Enforcing the ADA A Status Report from the Department of Justice (April 1996 - June 1996) This Status Report covers the ADA activities of the Department of Justice during the second quarter (April to June) of 1996. Copies of this report and earlier reports are available through our ADA Telephone Information Line (see page ). 1996, Issue 2 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a comprehensive civil rights law for people with disabilities. The Department of Justice enforces the ADA's requirements in three areas -- Title I: Employment practices by units of State and local government Title II: Programs, services, and activities of State and local government Title III: Public accommodations and commercial facilities I. Enforcement Through lawsuits and both formal and informal settlement agreements, the Department has achieved greater access for individuals with disabilities in hundreds of cases. Under general rules governing lawsuits brought by the Federal Government, the Department of Justice may not file a lawsuit unless it has first unsuccessfully attempted to settle the dispute through negotiations. A. Litigation The Department may file lawsuits in Federal court to enforce the ADA and may obtain court orders including compensatory damages and back pay to remedy discrimination. Under title III the Department may also obtain civil penalties of up to $50,000 for the first violation and $100,000 for any subsequent violation. 1. Decisions Ninth Circuit Holds Hawaii Quarantine Subject to Title II Review -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Crowder v. Kitagawa that title II of the ADA covers Hawaii's rabies quarantine system which imposes a 120-day quarantine on carnivorous animals entering the State, including guide dogs. Because the quarantine is covered, the Ninth Circuit directed the district court to consider whether plaintiffs' suggested alternatives to the quarantine would be reasonable modifications under the ADA. The Department filed an amicus brief in the appeals court arguing that the quarantine was subject to title II review and that the district court had a duty to determine whether a reasonable modification could be made. ADA 9-1-1 Requirements Upheld -- A Federal court in Arizona has upheld the Department's interpretation of the title II direct access requirements for 9-1-1 emergency telephone systems. Three separate cases were filed against the City of Phoenix, Arizona, by deaf individuals who alleged that the City discriminated against them on the basis of disability by requiring them to press the space bar in order to receive a response from the 9-1-1 operator. The Department filed an amicus brief supporting plaintiffs in the consolidated case of Ferguson v. City of Phoenix. In an order denying the City's motion for summary judgment, the court noted that not all TDD's emit an audible tone when the space bar is pressed. The court upheld the Department's Title II Technical Assistance Manual which states that 9-1-1 systems cannot require TDD users to press the TDD space bar in order to receive a response, and that operators must be trained to recognize incoming TDD signals, to consider "silent calls" as possible TDD calls, and to respond accordingly. Following the ruling, the parties negotiated a consent decree ensuring that the Phoenix system would be modified to ensure direct access. Title II Prohibits Discriminatory Zoning Activities -- A Federal court granted an injunction in Innovative Health Systems, Inc. (IHS) v. City of White Plains to stop White Plains, New York, from preventing the operation of an alcohol and drug dependency treatment program in its downtown area. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York filed an amicus brief supporting plaintiffs' challenge to the city's zoning decision. The Court ruled, as the Department of Justice had argued, that IHS and private plaintiffs had standing to sue, that zoning enforcement activities of local governments are subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of title II, and that the disabilities of IHS' clients were a motivating factor in the defendants' decision to prohibit IHS from operating at its proposed site. The Court's ruling is significant because it rejected the analysis of other courts that had found title II inapplicable to zoning activities. White Plains has appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Court Finds Transportation of Arrestee not Covered by Title II -- A Federal district court in Missouri has held in Gorman v. Bishop that the arrest and transportation of an individual with a disability is not covered by the ADA, because it is not a service, program, or activity within the meaning of title II. The plaintiff, who uses a wheelchair, suffered injuries while being transported to police headquarters following his arrest. He claimed that the Kansas City Missouri Police Department had no vehicles suitable for transporting individuals who use wheelchairs, failed to provide adequate training in the proper manner of arresting and transporting individuals with spinal cord injuries, and failed to make other reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures necessary to avoid discriminating against individuals with disabilities. The Department filed an amicus brief urging the court to hold that title II applies to the arrest and transportation of individuals with disabilities. The court's opinion suggested that its ruling might have been different if the plaintiff had alleged that he was arrested because he had a disability, but that he had not done so. The Department of Justice also participated as an intervenor in this case to defend the constitutionality of title II of the ADA. In a previous ruling, the Court agreed with the Department that title II of the ADA is not unconstitutionally vague. 