice as it relates to disability discrimination. Panelists from Kenya, Peru and the U.S. served as respondents.

The State of Disability Law

The first full day of the symposium opened with presentations describing the state of disability law globallyæmore than 40 of 189 United Nations member States have adopted some form of anti-discrimination law for people with disabilities. In other sessions, models of equality were considered by panelists from Costa Rica, South Africa and the U.S.; and the definition of disability as it relates to disability rights was discussed by panelists from The Netherlands and the U.S. Additional plenary topics included the conflict between the charity and social policy models, and the emerging right under both international and U.S law to community integration for people with disabilities living in institutions. Ecuador, Mexico and the U.S. provided examples.

Case studies illustrating effective community advocacy strategies were presented featuring India, Germany and the U.S. The challenge of effective enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and policies was presented from the viewpoints of practitioners from South Africa, Hungary and the U.S.

The symposium also offered working groups on architectural accessibility, international development and civil society, transportation, employment under various social and economic circumstances, as well as a UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities, and grassroots organizing and coalition building.

Concluding the meeting, participants met in regional groups to identify future needs and ideas for collaboration. These recommendations, taken together with the outcomes of a written survey, led to the symposium's final recommendations.

Internet-Based Clearinghouse

Acting on some of the key recommendations of the symposium, DREDF plans to launch an Internet-based law and policy clearinghouse, and support has been received to collaborate with disability rights leaders in Costa Rica. Transnational Publishers will be publishing the commissioned papers in a book that will be released internationally later this year.

In order to read the commissioned papers, anti-discrimination laws from over forty countries, the symposium agenda, and for a list of participants, see DREDF's web site (www.dredf.org).

Box:

DREDF would like to extend a special thanks to Marie Strahan of the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Susan Daniels formerly with SSA without whose tenacity, leadership and vision this first-of-its-kind meeting would not have been possible.

SPONSORS (box)

Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities
President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
U.S Department of State
Center for Mental Health Services
National Council on Disability
U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S. Information Agency
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
ICCO
Ethel Louise Armstrong Foundation

COMMISSIONED PAPERS (box)

When to Hold 'Em and When to Fold 'Em: Lessons Learned from Enacting the Americans with
Disabilities Act

Jane West
Consultant

Patrisha A. Wright
Director of Governmental Affairs
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc.

What Is Prejudice As It Relates To Disability Anti-Discrimination Law?

David Ruebain
Head Of Education & Disability Law
Levenes Solicitors

Disability as a Prohibitive Ground for Discrimination;
Different Definitions _ Same Problems _ One Way Out?

Aart C. Hendriks
Health Research and Development Council (ZON)
The Hague, The Netherlands

The ADA and Models Of Equality

Arlene B. Mayerson
Directing Attorney
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc.

The Political Process That Led To The Inclusion Of Disability In The Constitution Of Uganda

Hon. Nayiga Florence-Ssekabira (Mrs.)
Minister of State for Gender, Labour and Social Development, in charge of Disability and Elderly Affairs
Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development
Kampala, Uganda

A Survey Of International, Comparative And Regional Disability Law Reform

Theresia Degener
Professor of Law, Administration and Organisation,
University of Applied Sciences Rheinland-Westfalen-Lippe,
Bochum Germany

Gerard Quinn
Lecturer in Law, National University of Ireland (Galway campus)

Social Welfare and Civil Rights Models of Disability in American, European and International
Employment Law

Lisa Waddington
Senior Lecturer in Law
Maastricht University, The Netherlands

Matthew Diller
Professor
Fordham University School of Law

People with Disabilities in Institutions and the Emerging Right to Community Integration:
Protections Under International and U.S. Law

By Eric Rosenthal, Executive Director, Mental Disabilities Rights International
and Arlene Kanter, Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Legal Education,
Syracuse University College of Law

Achieving Accessibility: How the Americans with Disabilities Act is Changing the Face and Mind of a Nation

By Silvia Yee and Marilyn Golden
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc.

