The Chairman of the Chicago Commission on Human Relations,
Clarence N. Wood, has found "substantial evidence of
disability discrimination" by the Chicago Public Library against
two blind persons. The Chairman's report making the finding is
below.
Unfortunately, it did not need to come to this point. Three
letters were sent in 1993 seeking a meeting and clarification on
the access issues raised. The letters were ignored. Meetings
were scheduled and then canceled, never to be re-scheduled again.
Calls were unanswered. After the complaint was filed, the first
substantive contact with the library was in the summer of 1997,
with the filing of briefs and arguments from the library's
attorneys. All of this could have been avoided with open
communication and a willingness to explore solutions rather than
complain about unfunded mandates.
The library continues to refuse to make a written commitment to
maintain the access achieved so far or to upgrade software or
hardware. The hearing is now scheduled for January. On the
library's witness list are two members of the National Federation
of the Blind who are blind themselves. Steve Benson is a 41,448
dollar a year staff assistant in the Communications Department of
the Chicago Public Library. He is the President of the National
Federation of the Blind of Illinois and serves on the national
board of directors of the NFB. David Andrews is the former
director of the Federation's Braille and Technology Center. A
1993 letter from the library lists David Andrews as its
consultant. It is believed that they will defend the library's
inaccessibility to blind persons. The library's $74,928 a year
ADA compliance officer, Jim Pletz, has been in the past an
associate member of the NFB.
Kelly
City of Chicago
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
500 North Peshtigo Court, 6th Floor
Chicago, IL 60611
Kelly Pierce & Elsie Haug,
) Complainant )
v. )
) CCHR No.
94-PA-8/84 City of Chicago, Chicago Public Library,
) Dempsey, Scott & Harold Washington
) Library Center,
) Order Dated: July 29, 1998
Respondents. )
ORDER FINDING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
I. INTRODUCTION
The complainants in these 1994 cases charged the
Chicago Public Library (þCPLþ) with failing to accommodate their
disabilities. Kelly Pierce (þPierceþ) has been blind for 12
years; Elsie Haug (þHaugþ) is vision impaired due to macular
degeneration. Pierce, a computer expert, sought mainly
independent computer access, instructions for the operation of
machinery and software programs in alternate format and a written
commitment by the CPL to assure that new computer programs and
equipment would be accessible. Haug, who prefers low-tech
solutions, in general sought large print materials which would be
tailored to her needs and more information about library services
in large print. Neither individual was represented by counsel,
nor did they state that they represented any advocacy group.
(Pierce and Hang are sometimes referred to collectively as
"Complainants.")
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The complaints were assigned to a Disability Evidentiary
Conference ("DEC") Conciliator in May, 1997. The DEC Conciliator
requested the parties to provide statements of their current
positions in preparation for a DEC conference. The CPL and
Pierce filed position papers and replies. Haug did not file any
documents at that time. A conference date was set and then
continued several times at the requests of both Pierce and CPL
until October 29, 1997.
The first meeting of the DEC Conference was held on
October 29, 1997. Due to the need of the CPL to provide
information about and the Complainants to review possible
accommodations, the Conference was continued until January 6,
1998. The parties met and again discussed possible settlement
and ways to accommodate each Complainant's needs. The DEC
Conference was continued until a telephone Conference on February
18, 1998 to report progress. The final DEC Conference was held
on May 1, 1998 to give all parties time to review possible
accommodations. At the conclusion of that meeting, the parties
were given until June 15, 1998 to reach a settlement.
On June 15, 1998, the Chicago Public Library notified the
Commission that settlement had not been reached with either party
and filed a report of the final CPL position. Neither Pierce nor
Haug has submitted any final documents or reports. Because the
DEC Conciliator specifically requested at the last conference
that no further position papers be submitted, neither she nor the
Executive Compliance Staff read the Respondentþs final
submission.
All conferences except the telephone conference were
recorded by a court reporter.
III. STANDARDS
The Chicago Human Rights Ordinance states, "No person that
owns, leases, rents, operates, manages or in any manner controls
a public accommodations shall withhold, deny, curtail, limit or
discriminate concerning the full use of such public accommodation
by any individual because of the individuals . . . disability . .
. . CHRO, 2-160-070. Further, the Commission's Regulations
state,
No person who owns, leases, rents, operates, manages or in
any manner controls a public accommodation shall fail to
fully accommodate a person with a disability unless such
person can prove that the facilities or services cannot be made
fully accessible without undue hardship. In such a case,
the owner, lessor, renter, operator, manager or other
person in control must reasonably accommodate persons with
disabilities unless such person in control can prove that he or
she cannot reasonably accommodate the person with a
disability without undue hardship.