2. New lawsuits The Department initiated or intervened in the following lawsuits. Title I United States v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles -- The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York filed suit against the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles and Department of Education and the Three Village Central School District challenging a rule prohibiting persons who are missing an arm or leg from being employed as school bus drivers. The case arose from the complaint of an individual who had been employed for a number of years as a bus driver. He received an off-the-job injury that resulted in amputation of a leg. After several years of rehabilitation, which included being fitted with a prosthesis, he reapplied for a bus driver position. The private bus company that provides contract services to the school district tested his driving skills and was apparently prepared to rehire him but could not do so because of State regulations prohibiting anyone missing a limb from driving school buses. Lancaster v. City of Mobile; Gaston v. Bellingrath Gardens and Home, Inc. -- A Federal judge in the Southern District of Alabama has questioned the constitutionality of the ADA in two separate employment discrimination actions pending before him, Lancaster v. City of Mobile (involving a municipal employer) and Gaston v. Bellingrath Gardens and Home, Inc. (involving a private employer). The Department has intervened in both cases to defend the constitutionality of the ADA. In Lancaster, the Department filed a brief arguing that Congress properly exercised its powers under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause in prohibiting disability discrimination by local government employers under title I. 3. Consent decrees Some litigation is resolved at the time the suit is filed or afterwards by means of a negotiated consent decree. Consent decrees are monitored and enforced by the Federal court in which they are entered. Title III United States v. Days Inns -- Consent decrees have been entered in two of the five lawsuits brought against the national franchisors of Days Inns, as well as the owners, architects, and contractors of five Days Inn hotels across the country for violations of the new construction requirements of title III. The five suits ū involving Days Inn hotels in Willows, California; Wall, South Dakota; Champaign, Illinois; Evansville, Indiana; and, Hazard, Kentucky ū allege that the defendants failed to comply with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Violations include, for example, failure to provide accessible parking, accessible public areas including restrooms, accessible paths of travel to and from public areas and guest rooms, and accessible guest rooms. Other violations include inadequate visual alarms and the lack of Braille and raised characters on room signage. The Department entered into consent agreements with the owners, architects, and contractors of the Days Inn hotel in Hazard, Kentucky, and the owners and contractors of the hotel in Willows, California. The franchisors were not a party to these agreements and the litigation concerning them will proceed. In the Hazard case the parties agreed to correct violations by April 1, 1997. In Willows, the owner agreed to correct violations by October 1, 1997. The contractor has entered a separate consent decree and paid $7,000 in civil penalties for the ADA violations in Willows -- the first time a contractor has paid civil penalties for failing to comply with the ADA's requirements for new construction. United States v. Bekins Van Lines -- The Department settled, through a pair of consent decrees, its AIDS discrimination suit against Bekins Van Lines and its Philadelphia agent, Bekins Transfer and Storage. The suit alleged that the defendants had contracted to move the belongings of two persons, but refused to do so when the moving crew saw an individual with AIDS on the premises. Collectively, the defendants agreed to pay a total of $44,500 to settle the litigation. By consent decree, Bekins Van Lines agreed to pay compensatory damages to the individual who has AIDS and to the two persons who were to have their belongings moved. Bekins Van Lines also agreed to include a policy statement in its procedural manual addressing the transmission of infectious diseases, including HIV and AIDS. Under the second agreement, Bekins Transfer and Storage agreed to pay $14,500 to the United States, adopt the nondiscrimination policy developed by Bekins Van Lines, and send its operations manager and dispatchers to an educational seminar on the ADA. Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. -- The Department entered into a formal agreement and consent decree with United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. (UATC), one of the nation's largest exhibitors of motion pictures, that will ensure compliance with the ADA's barrier removal and new construction provisions at more than 400 theater locations with approximately 2,300 screens throughout the United States. The consent decree, which was filed simultaneously with the Department's intervention in Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., will completely resolve that suit. The Arnold case was a private class action suit brought on behalf of California residents with mobility impairments who encountered barriers at UATC theaters. The agreement requires UATC to take the following actions in almost all of its existing theaters throughout the country within the next five years -- *Provide parking spaces that comply in design and number with the requirements of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (the Standards); *Provide an accessible path of travel from parking spaces to an accessible theater entrance; *Provide in each auditorium the number of wheelchair seating spaces required in comparably-sized, newly-constructed auditoriums, with companion seating; *Ensure that one percent of the total number of seats is aisle seats with folding or removable aisle-side armrests; *Provide at least two dispersed wheelchair seating locations at a distance of from one-third to two-thirds of the way back from the screen in auditoriums with more than 300 seats; and *Modify existing restrooms to make them accessible or construct unisex accessible restrooms that comply with the Standards. UATC will also be required to bring all theaters constructed for first occupancy after January 26, 1993, into full compliance with the Standards by no later than June 30, 1997, and to ensure that future construction complies with the Standards. United States v. Physorthorad -- The Department filed a lawsuit and two consent decrees simultaneously in this case involving a newly-constructed two-story medical office building that was built without an elevator and that contained several other violations of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design including inaccessible staff rooms, restrooms, showers, and parking. Under the consent orders, which were negotiated separately with the owner of the building and the architectural firm that designed it, an elevator has been installed and other structural modifications have been made to bring the building into compliance. The architect agreed to pay $8,000 in civil penalties -- the first time that an architect has paid civil penalties for violations of the ADA's requirements for new construction. The owner also agreed to pay civil penalties of $10,000. 4. Amicus Briefs The Department files briefs in selected ADA cases in which it is not a party in order to guide courts in interpreting the ADA. Title II Armstrong v. Wilson -- The Department filed a brief arguing that title II covers all of the programs and activities of State entities, including correctional institutions, in this private suit against the California State prisons. The brief also argues that the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution does not bar Federal courts from hearing the title II claims of private parties against States. Williams v. Wasserman -- The Department filed an amicus brief in a consolidated case challenging the continued institutionalization by the State of Maryland of certain individuals with disabilities in state-run psychiatric hospitals, mental retardation facilities, and nursing homes. The brief asserts that unnecessary segregation is a form of discrimination prohibited by title II and argues that Maryland has violated title II in these particular cases by maintaining the plaintiffs in an institutional setting despite the unanimous findings of its treating professionals that the plaintiffs would be more appropriately served in existing community-based programs. B. Formal Settlement Agreements The Department sometimes resolves cases without filing a lawsuit by means of formal written settlement agreements. Title II Tallahassee, Florida -- The Department entered into a settlement agreement with the Florida State Courts System ensuring effective communication in court proceedings. The complainant, a defendant in an eminent domain proceeding who is hard of hearing, alleged that the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Florida discriminated against her on the basis of her disability by failing to take appropriate steps to ensure that its real-time transcription system provided effective communication during the proceedings. The agreement requires that all Florida courts ensure that real-time transcription services be accurate in order to ensure effective participation by people who are deaf or hard of hearing. The agreement also includes minimum guidelines for real-time transcriptions. Aurora, Colorado -- The Aurora, Colorado, police department agreed to make sign-language interpreters available when appropriate to ensure effective communication with the public. New Olympic Stadiums Are Fully Accessible -- The Department entered into agreements to ensure full accessibility at five venues newly designed and constructed for the 1996 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia. The agreements with the Atlanta Committee on the Olympic Games and the Metropolitan Atlanta Olympic Games Authority make the Olympic Stadium, the Aquatic Center, the Stone Mountain Tennis Center, and the field hockey stadiums at Morris Brown College and Clark Atlanta University the most accessible sports facilities in the world and models for accessible stadium design nationwide. Under the agreements, the facilities -- *Provide accessible seating as an integral part of the seating plan; *Have at least one percent of their total seating accessible for persons using wheelchairs; *Disperse the accessible seating throughout the stadiums, including in specialty seating areas, such as the suites and the club level of the Olympic Stadium; *Provide a conventional seat next to each wheelchair space so that spectators with disabilities can sit next to family and friends; *Ensure that virtually all wheelchair seats have a comparable "line of sight" so that wheelchair users can still see the playing surface even when spectators in front of them stand up during an event; *Provide an accessible route from parking and transportation areas to the wheelchair seating locations that connects with all public areas of the stadiums; and *Provide full accessibility at all concession stands, restrooms, parking areas (including parking for vans), automatic bank