(Page 6)

CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY


Keeping Parents In The Loop: SB511 to Establish Family Empowerment Centers on Disability

For the past six months, DREDF's parent advocates have been part of a coalition of parents and community-based disability organizations endorsing SB511, a California legislative proposal designed to supplement current special education support programs, and to provide parents with essential tools to help their children with disabilities learn. SB 511 was recently introduced in the Senate by its principle author, Senator Dede Alpert (D-San Diego).

Citing the lack of any coordinated system to provide parents of California's 650,000 children with disabilities with the information and support services they need to be effective advocates for their children's education, the coalition has called upon the state to establish 33 nonprofit ?Family Empowerment Centers? to be distributed geographically throughout California. The Family Empowerment Coalition has noted that California has continued to receive non-compliance citations for its failure to meet its obligations to disabled children under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Information is Scarce

These failures were heavily documented in last year's National Council on Disability's report, ?Back to School on Civil Rights.? DREDF staff did much of the research and writing of that report. The report states that ?of the 5.9 million children with disabilities in America receiving special education services, nearly 11% live in California.? Under federal law, each one of them is entitled to a free and appropriate education, but far too many children with disabilities won't ever receive it. Even among those parents who know their child has such rights, information is scarce and many of the parents are forced to give up because they simply can't abandon their lives to deal with the issue full-time.

Run by parents of children with disabilities, coordinated through the California Department of Education, and working collaboratively with other local family-based services, the Family Empowerment Centers would provide an easily accessible and desperately needed source of information about disabilities, laws, and available services.

The Centers' programs and activities would support parents in becoming effective advocates for their children, and for the development and implementation of educational policies and programs that would produce more successful outcomes. The services would be available for children with all types of disabilities, as well as to the members of their families.


Funding Woefully Inadequate

DREDF is one of the eleven federally-funded Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs) in California that have been established to help parents of children with disabilities on education issues. Current PTI funding and staffing is woefully inadequate to serve the hundreds of thousands of families in need of services throughout the state. As a consequence, the current centers serve fewer than 10% of the families in California whose children are enrolled in special education programs.

Fewer than 50% of California's special education students leave high school with a diploma, making California the state with the lowest graduation rate in the country. As proponents of high stakes testing and the state high school exit exam become more entrenched in requiring that all children be tested, the demands for better quality educational services and programs for disabled children rise with it. This is just one example of why parents need concrete information about the implications of the nature of such tests.

The cost of the proposed program, $25 million, amounts to less than $40 per child and is expected to achieve five things:

'ë Improve the educational outcomes and life skills of disabled students
'ë Reduce system-wide reliance on costly litigation to resolve problems
'ë Improve parent involvement and satisfaction with educational programs
'ë Ensure that parents are no longer absent from the disability agenda
'ë Raise long-term employment outcomes for persons with disabilities

Testimony before all the Senate committees has been completed where it left the Senate floor with 40 ?ayes? and no ?no? votes. The bill is currently making its way through the Assembly. Parent Advocate Wendy Byrnes has testified before all the various committees expressing DREDF's support of this bill.

Additional information about SB 511 and a sample letter of support that can be sent to local and state legislators is available on DREDF's Website www.dredf.org

DREDF Targets Failing Mental Health System

Not a week goes by without DREDF's advocates hearing from parents of children who are supposed to be getting mental health services, but are not. To gauge the extent of this problem, DREDF completed a preliminary study of mental health services for children with disabilities in California. With funding from The California Endowment, DREDF produced a 30-page ?white paper? that concluded:

'ë Despite explicit federal and state mandates to serve the mental health needs of children, California has failed to monitor its own delivery systems. Data regarding children served or services delivered is not collected by the agencies responsible for fulfilling children's mental health mandates, thereby depriving parents and advocates of one measure of how well California is serving its children with mental health service needs.

?ë Although agencies charged with delivering mental health services to children are required to work together and coordinate service delivery, agencies still operate independently from one another and spend too much time protecting resources, when coordination could significantly decrease resource expenditures. What happens to the children caught in this ?turf war?? They fall through the cracks, and some end up in juvenile justice settings, where educational and mental health needs go largely unmet.

'ë Approximately one half of the children who receive mental health services receive them through their public schools. Although schools are the most logical place to reach the greatest number of children, California schools are shifting the responsibility to deliver mental health services to students onto other agencies and parents.