Reg. 520.105. The Regulations define "full use" as:
"Full use" of a public accommodation means that all parts
of the premises open for public use shall be available to
persons who are members of a Protected Class at all times
and under the same conditions as the premises are available to
all other persons, and that the services offered to
persons who are members of a Protected Class shall be
offered under the same terms and conditions as are applied
to all other persons.
Reg. 520.110. "Reasonable accommodation" and "undue hardship"
are also defined in the Commission's regulations -- Regs. 520.120
+ 520.130.
In addition, the Commission has adopted the following
standard to determine whether or not there is substantial
evidence of a discrimination: whether there is "more than a mere
scintilla of relevant evidence such that a reasonable mind might
find it sufficient to support such a conclusion." E.g., Doering
v. Zum Deutschen Eck, CCHR No. 94-PA-35 (Sep. 14, 1995). In
addition, when deciding whether or not there is substantial
evidence, the Commission cannot make credibility determinations;
that is, CHR cannot disbelieve a complainant merely because the
respondent disputes his or her story. E.g., Lacy v. Karr &
Assocs., CCHR No. 97-E-91 (Jan. 14, 1998).
IV. CONDITIONS EXISTING IN 1994 WHEN THE COMPLAINTS WERE
FILED
Based on testimony of the complainants and admissions by
representatives of the respondent, the Executive Compliance Staff
adopts the DEC Conciliator's conclusions that the following
conditions existed in 1994 with respect to allegations of
discrimination contained in the complaints:
A. PIERCE COMPLAINT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS: [All allegations are
from Pierceþs complaint with some clarification in his letter
sent to the parties and the DEC Conciliator dated July 26, 1997.
All responses are from an undated response from the CPL to
Commission inquiries (possibly late 1994 or early 1995) and from
a letter to Commission staff dated November 21, 1996. Some of
the conclusions are supported by statements made in the DEC
conferences.]
ISSUE 1: No speech synthesizer at the Harold Washington Library
Center (þHWLCþ) for use with the computer and CD Rom materials
blocking independent access to that equipment. The CPL admits
that there is no speech synthesizer for use with the computers at
the HWLC in an undated response (possibly late 1994 or early
1995). The November 21, 1996 CPL letter indicates the CPL has a
screen reader at that point. Pierce responds that the CPL staff
lacks the ability to operate the screen reader; there are no
braille or audio instructions; and the computer screen reader
[also known as a þvocalizerþ] is only available in the CPL HWLC
Computer Center, which is open fewer hours than the HWLC is open
to the public in general.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that there was
no speech synthesizer was available in 1994. When such equipment
was added by the CPL, staff was not sufficiently trained to
operate the equipment and no instructions were available in
alternative format.
ISSUE 2: Lack of assistive devices blocks independent access to
a number of library resources (described below). CPL initially
responded that all listed library services were available through
the Illinois Regional Library for the Blind and Visually Impaired
(þIRLBPHþ) operated by CPL with state and federal support. CPL
also responded that these materials were available in braille and
recorded formats. (Undated written response.) In a letter to
CHR staff dated November 21, 1996, CPL modified that response as
follows:
a) Card catalogue information. In 1996 [and most likely
in 1994], all catalogue searches could be done with the
assistance of staff and the patron could then read the written
search results with a text reading machine [also known as a
þscannerþ]. Pierce responded that if staff were available or
knowledgeable at all in his visits to the HWLC, it took the staff
30 to 45 minutes to compile the information requested and,
contrary to CPLþs assertion, the result of the search could not
be printed on paper or transferred to a floppy disk to be read on
a scanner.
By 1996, the CPL asserted that patrons with low vision
could also use the regular on-line catalogue and increase the
text size with available software programs or use the screen
reader. Pierce, who is blind, responded that there were no
instructions, in braille or on cassette, for the use of the
screen reader. Instead, CPL staff offered Pierce a four-hour
tutorial on the use of the screen reader. Pierce also noted that
the use of this computer was limited to the hours of the CPLþs
Computer Center, which were not co-extensive with the HWLC.