machines, locker rooms, portable toilets, and employee common- use areas. After the conclusion of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, these five facilities will be converted into smaller, permanent sports facilities. For example, the Olympic Stadium will become the new home for the Atlanta Braves and the Aquatic Center will become a swimming facility for the Georgia Institute of Technology. The agreements ensure that the post-Olympic configuration of the facilities will also be fully accessible. Title III Applewood Tanning Center, Omaha, Nebraska -- The Applewood Tanning Center has agreed to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and to modify its policies concerning service animals to facilitate participation by customers with vision impairments. The settlement requires Applewood to make its liability release form available in large print, Braille, and audiotape; and to read the release at the request of customers with vision impairments. Applewood agreed to allow service animals into any area of its facility where it allows customers, including tanning areas. The agreement requires all Applewood personnel who deal with customers to undergo a training session at the Omaha office of the Nebraska Services for the Visually Impaired to learn about blindness and the appropriate way to extend service to blind customers. The settlement also provides for the payment of $1,000 to each of two complainants. Knoxville, Tennessee -- The Department entered an agreement with a Knoxville doctor to resolve a complaint that he had refused to accept a patient because she is deaf. The patient alleged that she scheduled a routine appointment for medical services with the doctor through the relay service of Tennessee but that, when she arrived at the doctor's office accompanied by an interpreter, she was refused treatment because she is deaf. Under the agreement, the doctor agreed to compensate the patient for the alleged denial of treatment with a payment of $2,000; pay civil penalties of $1,000 to the United States; develop a written policy of nondiscrimination regarding treatment of patients with disabilities; and ensure that all of the doctor's employees are appropriately trained to carry out this policy. Defendants Sentenced for ADA Fraud -- The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida successfully prosecuted eight defendants for mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax violations related to a nationwide scam to sell phony ADA inspector licenses and compliance products. The defendants bilked over 800 victims out of more than eight million dollars. Of this amount, the U.S. Attorney seized three million dollars in cash and property that will become available for repayment to victims of the scheme. The defendants now face up to five to ten years in prison and large fines. As part of the scam, investors were told they could earn $45,000 per year or more inspecting buildings for ADA violations after acquiring licenses from the National Consulting Institute for approximately $10,000 apiece. In addition, for $14,000, victims were sold "Slip Stopper", a chemical product purported to make floors and surfaces safer for persons using wheelchairs. Victims were told that they would be product distributors for the company and orders would follow for the product automatically. Several small orders were sent immediately after the victims bought the chemicals, but orders were then discontinued in a few months after the company had disappeared behind several layers of sham corporations and fake addresses. Anyone who believes he or she was a victim of this crime may contact the ADA Information Line [800-514-0301; 800-514-0383 (TDD)] to get information about how to obtain restitution. C. Other Settlements The Department resolves numerous cases without litigation or a formal settlement agreement. In some instances, the public accommodation, commercial facility, or State or local government promptly agrees to take the necessary actions to achieve compliance. In others, extensive negotiations are required. Following are some examples of what has been accomplished through informal settlements. A New Jersey borough agreed to hold public meetings in accessible locations and to make modifications to its existing meeting hall to provide access for individuals with mobility impairments. A Washington State county superior court agreed to make available to all individuals with visual impairments a print enlarger to review existing court files and documents, a microfilm viewer with enlargement capacity to review archived court files and documents, and a computer screen magnifier to access the court dockets of open cases. The owner of a Vermont restaurant installed a ramp at the restaurant's entrance, designated the appropriate number of accessible parking spaces, and renovated the toilet rooms to make them accessible. A California county courthouse agreed to provide additional accessible parking spaces in the jury parking area and a van accessible space in the employee parking lot. A Pennsylvania county prison modified a shower facility to provide access to an inmate with a mobility impairment by removing a lip impeding access at the front of the shower, installing grab bars, and lowering shower controls. A Washington State municipality took corrective action to assure effective handling of TDD calls, including providing additional back-up TDD's in case of emergencies or malfunctions; revising standard operating procedures to include the recognition of TDD tones and "silent" open lines as potential TDD calls; and updating the city's training program to ensure the proper operation of TDD's and related equipment. The U.S. Attorneys reached informal settlements in