'ë Mental health funding in California is confusing to agencies delivering mental health services to children, and although available funding is inadequate, the limited funding that is available is not maximized, either through coordination, or by the elimination of redundant services among service agencies.

DREDF set forth specific recommendations for systems change in the report to The California Endowment, which has provided funds for DREDF to convene a one-day, invitation-only symposium this fall. Participants will include state agency representatives, parents of children with mental health service needs, advocates, and health professionals and administrators.

DREDF at TASH Conference

TASH is hosting its 2001 international disability advocacy conference "Imaging the Future," at the Anaheim Marriott, Anaheim, CA from November 14-17, 2001. DREDF Parent Advocates Mary Cazden and Wendy Byrnes will be presenting a Transition Seminar on Saturday, November 17. For further information, contact TASH: 1-800-828-6706 or email info@tash.org or on the internet at www.tash.org/2001tashconference

DREDF Parent Project – (510) 644–2555

Every month approximately 150 people call the parent advocates at DREDF's Parent Training and Information Project seeking information and assistance regarding students in special education. The parent advocates provide technical assistance, including information about IDEA, special education strategies, and assistance with letter writing and complaint procedures. In addition, the Parent Project conducts trainings in such areas as IDEA, IEPs, Section 504, transition, and parent mentoring. The goal of the project is to provide family members with information and support to enable them to advocate for their children. For more information, call (510) 644-2555.


(Page 7)

Disability Rights History Pilot Project

[Photo shows a tall blind man (presenter Gerald Baptiste) standing next to a fifth grade student demonstrating the proper etiquette for assisting a visually impaired person, as another student at a desk looks on. – Ken Stein photo]

In November and December 2000, over a hundred students in the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) participated in a landmark disability civil rights history project conducted by DREDF. Funded by the State of California Department of Rehabilitation, the pilot model curriculum was taught to two 5th grade and two 6th grade classes at Jefferson School and Martin Luther King Middle School.

DREDF has long understood that myths and fears about disability are oftentimes more handicapping than the physical limitations that flow from people's actual disabilities. Disability civil rights history has rarely been taught at the grammar or middle school level. This is unfortunate but not surprising. In spite of the passage of a number of disability civil rights laws over the past three decades, most of the public at large, including the media, is still operating philosophically on the centuries-old medical and charity model of disability, in an attitudinal context of ?helpless cripple? and ?inspirational super-crip.? This view of persons with disability persists, in spite of the fact that the disability rights movement was based on an entirely different perspective: on the disabled person's right to full and equal participation in society, and a recognition that the primary barriers to societal participation are discriminatory attitudes and architectural barriers.

It was a goal of this pilot project to enable adults with disabilities who have come up in the disability rights movement to introduce some of these concepts to 5th grade and middle-school aged children, utilizing the powerful teaching technique of face to face contact and interactions with persons who themselves have suffered the consequences of discrimination, and who have participated in and were instrumental in bringing about major societal changes.

Lifelong Impact

Clearly, students learning these concepts at a relatively early age can have a lifelong impact on their sensibility to and their interactions with persons with disabilities, and consequently can have a significant impact on the ability of persons with disabilities to live more successful and more independent lives. It is equally true that as the curriculum is disseminated regionally and nationally, it will have a concomitant empowering impact on mainstreamed children with disabilities in the designated classes, as well as on those persons with disabilities providing the training.

The two one-hour class sessions for each of the classes included a discussion of local and national disability rights history, its relationship to other civil rights movements, the development of the independent living movement, and the emergence of disability civil rights laws. Each of the classes received two one-hour presentations presented a week apart. In the weeks prior to the first class, each of the students had been given a personal copy of the age-appropriate text, The Disability Rights Movement by Deborah Kent (Children's Press / Grolier Publishing, 1996). The teachers had read the book with the students prior to the classes so that they would have some background and context with which to understand the material being presented. Copies of the book were also distributed to each of the Berkeley Unified School District school libraries. The program also incorporated the viewing and discussion of The Power of 504, an 18 minute documentary about the 1977 ?504 Sit-in? at San Francisco's Federal Building.

