Thread Subject: Reasonable Accommodation

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Tue, Dec 05 2006 5:10 PM
Subject: Reasonable Accommodation

Here¹s a simple and perhaps naïve question: does Section 508 require the
Federal Government to purchase AT for an employee with a disability who
needs the AT to do their job? Or is that covered someplace else?

We¹re going to all this trouble to define accessibility requirements that
must be in mainstream IT in order for the Federal Government to purchase it,
but what about when someone actually is employed and needs to make use of
that accessibility? Is that covered under the ADA? Should it be covered in
508?

In other words: when the Federal Government hires a person with a
disability, who pays for the AT?

(I should know the answer to that question, but I don't. And I figured if I
don¹t, then there are probably others who don¹t as well).

-Randy Marsden

From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Tue, Dec 05 2006 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: Reasonable Accommodation

"Section 508 require the Federal Government to purchase AT for an employee with a disability who needs the AT to do their job? Or is that covered someplace else?"

No 508 does not require this. Reasonable Accommodations are covered under Section 504 of the Rehab Act. A reasonable accommodation may involve the purchase of equipment or some other remedy.

"Is that covered under the ADA?"

No...Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

" Should it be covered in 508?"

I do not think it is appropriate to address reasonable accommodations in Section 508 since it is alreay covered under another section of the Rehabilitation Act.

"when the Federal Government hires a person with a disability, who pays for the AT?"

The employer is responsible.




I tried to get this thought across in today's Self-Contained meeting...but...



Tom Brett

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Tue, Dec 05 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Reasonable Accommodation

Individuals with disabilities that are employed by the Federal government
are covered under the ADA and Section 501 of the Rehab Act. If an individual
needs an accommodation the Federal Government is obligated to accommodate
the individual unless it constitutes an undue burden. Also, under the
?Alternate Means Efforts? of Section 508 if the agency can?t develop,
acquire, maintain, or use products that conform to the 508 standards without
an undue burden then they are obligated to ensue that the person has access
by ?an alternate means? which could include an accommodation using assistive
technology. Federal agencies cover the cost of the reasonable
accommodations that are needed even AT. Obviously it would not include
personal AT such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, etc. as the individual would
need these devices beyond the scope of the work setting. The individual
would acquire these personal-use type of devices using their personal health
insurance benefits.



??(B) ALTERNATIVE MEANS EFFORTS.?When development, procurement, maintenance,
or use of electronic and information technology that meets the standards
published by the Access Board under paragraph (2) would impose an undue
burden, the Federal department or agency shall provide individuals with
disabilities covered by paragraph(1) with the information and data involved
by an alternative means of access that allows the individual to use the
information and data.





-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:06 PM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation



Here?s a simple and perhaps naïve question: does Section 508 require the
Federal Government to purchase AT for an employee with a disability who
needs the AT to do their job? Or is that covered someplace else?

We?re going to all this trouble to define accessibility requirements that
must be in mainstream IT in order for the Federal Government to purchase it,
but what about when someone actually is employed and needs to make use of
that accessibility? Is that covered under the ADA? Should it be covered in
508?

In other words: when the Federal Government hires a person with a
disability, who pays for the AT?

(I should know the answer to that question, but I don't. And I figured if I
don?t, then there are probably others who don?t as well).

-Randy Marsden

From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Tue, Dec 05 2006 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: Reasonable Accommodation

One thing to remember is that there is normally emphasis on REASONABLE in reasonable accommodation. There are other permissible accommodations other than the purchase of AT. This could include telecommuting or reassignment to a job that does not require access to the non-compliant item.

Tom Brett

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Dec 05 2006 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Reasonable Accommodation

That is usually covered under 504 ? but if 504 didn?t exist I think that 508
law (not necessarily the 508 standards) says that the computing environment
should be made accessible and if AT was needed to do that?.. But 504 does
exist so no need (unless right of private action is easier under 508 than
504 which may be true).




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:06 PM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation

Here?s a simple and perhaps naïve question: does Section 508 require the
Federal Government to purchase AT for an employee with a disability who
needs the AT to do their job? Or is that covered someplace else?