the following cases -- District of Delaware A sporting goods store in Delaware will begin renovations to add additional accessible parking spaces, improve fitting room accessibility, and conduct sensitivity training for management and employees. A Delaware department store converted its freight elevator to a freight and passenger elevator and provided accessible restroom facilities on the ground floor of the store. Northern District of Oklahoma A health club in Tulsa, Oklahoma, changed its policies to grant membership to a person with mental retardation and allow that individual to be accompanied by two nonmember habilitation specialists. II. Mediation Through a technical assistance grant from the Department, the Key Bridge Foundation is accepting referrals of complaints under titles II and III for mediation by professional mediators trained in the legal requirements of the ADA. Approximately two-thirds of the cases in which mediation has been completed have been successfully resolved. Following are recent examples of results reached through mediation. An Oregon shopping center agreed to designate two additional accessible parking spaces and to relocate an existing accessible space to a more convenient location. The center also agreed to request local police enforcement of laws reserving those spaces for the use of individuals with disabilities. A Virginia restaurant agreed to change the location of a buffet in order to ensure availability of accessible seating in the nonsmoking area. The restaurant also agreed to send the complainant an apology letter and a $50 check to be used in any restaurant chosen by the complainant. A Texas nightclub agreed to install permanent ramps leading to the bar, pool table area, and dance floor; reserve two tables in the bar and pool table areas for priority seating for individuals with disabilities; and train its personnel accordingly. Three Ohio restaurants agreed to remove inner restroom doors and modify outer restroom doors to meet ADA opening force requirements. A New York restaurant that had refused to allow a person with a hearing dog to enter agreed to post signs notifying the public that service animals are permitted to enter, train personnel regarding title III of the ADA, write a letter of apology to the complainant, and pay the complainant $200. A Pennsylvania restaurant agreed to install handrails on a ramp in front of the restaurant, build an additional ramp to a side entrance, and add four accessible parking spaces. An Ohio hotel agreed to remodel its lobby restrooms to be accessible to persons with disabilities, increase the number of accessible parking spaces near the hotel pool, research the cost of installing accessible restrooms by the pool, and train personnel about how better to respond to the needs of persons with disabilities. The hotel also apologized to the complainant and her family and provided a free weekend package for them at the hotel. A Texas video store that did not have accessible parking agreed to build a ramp and add an accessible parking space. A California department store agreed to add two accessible parking spaces to its lot. The store also sent an apology letter to the complainant along with a $100 gift certificate. Want to Resolve Your ADA Complaint? Consider Mediation -- As part of its responsibilities under the Department's mediation grant, the Key Bridge Foundation for Education and Research has produced a brochure entitled: Want to Resolve Your ADA Complaint? Consider Mediation. The brochure explains what mediation is, its advantages and disadvantages, how the process works, and how to find a qualified mediator. The brochure is available from the ADA Information Line by calling (800)514-0301(voice) or (800)514- 0383(TDD) and talking with an ADA Specialist. III. Certification of State and Local Building Codes The ADA requires that newly constructed or altered facilities comply with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The Justice Department is authorized to certify building codes that meet or exceed the ADAūs standards. In litigation, an entity that complies with a certified code can offer that compliance as rebuttable evidence of compliance with the ADA. In implementing its authority to certify codes, the Department works closely with State and local officials, providing extensive technical assistance to enable them to make their codes equivalent to the ADA. In addition, the Department responds to requests for review of model codes and provides informal guidance to assist private entities that develop model accessibility standards to make those standards equivalent to the ADA. In May, 1996, the Department issued a preliminary determination that the Texas Accessibility Standards are equivalent to the ADA Standards. The Department is currently seeking public comments on its preliminary certification. A public hearing was held in Austin, Texas on June 25, 1996, and a second hearing is scheduled for August 1, 1996, in Washington, D.C. If certification is granted, Texas will become the second jurisdiction in the country to have a certified accessibility code. IV. Technical Assistance The ADA requires the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance to entities and individuals with rights and responsibilities under the law. The Department encourages voluntary compliance by providing education and technical assistance to businesses, governments, and members of the general public through a variety of means. Our activities include providing direct technical assistance and guidance to the public through our ADA Information Line, developing technical assistance materials and disseminating them to the public, undertaking outreach initiatives, operating an ADA technical assistance grant