Pierceþs basic response to all offers of staff assistance
is that blind persons should be given independent access and not
have to depend on staff assistance. He stated, þThe nature of
using a computer is personal and interactive; CPL fails to
explain in its response why it cannot provide such access or what
barriers must be overcome for independent access to be achieved.þ
(Letter, July 26, 1997)
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that in 1994
there was no independent access to the card catalogue through the
use of assistive devices as staff was necessary to make any card
catalogue search. When staff was available to make card
catalogue searches, the results were not made available to
patrons in writing or on disk. Even if the results had been made
available in writing, the staff was not knowledgeable about the
operation of the scanner and there were no instructions in
alternative format. By 1996, an on-line catalogue was available
with a screen reader, but again staff was not knowledgeable and
no instructions were available in alternative format. b)
Catalogue for the Talking Books Center at IRLBPH. CPL states
that patrons can call IRLBPH and request this information on-line
to receive the most current information. [Further investigation
at the conferences confirmed that this does not include the
entire catalogue, only the most recent additions.] Staff
assistance is also available to do a search of these materials.
Pierce responded that the on-line number provided limited on-line
directions on use of the catalogue and there were not written
instructions for the numberþs use, which resulted in his not
being able to use the service; in particular he had difficulty
placing an order for the book.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that there was
no independent access for the catalogue of all talking books
availability in 1994 due to the difficulty in using the system
and the lack of instructions in alternative format. Again, the
CPL would assert that the IRLBPH is not a service they are
offering, even though it is housed at the CPL and staffed by CPL
staff. However, what legal responsibility the CPL has for this
service must be determined. Because the CPL houses it and
provides it to the public, the Commission finds there is
substantial evidence of discrimination on this issue, too.
c) Government publications index. CPL offered staff
assistance to locate þspecific titles or topicsþ and noted that
visually impaired readers could use the reading machines to read
the results of those searches. Pierce responded, in general,
that blind persons should have independent access to this
information with assistive devices. [At the DEC Conference, he
noted that sighted patrons could use a CD-Rom to provide access
to the index, but he was unable to do so.]
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that there was
no independent access to searches of government publications
index materials in 1994. When a scanning device was purchased
sometime after that date, staff was not sufficiently trained in
its operation and there were no instructions in alternative
formats.
d) United States census data. As of 1996, CPL offered
visually impaired patrons the ability to request specific print
data from staff and then read that data on reading machines. CPL
at one point noted that this data is also available in braille
from IRLBPH, but later appeared to retract that claim. [This was
not a service the CPL claimed was available at the conferences.]
Pierce responded, in general, that blind persons should have
independent access to this information with assistive devices.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that there was
no independent access to searches of United States census data in
1994. When a scanning device was purchased sometime after 1994,
staff was not sufficiently trained in its operation and there
were no instructions in alternative formats.
e) Chicago Tribune archives. As of 1996, CPL offered
patrons the ability to request þspecific print dataþ from staff
and then read the data retrieved on reading machines þif they do
not wish further staff assistance.þ Pierce responded, in general,
that blind persons should have independent access to this
information with assistive devices.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that there was
no independent access to searches of the Chicago Tribune archives
in 1994. When a scanning device was purchased sometime after
1994, staff was not sufficiently trained in its operation and
there were no instructions in alternative formats.
f) Infotrac Health Reference Center. CPL states that
patrons may request þspecific print dataþ from staff and then
read the data retrieved on reading machines þif they do not wish
further staff assistance.þ Pierce responded, in general, that
blind persons should have independent access to this information
with assistive devices.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that there was
no independent access to searches of Infotrac Health Reference
Center materials in 1994. When a scanning device was purchased
sometime after 1994, staff was not sufficiently trained in its
operation and there were no instructions in alternative formats.
g) Infotrac Periodicals Index. CPL states that patrons
may request þspecific print dataþ from staff and then read the
data retrieved on reading machines þif they do not wish further
staff assistance.þ Pierce responded, in general, that blind
persons should have independent access to this information with
assistive devices.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that there was
no independent access to searches of Infotrac Periodicals Index
materials in 1994. When a scanning device was purchased sometime
after 1994, staff was not sufficiently trained in its operation
and there were no instructions in alternative formats.
h) Marketing and application materials for the Talking
Books Center and IRLBPH. CPL notes that brochures marketing the
Talking Books Program of IRLBPH are available in braille from the
Illinois State Library. The application, provided by the federal
government, must be completed with staff assistance. Pierce
responded, in general, that blind persons should have independent
access to this information with assistive devices.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that there was
no independent access to the application for the Talking Books
Center in 1994. The CPL did not assert that it was unable to
provide the application in alternative format or that it would be
an undue burden to do so. The brochures were available in
alternative format in 1994.
i) Software in the CPLþs Computer Center such as
WordPerfect 5.1, Lotus 1-2-3, Windows and Resumemaker. By 1996,
CPL notes that these programs are available to visually impaired
patrons with the use of Zoomtext (which increases font size) and
JAWS (which reads the test on the screen to the user). Pierce
responded that on his visit to the HWL on July 11, 1997, those
programs were not installed on computers accessible to the blind
with screen-readers. Further Pierce noted that a better program,
Microsoft Office 95 was available to sighted patrons on a
Microsoft Windows NT platform. It was not available to blind or
visually impaired persons. Pierce also notes that the form of
Microsoft chosen by CPL (Windows NT) was the least accessible
form of that program.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that neither
Zoomtext nor JAWS was available in 1994. Even as late as 1997,
those programs were not installed on computers equipped with
screen-readers.