As part of this project, the students had an assignment to interview someone with a disability, either someone they knew among their friends or family circle, or someone on a list of interviewees provided by the project. The people on the list were interviewed by telephone and had agreed to be participants in the project. The assignment enabled the students to get a firsthand personal perspective on issues raised in class and helped to incorporate the richness, diversity and wealth of experience of Berkeley's disability community into the heart of the project. In the second class, the students watched the ?504? video and discussed their interviews.

Additional information about DREDF's Disability Rights History Project is available on DREDF's website. To receive a full report about the project, including a detailed curriculum narrative, project reports, etc., contact Kenneth Stein at DREDF: kstein@dredf.org (510) 644-2555.


Family Leadership and Training Project

DREDF, in conjunction with the Care Parent Network in Martinez, has been actively involved in an innovative project to conduct a six-part training on leadership and advocacy. The Family Leadership Project, funded by Cal-STAT (California Services for Technical Assistance and Training, a special project of the California Department of Education, Special Education Division) is working with over a dozen parents to educate and ultimately prepare them to take their place on decision and policy-making bodies related to children with disabilities. This may include taking a seat on a Community Advisory Council, assuming a board position at a Parent Club or PTA, or becoming involved in a wide variety of state-level activities and committees relating to school reform efforts through the California Department of Education.

Many of the parents who completed the six-month training have young children who attend the Early Intervention program run through the West Contra Costa Unified School District. The training was designed to help parents with very young children learn advocacy and leadership skills so that they will become informed and collaborative partners with their child's educational team in developing and providing the best possible programs and interventions available through the IEP process. Parents completing the training will also possess the necessary skills to advocate on a broader scale, and to work with school administrators and educators to effect positive changes in the special education system.

Mentor Parents

Topics for the training included Understanding Laws Surrounding Special Education, Negotiating Key Systems, and Leadership and Collaboration Skills. Parents also had the opportunity to access the expertise of Mentor Parents, who were available to answer questions and accompany them to local meetings.

Parents received a small stipend for each session they attended to help defray the cost of childcare or other related costs and were provided with a wide variety of resource materials. The Project created an opportunity for parents to meet with the members of agencies and committees in which they would like to participate.

For more information on leadership training opportunities for parents of children with disabilities please call DREDF at 510-644-2555 or email us at dredf@dredf.org.

DREDF ADA MATERIALS AVAILABLE
ADA Title III Compliance Package:
Includes ?Open for Business? Video & ?Access Equals Opportunity? Brochures
?Open For Business? — An award-winning film that shows the disability and business communities working together in one small town to remove architectural barriers, as required by the ADA.
?Access Equals Opportunity? — Seven brochures in a question and answer format addressing ADA Title III compliance. Package Price: $179.00. Price for Disability Organizations: $129.00.
ADA: An Implementation Guide (The Bluebook)
DREDF's Implementation Guide offers a detailed, thorough analysis of all the law's provisions, encompassing ADA legislative history, the statute and regulations. Price: $100.00. Price for Disability Organizations: $75.00.

Contact DREDF to receive information about these and other DREDF publications


Page 8
Garrett Casts A Dark Cloud Over Civil Rights Advances


[Photo shows a woman in a wheelchair speaking into a microphone in front of the Sproul Hall steps at U.C. Berkeley. A sign behind her reads, "Disability Rights Day of Action." Caption: DREDF Board Member Jenny Kern, Esq., speaking at an April 17 rally on the U.C. Berkeley Campus, as part of a national day of protest opposing the Supreme Court's Garrett decision. Ken Stein photo]

In the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, the United States Supreme Court heard the cases of Patricia Garrett, a registered nurse with breast cancer who had been demoted, and Milton Ash, a corrections officer with severe asthma whose employer would not enforce its own no-smoking policy. Both had sued their state employers for monetary damages, alleging discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Court's decision, issued February 21, 2001, does nothing, more or less, than bar state employees from suing their state employers for monetary damages under Title I of the ADA. State employees can still sue their employers under Title I for injunctive relief (i.e., a court order requiring a party to cease actions that have been found to be illegal), and the federal Department of Justice is still free to seek monetary damages under Title I against state entities found to be guilty of discrimination. Furthermore, the right to bring action for monetary damages against private employers and local governments (e.g. cities) is unaffected by the Garrett decision, and the court specifically declined to consider the constitutionality of Title II of the ADA, which prohibits disability discrimination by public entities.