program, and coordinating ADA technical assistance government-wide. ADA Information Line The Department of Justice operates a toll-free ADA Information Line to provide information and publications to the public about the requirements of the ADA. Automated service, which allows callers to listen to recorded information and to order publications, is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. ADA specialists are available on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. and on Thursday from 1:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). Spanish language service is also available. To obtain general ADA information, get answers to technical questions, order free ADA materials, or ask about filing a complaint, call: 800-514-0301 (voice) 800-514-0383 (TDD) New brochure on accessible stadiums is available -- The Department has released a four-page document, "Accessible Stadiums," highlighting key ADA accessibility requirements for newly constructed stadiums. Copies are available through the ADA Information Line. Publications and Documents Copies of the Departmentūs ADA regulations and publications, and information about the Departmentūs technical assistance grant program, can be obtained by calling the ADA Information Line or writing to the address listed below. All materials are available in standard print as well as large print, Braille, audiotape, or computer disk for persons with disabilities. Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P. O. Box 66738 Washington, D.C. 20035-6738 Subscriptions for the Departmentūs Technical Assistance Manuals for titles II and III and updates can be obtained from the Government Printing Office. The subscription fee for the Title II Manual, which includes supplements through 1996, is $24. The subscription fee for the Title III Manual with supplements through 1996 is $25. Call the ADA Information Line to obtain an order form. Copies of the legal documents and settlement agreements mentioned in this publication can be obtained by writing to: Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Branch Administrative Management Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 65310 Washington, D.C. 20035-5310 Fax: 202-514-6195 Currently, the FOI/PA Branch maintains approximately five thousand pages of ADA material. The records are available at a cost of $0.10 per page (first 100 pages free). Please make your requests as specific as possible in order to minimize your costs. ADA regulations and technical assistance materials can also be downloaded from the Departmentūs ADA Bulletin Board System (ADA-BBS) or the Internet. The ADA-BBS, which includes selected ADA documents from other agencies, can be reached by computer modem by dialing 202-514-6193 or accessed on the Internet through telnet fedworld.gov, Gateway D. The Departmentūs regulations and technical assistance materials, as well as press releases on ADA cases and other issues, are available on the Internet at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm. This web page also provide access to the ADA-BBS. An alternate Internet address for the Department's regulations and technical assistance materials is gopher://justice2.usdoj.gov:70/11/crt. V. Other Sources of ADA Information The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers technical assistance to the public concerning the employment provisions of title I of the ADA. For ordering documents 800-669-3362 (voice) 800-800-3302 (TDD) For questions 800-669-4000 (voice) 800-669-6820 (TDD) The Federal Communications Commission offers technical assistance to the public concerning the requirements for telecommunications relay services under title IV of the ADA. ADA documents and general questions 202-418-0190 (voice) 202-418-2555 (TDD) ADA legal questions 202-418-2357 (voice) 202-418-0484 (TDD) The U.S. Department of Transportation offers technical assistance to the public concerning the public transportation provisions of title II and title III of the ADA. ADA documents and general questions 202-366-1656 (voice) 202-366-4567 (TDD) ADA legal questions 202-366-1936 (voice/relay) Complaints and enforcement 202-366-2285 (voice) 202-366-0153 (TDD) Project ACTION 800-659-6428 (voice/relay) 202-347-3066 (voice) 202-347-7385 (TDD) The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the U.S. Department of Education has funded centers in ten regions of the country to provide technical assistance to the public on the ADA. ADA technical assistance nationwide 800-949-4232 (voice & TDD) The U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, or Access Board, offers technical assistance to the public on the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. ADA documents and questions 800-872-2253 (voice) 800-993-2822 (TDD) 202-272-5434 (voice) 202-272-5449 (TDD) The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is a free telephone consulting service funded by the Presidentūs Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities. It provides information and advice to employers and people with disabilities on reasonable accommodation in the workplace. Information on workplace accommodation 800-526-7234 (voice & TDD) V. How to File Complaints Title I Complaints about violations of title I (employment) by units of State and local government or by private employers should be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Call 800-669-4000 (voice) or 800-669-6820 (TDD) to reach the field office in your area. Titles II and III Complaints about violations of title II by units of State and local government or violations of title III by public accommodations and commercial facilities should be filed with - Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 66738 Washington, D.C. 20035-6738