ISSUE 3. Failure of the CPL to respond to these issues or to
respond in a timely fashion with staff assistance. CPL notes
that the reference staff and/or reader advisor assistance is
available at the HWLC, other CPL branches and the IRLBPH. Pierce
responded by pointing out the length of time it took to find
staff assistance on many occasions, citing two instances in his
complaint. In one example, the CPL took four weeks to search
for the availability of four books. Pierce states that if the
CPL had braille or audio services, he could have been able to do
the search independently and promptly. Second, Pierce states
that he spent four months contacting CPL officials asking for a
copy of any plan for increasing accessibility of the CPL and had
received no response.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that in 1994
there was limited staff availability to provide the kind of
services the CPL claimed to be offering to provide access to its
facilities to blind or visually impaired. In addition, staff was
ill-trained to provide that assistance. Despite the fact that
technology existed to provide independent access for blind and
visually impaired visitors, the CPL did not take advantage of
these assistive aids. Thus, there was no independent access for
blind persons to the CPLþs services, and staff assistance was
limited and lacking in technological knowledge.
B. HAUG COMPLAINT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. [This analysis is based
on Haugþs complaint, the CPLþs response to her complaint, marked
received by the Commission on March 8, 1995, and discussion at
the DEC Conferences. Haug submitted no other documents to the
Commission before the DEC Conferences.]
ISSUES 1 and 2: In 1994, the on-line card catalogue was only
available on a small size computer screen (15") which is not
accessible to those with vision impairments and is not available
in large print. The CPL stated that it anticipated installation
of a voice synthesizer (þDEC-TALKþ) on its new public access
computerized catalogue sometime in 1995 and on some of its
computers in the Computer Center. CPL noted that the computer on
which the catalogue program would be located would also have the
capability of printing a search in þlarge printþ of 14.5 font.
[This is not widely regarded as large enough print for most
people with visual impairments. At the conferences, it was
determined that Haug needed print in excess of 20 point for
printed materials to be legible to her.] The CPL also said staff
assistance was available for catalogue searches for the vision
impaired. There was no response to Haugþs statement that the
catalogue is not available in large written print.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that, in 1994,
the card catalogue was not available in large print and the CPL
provided no assistive device which would have provided
independent access to Haug even though such equipment existed as
evidenced by their planned purchase.
ISSUE 3: There was no index of large print books available for
the visually impaired. CPL responded that a large print list of
þNew Additions to the Large Print Collectionþ was available upon
request at the CPL in 1994. Customized lists of books in the
Literature and Language Division were also available upon
request. CPL responded that the planned installation of a
computerized catalogue with DEC-TALK would also allow a visually-
impaired person to access any of the large print holdings.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that, in 1994,
the complete index of large print books was not available in
large print and the CPL provided no assistive device which would
have provided independent access to a visually impaired person
even though such equipment existed as evidenced by their planned
purchase.
ISSUE 4: No large print map of the Harold Washington Library was
available. CPL noted that it was in the process of upgrading
information and directional service brochures to large print type
for visually impaired persons. CPL attached a map, claiming it
was large print. [The map is not in what would be considered
large print for most people with visual impairments. At the
conferences it was determined that the proffered map was not
readable by Haug.]
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that there was
no large print map available in 1994, even though such technology
readily existed and the cost of preparing such a map was minimal.
ISSUE 5: The electronic directory (þkioskþ) on the third floor of
the HWL was not available in a format usable by visually impaired
patrons. Rather than dealing with this allegation directly, the
CPL pointed to large print signs available on each floor and to
the map available at the information desk.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that, in 1994,
the electronic directory was not accessible, nor was another
directory in an alternative format accessible. A large print
director would have been an inexpensive, readily available and
accessible alternative for persons with visual impairments.