A Foreboding Decision

Nonetheless, for anyone concerned about the civil rights of persons with disabilities and the broader battle against discrimination in the U.S., Garrett is a critical and foreboding decision. The reasoning used in the bare 5-4 majority opinion stressed the limits of Congress' law-making power under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as weighed against the immunity afforded to states under the Eleventh Amendment. Specifically, the high court decided that because of Eleventh Amendment immunity, state employees could not bring Title I lawsuits against states to recover monetary damages for employment discrimination.

In deciding that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to enable state employees to sue their employers for monetary damages, the majority found that 1) the legislative record used by Congress in enacting the ADA failed to show sufficient evidence of a Ahistory and pattern@ of unconstitutional employment discrimination by the states, and 2) the ADA=s requirement that state employers must reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities far exceeds the constitutional requirement that states need only avoid disability-influenced decisions that lack a Arational basis.@

The Majority's Reasoning

The majority's reasoning continues the current conservative-dominated court's trend of constitutionally favoring state autonomy over the federal civil rights law-making power.
In Garrett, the United States Supreme Court majority specifically upheld the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity against actions initiated by private citizens. It is worth noting that several states, including California, have introduced bills to waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity with regard to Title I of the ADA, thereby enabling its citizens to pursue claims against the state.

Both the majority's willingness to require evidence on the specific point of state employment discrimination against the disabled, and their conclusion that the legislative record failed to provide sufficient evidence on the point (a finding that was vehemently opposed in the strongly-worded dissent of Justice Breyer), raises disturbing implications for the future of not only federal disability-specific anti-discrimination laws, but also of the continuing vitality of all civil-rights statutes. While the court in Garrett specifically declined to consider the constitutionality of the ADA's Title II protections, which were not after all specifically raised by the facts of the case, the motivating force behind the majority's interpretation of Congressional law-making powers continues to threaten the rationale behind not only Title II of the ADA, but also many other hard-fought legislative gains in the battle against discrimination.


DREDF ACTIVE IN “FRIEND OF THE COURT” EFFORTS

In recent months, DREDF has joined in filing a number of amicus, or ?friend of the court,? briefs in a number of significant cases in both state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court's recent consideration of Casey Martin's ADA case against the PGA Tour. These efforts continue DREDF's longstanding tradition of working in coalition with other civil rights and disability advocacy organizations, and of offering our legal expertise and the disability community's perspective to judges across the country. Complete reports on DREDF's amicus work and on the Casey Martin case can be found on DREDF's website: www.dredf.org.

Supreme Court Sidesteps Title II Constitutionality

In the same month that the Supreme Court ruled on Garrett, it refused to hear several cases involving the constitutionality of ADA Title II, which covers state and local governments. These were cases in which requests for high court review had been pending, but the Supreme Court had neither granted nor denied review until after the Garrett decision was issued. One of these cases, Dare v. California, was an ADA challenge to that state's disabled parking placard fee, which argued that the fee was an illegal surcharge. For over a year the Dare case had been at the center of a larger controversy over California's general commitment to disability civil rights. A complete report on the Dare case and the state advocacy issues that surround it can be found on DREDF's website: www.dredf.org.


DREDF Offices

Main Office
2212 Sixth St., Berkeley, CA 94710
Voice / TTY: 510 644-2555
Facsimile: 510.841.8645
Email: dredf@dredf.org
ADA Hotline: 800.466.4232
Website: www.dredf.org

Government Affairs Office
1629 “K” Street N.W., Suite 802
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: 202.986.0375
Facsimile: 202.775.7465

Disability Rights News is available large print, audio cassette, computer disk, and is also available online at www.dredf.org. To be added to our mailing list, or to request this publication in alternative format, please contact DREDF at 2212 6th St. Berkeley, CA 94710; EMAIL: dredf@dredf.org; Phone (510) 644-2555 (Voice/TTY); FAX (510) 841-8645.