We?re going to all this trouble to define accessibility requirements that
must be in mainstream IT in order for the Federal Government to purchase it,
but what about when someone actually is employed and needs to make use of
that accessibility? Is that covered under the ADA? Should it be covered in
508?

In other words: when the Federal Government hires a person with a
disability, who pays for the AT?

(I should know the answer to that question, but I don't. And I figured if I
don?t, then there are probably others who don?t as well).

-Randy Marsden

From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Wed, Dec 06 2006 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: Reasonable Accommodation

Gregg said:



(unless right of private action is easier under 508 than 504 which may be true).



Private actions alleging violation of the standards are handled under the Section 504 process.



Tom Brett,

Section 508 Coordinator

US Office of Personnel Management

Rm 3H19

2026061206 (v)

2026062582 (tty)

Disabled does not mean Unable

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:44 PM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation



That is usually covered under 504 - but if 504 didn't exist I think that 508 law (not necessarily the 508 standards) says that the computing environment should be made accessible and if AT was needed to do that..... But 504 does exist so no need (unless right of private action is easier under 508 than 504 which may be true).




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Wed, Dec 06 2006 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: Reasonable Accommodation

It?s my impression that there are two avenues to pursue complaints. In one
scenario the consumer would complain to the federal agency and the complaint
would be handled administratively based on established procedures used to
implement Section 504. However, under the law, consumers also have the
latitude to pursue civil action. I don?t believe that there is a
requirement that the user exhaust the first level of administrative
processes with the federal agency before being able to pursue civil action-
is there?





-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Brett, Thomas F
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 6:46 AM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation



Gregg said:



(unless right of private action is easier under 508 than 504 which may be
true).



Private actions alleging violation of the standards are handled under the
Section 504 process.



Tom Brett,

Section 508 Coordinator

US Office of Personnel Management

Rm 3H19

2026061206 (v)

2026062582 (tty)

Disabled does not mean Unable

<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:44 PM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation



That is usually covered under 504 ? but if 504 didn?t exist I think that 508
law (not necessarily the 508 standards) says that the computing environment
should be made accessible and if AT was needed to do that?.. But 504 does
exist so no need (unless right of private action is easier under 508 than
504 which may be true).




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:06 PM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation

Here?s a simple and perhaps naïve question: does Section 508 require the
Federal Government to purchase AT for an employee with a disability who
needs the AT to do their job? Or is that covered someplace else?

We?re going to all this trouble to define accessibility requirements that
must be in mainstream IT in order for the Federal Government to purchase it,
but what about when someone actually is employed and needs to make use of
that accessibility? Is that covered under the ADA? Should it be covered in
508?

In other words: when the Federal Government hires a person with a
disability, who pays for the AT?

(I should know the answer to that question, but I don't. And I figured if I
don?t, then there are probably others who don?t as well).

-Randy Marsden

From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Wed, Dec 06 2006 6:40 AM
Subject: Re: Reasonable Accommodation

"I don't believe that there is a requirement that the user exhaust the first level of administrative processes with the federal agency before being able to pursue civil action- is there?"



I believe you are correct. Depending on the circumstances Federal Employees would have the same latitude. In reality there are no complaint procedures in Section 508....those procedures are in 504.



Tom Brett,

Section 508 Coordinator

US Office of Personnel Management

Rm 3H19

2026061206 (v)

2026062582 (tty)

Disabled does not mean Unable

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:29 AM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation



It's my impression that there are two avenues to pursue complaints. In one scenario the consumer would complain to the federal agency and the complaint would be handled administratively based on established procedures used to implement Section 504. However, under the law, consumers also have the latitude to pursue civil action. I don't believe that there is a requirement that the user exhaust the first level of administrative processes with the federal agency before being able to pursue civil action- is there?





-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Brett, Thomas F
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 6:46 AM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation



Gregg said:



(unless right of private action is easier under 508 than 504 which may be true).



Private actions alleging violation of the standards are handled under the Section 504 process.



Tom Brett,

Section 508 Coordinator

US Office of Personnel Management

Rm 3H19

2026061206 (v)

2026062582 (tty)

Disabled does not mean Unable

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:44 PM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation



That is usually covered under 504 - but if 504 didn't exist I think that 508 law (not necessarily the 508 standards) says that the computing environment should be made accessible and if AT was needed to do that..... But 504 does exist so no need (unless right of private action is easier under 508 than 504 which may be true).