ISSUE 6: The Kurz-Weil Scanner is not available during regular
CPL hours. [The scanner orally reads a document when the document
is scanned into it, thus allowing a visually impaired person
access to that document.] The CPL admitted that the scanner was
available only during the Computer Centerþs hours of operation,
which were more limited than the hours the HWLC was open.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that, in 1994,
the assistive device to aid persons with visual impairments read
normal text was not available during regular operating hours of
the HWLC, although the CPL did not allege any undue burden to
make it available during those hours.
ISSUE 7: There was no written list of services and equipment
available for use by persons with low vision or to library
employees to assist persons with low vision. The CPL gave no
direct response to this allegation, but did note that docents
were given a three-hour training which included sensitivity
training and information about the services available to the
disabled community.
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that, in 1994 --
and up to the date of the DEC Conference -- there was no listing
of assistive devices and services for visually impaired persons
even though providing such a listing would have been easily and
inexpensively prepared. [Experiences of Haug -- including one on
the day before the last conference -- indicated that the docents
were not knowledgeable about those services and that the one-time
training was insufficient.]
ISSUE 8: Lavatory signage was not readable to Haug. The CPL did
not specifically address this issue in its written response.
[During the DEC Conferences, the CPL said that its lavatory
signage met the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, but noted that it was revising that signage and asked Haug
to check it.]
Conclusion: There is no obvious conclusion about this
issue. Federal and state law do not require that such signs be
in black and white, just that the signs are on a contrasting
background. However, since the CPL did not respond to this
allegation, it must be taken as true as of 1994 and so the
Commission finds substantial evidence.
ISSUE 9: Print materials which describe CPL services were not in
large print. The CPL referred to its large print signage and the
map it described as large print. The CPL noted that it was in
the þprocess of upgrading information and directional service
brochures to large print type for the visually impaired patron.þ
Conclusion: There is substantial evidence that the written
materials which describe CPL services were not available in large
print in 1994, even though large print was readily available and
inexpensive. [At the DEC Conferences, the CPL admitted it did
not have large print information, but noted that at some point
after 1996 the CPL had initiated a phone service with listing of
services by category.]
ISSUE 10: Cubicles should be provided for visually impaired
persons utilizing closed circuit television. The CPL stated that
it did not understand the issue, as the closed circuit
televisions were available to all, in an area designed for public
access, to serve a broad spectrum of þchallenged individuals.þ
[At the conferences, Haug explained that she believed that
visually impaired persons using these materials to read other
documents needed cubicles to maintain their privacy.]
Conclusion: The CPLþs provision of closed circuit
television to read other documents was available to persons with
or without visual impairments equally and thus does not
disparately or significantly impact persons with visual
impairments. There is no substantial evidence as to this issue.
V. COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION
In 1994, the CPL failed to provide significant staff
assistance or assistive devices or other accommodations to give
access to people with vision impairments or blindness in the
HWLC. This failure cannot be excused by expense or lack of
availability, as assistive devices were readily available, the
CPL never claimed they were too expensive, and there were a
variety of low-tech or no-tech options available. The CPL never
specifically raised the issue of undue administrative or
financial burden during the conferences, although it would say
some requests were not feasible (no electrical outlets, brailling
something would result in a huge volume, etc.). Further, even
when the CPL did provide assistive devices, they did not provide
instructions in alternative formats --again readily available and
low-tech -- to allow independent access by people with visual
impairments. The CPL did not adequately train its staff in the
use of these devices, and failed to provide any information in
accessible formats about the availability of these assistive
devices and staff assistance.
Therefore, the Commission finds substantial evidence of
disability discrimination against the City of Chicago Public
Library for all claims described above, except it finds no
substantial evidence as to Issue 10 from Haug's complaint. Also,
the Commission finds no substantial evidence against the two
individuals Haug named as Respondents (Dempsey and Scott) as
there is no reason to believe they have personal responsibility
for the lack of accommodations. A finding of "substantial
evidence" is not a finding of liability. Rather, it is a
preliminary determination that there is substantial evidence that
Respondent may have violated the Human Rights Ordinance.
Because the parties have spent the better part of a year
in formal settlement negotiations, presided over by the
Commission's DEC Conciliator, the Commission sets this case for
an Administrative Hearing. See attached Order Setting
Administrative Hearing and Pre-Hearing Conference and the
Standing Order for particulars..
NOTE: The parties are reminded to send all materials to
Complainant Pierce on a computer disk and to Complainant Haug in
large print (a print size of at least 20). This order, the order
setting the Administrative Hearing and the Standing Order were
all sent that way by the Commission.
By: CLARENCE N. WOOD
Chair/Commissioner
For: CHICAGO COMMISSION ON HUMAN
RELATIONS
Date Mailed: July 31, 1998
|