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.

From: Randy Dipner
Date: Wed, Dec 06 2006 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Reasonable Accommodation (Randy Dipner)

I think it is important in this discussion of reasonable accommodation to
keep in mind the difference between title I and title III of the ADA. Under
title I of the ADA an employee must be provided reasonable accommodation
based on a request by the individual. (Thus, the accommodation is reactive.)
Title I of the ADA is comparable to Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Under title III of the ADA the covered entity must comply with certain
standards of accessibility including the Standards for Accessible Design in
facilities such that any eligible individual has access to the goods and
services of the covered entity. (Thus, the accessibility is proactive.) This
is similar to Sections 502 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

This comparison is important for Section 508 in that it operates more like
title III than title I (at least in my estimation). That is, the 508
standards establish the things an entity must do proactively. I think it is
important to note that many more non-employees will be impacted by 508 than
employees. For example an information kiosk acquired for the Smithsonian
must adhere to the 508 standards making it accessible to anyone and the web
sites of a federal agency must adhere to the standards so that the millions
of citizens who access those sites can do so whether or not they have a
disability.

Certainly employees of the federal government will also benefit by having
E&IT that doesn't require AT, but if the individual has a need for an
accommodation (even if the E&IT is fully compliant with 508) they have a
right to request the accommodation under the Rehab Act Section 501 (similar
to title I of the ADA).

Randy Dipner
Meeting the Challenge, Inc.
3630 Sinton Road, Suite 103
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
719-444-0252x105 (voice)
719-444-0269 (fax)
719-5102822 (cell)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = (email)
MTC web site - http://www.mtc-inc.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-general-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 5:34 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: teitac-general Digest, Vol 3, Issue 3
>
> Send teitac-general mailing list submissions to
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-general
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of teitac-general digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Reasonable Accommodation (Gregg Vanderheiden)
> 2. Re: Reasonable Accommodation (Brett, Thomas F)
> 3. Re: Reasonable Accommodation (Deborah Buck)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 22:44:09 -0600
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation
> To: "'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Message-ID: <006e01c718f1$2d1f4f00$116fa8c0@NC84301>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> That is usually covered under 504 ? but if 504 didn?t exist I think that
508
> law (not necessarily the 508 standards) says that the computing
environment
> should be made accessible and if AT was needed to do that?.. But 504
does
> exist so no need (unless right of private action is easier under 508 than
> 504 which may be true).
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:06 PM
> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
> Subject: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation
>
> Here?s a simple and perhaps na?ve question: does Section 508 require the
> Federal Government to purchase AT for an employee with a disability who
> needs the AT to do their job? Or is that covered someplace else?
>
> We?re going to all this trouble to define accessibility requirements that
> must be in mainstream IT in order for the Federal Government to purchase
it,
> but what about when someone actually is employed and needs to make use of
> that accessibility? Is that covered under the ADA? Should it be covered
in
> 508?
>
> In other words: when the Federal Government hires a person with a
> disability, who pays for the AT?
>
> (I should know the answer to that question, but I don't. And I figured if
I
> don?t, then there are probably others who don?t as well).
>
> -Randy Marsden
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20061205/fef495f1/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 06:45:32 -0500
> From: "Brett, Thomas F" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation
> To: "TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Message-ID:
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> m.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Gregg said:
>
>
>
> (unless right of private action is easier under 508 than 504 which may be
true).
>
>
>
> Private actions alleging violation of the standards are handled under the
Section
> 504 process.
>
>
>
> Tom Brett,
>
> Section 508 Coordinator
>
> US Office of Personnel Management
>
> Rm 3H19
>
> 2026061206 (v)
>
> 2026062582 (tty)
>
> Disabled does not mean Unable
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-general-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:44 PM
> To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Reasonable Accommodation
>
>
>
> That is usually covered under 504 - but if 504 didn't exist I think that
508 law (not
> necessarily the 508 standards) says that the computing environment should
be
> made accessible and if AT was needed to do that..... But 504 does exist
so no
> need (unless right of private action is easier under 508 than 504 which
may be
> true).
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>